Facts
The applicants (retired and serving Group-B officials of the Department of Posts) filed this Original Application seeking the grant of Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 5400 in Pay Band-2 (PB-2) on a non-functional basis
Source reference: p. 2They contended that they were entitled to this upgrade upon completing four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800, irrespective of whether that grade was reached via promotion or through the MACP Scheme
Source reference: p. 3, para. 4The applicants challenged an impugned letter dated 19.06.2023 (Annexure A-6) which restricted these benefits only to specific litigants in previous cases
Source reference: p. 2Applicant No. 4 withdrew his claim during the proceedings as he was deemed ineligible
Source reference: p. 3, para. 3Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) in the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 after four years of service in GP Rs. 4800, even if the latter was obtained via MACP
Source reference: p. 2-3, para. 2 & 42. Whether the benefits of a settled legal position can be restricted only to the original litigants or members of a specific association
Source reference: p. 3, para. 27Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the provisions of Part-C, Section II of the 1st Schedule of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and Rule 13(i) regarding pay fixation
Source reference: p. 2It relied heavily on the principle of in rem judgments for similarly situated employees as established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita S. Rao and Lt. Col. Suprita Chandel, which mandate that benefits flowing from a settled legal position must be extended to all eligible employees regardless of their participation in prior litigation
Source reference: p. 3, para. 27The Tribunal further followed the precedents set in M. Subramanian (upheld by the Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 15627/2011) and Surinder Pal Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (OA No. 951/2023)
Source reference: p. 2-3Reasoning
The Tribunal examined the case in light of its recent decision in Surinder Pal Sharma (2025), noting that the facts and respondents were identical
Source reference: p. 2, para. 2The court reasoned that the nature of the Grade Pay (whether obtained through substantive promotion or MACP) is irrelevant for the purpose of granting the non-functional upgrade to Rs. 5400, provided the four-year residency requirement in GP Rs. 4800 is met
Source reference: p. 3, para. 26The Tribunal rejected the respondents' restrictive interpretation of the impugned letter (Annexure A-6), qualifying it as "unsustainable in law" because it discriminated against similarly situated employees who were not parties to the earlier litigation
Source reference: p. 3, para. 27By aligning this case with the settled ratio in M. Subramanian, the Tribunal ensured consistency in the application of the CCS (RP) Rules
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Holding
The Tribunal allowed the OA for Applicants 1, 2, and 3, while dismissing it for Applicant 4 as not pressed
It quashed the impugned order dated 19.06.2023 to the extent it denied benefits to the applicants
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5The respondents were directed to grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 5400 (Level-9) effective from the date each applicant completed four years in GP Rs. 4800, including pay fixation, one additional increment, and arrears with interest at the GPF rate, within three months
Source reference: p. 4, para. 5Original Court PDF
VED PARKASH SHARMAvsDEPTT OF POSTS
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in