Respondents must reconsider entitlement to Grade Pay 5400 after four years in Grade Pay 4800.

The 37 applicants are serving postal employees holding posts such as Assistant Superintendent of Posts, Inspector Posts and Superintendent of Posts in different Postal Circles.

They claimed entitlement to the Non-Functional Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in Pay Band-2 after completing four years in Grade Pay of ₹4,800, including where the Grade Pay of ₹4,800 had been obtained through financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP scheme.

The respondents had granted Grade Pay of ₹4,800 from various dates but declined the applicants’ request for Grade Pay of ₹5,400, including through communications/orders challenged in the OA.

The Tribunal first allowed M.A. No. 4367/2026 permitting the applicants to join together in one application.

Whether the applicants’ claim for grant of Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after completion of four years in Grade Pay of ₹4,800, including where the latter was received through ACP/MACP financial upgradation, was required to be considered in light of the judgments relied upon by them.

Whether the respondents’ rejection of the applicants’ claim could be sustained without reconsideration through a reasoned and speaking order, particularly when the subject matter was stated to be similar to O.A. No. 3106/2026.

Whether the Tribunal should itself grant the claimed financial benefit or, at the admission stage, direct the respondents to consider the applicants’ representations without expressing an opinion on the merits.

The Tribunal applied Rule 13(i) of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, in the context of pay fixation and progression after grant of the relevant Grade Pay.

The legal issue was considered against the principle invoked in the decisions relied upon by the applicants—particularly B. Udaya Shankara Rao v. Union of India, the coordinate Bench decision in O.A. No. 209/2014, and subsequent Tribunal orders—which treated qualifying service for the next higher Grade Pay as potentially including financial upgradation under the ACP/MACP scheme.

The Tribunal also followed the procedural approach adopted in O.A. No. 3106/2026: where a similar claim is raised, the competent authority must consider the employees’ representations and pass a reasoned and speaking order, without the Tribunal deciding the underlying merits at the admission stage.

The Tribunal found that the subject matter of the present OA was the same as that considered in O.A. No. 3106/2026—namely, entitlement to Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after four years in Grade Pay of ₹4,800, including where the lower Grade Pay resulted from financial upgradation under MACP.

Although the respondents argued that the judgments cited by the applicants were in personam, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to require an administrative reconsideration rather than prolong the proceedings or finally determine the merits.

The respondents were therefore directed to examine the applicants’ claims in light of the cited judgments and the principle concerning treatment of MACP financial upgradation as qualifying service, and to issue a reasoned and speaking order.

The Tribunal expressly clarified that it had neither examined nor expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ entitlement.

The OA was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the respondents to consider the applicants’ claim for Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after completion of four years in Grade Pay of ₹4,800, including where the latter was granted through MACP financial upgradation, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal did not itself grant the financial benefit and expressly left the merits open.

Pending MAs, if any, were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.