Respondents must reconsider claims for Grade Pay ₹5,400 and issue speaking orders within eight weeks.

Forty-eight employees and one voluntary retiree of the Department of Posts, serving in various regions and posts, filed the Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

They claimed that, having received Grade Pay of ₹4,800 through financial upgradation under the MACP/non-functional upgradation scheme and having completed four years in that Grade Pay, they were entitled to Grade Pay of ₹5,400, with consequential pay fixation, arrears and other benefits.

The applicants also challenged various departmental orders insofar as benefits were allegedly extended only to employees who had approached courts or to members of an association.

They had submitted representations, placed at Annexure A-11, which had either remained pending or had been rejected on the ground that similar benefits were granted only to employees who had obtained court orders.

The respondents accepted notice and consented to a direction for consideration of the representations.

Whether the respondents should be directed to consider or reconsider the applicants’ representations concerning grant of Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after completion of four years in Grade Pay of ₹4,800, in light of the judicial precedents relied upon by the applicants?

Whether the Tribunal should itself grant the claimed financial benefits and quash the impugned departmental orders at the admission stage?

The Tribunal applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, under which an aggrieved government employee may approach the Tribunal for adjudication of service-related grievances.

It relied upon the principle that administrative authorities must consider employee representations by passing a reasoned and speaking order, particularly where the claim is founded on allegedly applicable judicial decisions.

The Tribunal took note of the decisions relied upon by the applicants, including B. Udaya Shankara Rao, M.R. Kulkarni, the Bangalore Bench’s order in O.A. No. 41/2025, and Union of India v. Sunil Kumar Rai, concerning entitlement to Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after completion of four years in Grade Pay of ₹4,800 obtained through financial or non-functional upgradation.

However, the Tribunal expressly refrained from deciding the substantive merits of the entitlement.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants’ claim involved the applicability of several judicial precedents and that some representations had been rejected on the basis that benefits were granted only to employees who had approached the courts.

Since the respondents had agreed to reconsider the representations, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require a fresh, reasoned determination rather than adjudicate the entitlement directly at the admission stage.

The respondents were therefore directed to examine the representations in light of the cited judgments and to determine the applicants’ claims in accordance with law.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits.

With the consent of the parties, O.A. No. 3106/2026 was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider or reconsider the representations contained in Annexure A-11 and pass a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in view the judgments relied upon by the applicants, within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal did not itself grant Grade Pay of ₹5,400, arrears or consequential benefits, nor did it finally decide the validity of the impugned departmental orders.

No order as to costs was made, and pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of.