Retired Income Tax Employee To Get Rs 5,400 Grade Pay, Revised Pension And Arrears After Four Years At Rs 4,800: CAT

The applicant, a retired Administrative Officer-II, received the third MACP financial upgradation to Grade Pay (GP) ₹4,800 with effect from 7 September 2012.

He claimed Non-Functional Grade (NFG) at GP ₹5,400 upon completing four years in GP ₹4,800, and sought consequential arrears and pensionary benefits.

His representation was not acted upon, so he filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The respondents filed no counter-affidavit; their counsel did not dispute that the issue had previously been decided by the Tribunal and the Madras High Court.

Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 provides the basis for an application to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal relied on the Madras High Court’s decision in M. Subramaniam v. Union of India, which directed grant of GP ₹5,400 upon completion of four years in the relevant GP ₹4,800 scale; the Supreme Court dismissed the Union’s special leave petition and review petition against that decision.

It also relied on the Tribunal’s decisions in O.A. No. 1005/2019 and O.A. No. 714/2020, treating the benefit as applicable to similarly situated employees, whether in service or retired, rather than as relief confined to the original litigants.

The Tribunal additionally referred to the Delhi High Court’s observation that similarly situated employees should not be required to litigate individually where the issue is covered by a prior judgment.

The applicant had been placed in GP ₹4,800 through MACP and claimed to have completed four years in that grade on 7 September 2016.

The Tribunal considered the entitlement issue settled by M. Subramaniam, as upheld by the Supreme Court, and by its own earlier decisions extending the benefit to similarly situated employees.

The respondents neither filed a counter-affidavit nor disputed that the issue had already been decided.

Applying those precedents, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant was entitled to the same benefit, including after retirement.

The exercise was to be completed within four months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.