Similarly situated employees cannot be denied non-functional grade benefits extended to litigating employees.

The applicant, Ramnish Verma, joined government service as an LDC on 19.11.1986, was promoted as Steno Grade III on 16.01.1989, Inspector on 07.06.1994, and Superintendent with effect from 30.09.2014.

He was granted the second financial upgradation under MACP in the Grade Pay of ₹4,800 in PB-2, and was subsequently granted the non-functional grade of ₹5,400 with effect from 29.05.2020.

The applicant claimed that he became entitled to the non-functional grade after completing four years in the Grade Pay of ₹4,800, and sought its grant from the relevant date, including 30.09.2018 as pleaded in the challenge to the Establishment Order dated 29.05.2020.

The applicant submitted a representation dated 13.07.2020, followed by a reminder, but the respondents did not grant the claimed benefit.

The respondents opposed the application and contended that the benefit had been extended only to the persons who were parties to the earlier proceedings.

Whether the applicant was entitled to consideration for grant of the non-functional grade of ₹5,400 after completion of four years in the Grade Pay of ₹4,800, notwithstanding that the Grade Pay of ₹4,800 had been received through financial upgradation under MACP rather than regular promotion?

Whether the respondents could restrict implementation of the judicial decisions concerning the non-functional grade only to the employees who were parties to the earlier litigation, while denying similar consideration to the applicant?

Whether the applicant’s claim was required to be reconsidered in light of the Tribunal’s decision dated 25.03.2025 in O.A. No. 1222/2021 and the subsequent departmental communication dated 10.01.2025?

The Tribunal applied the Government of India resolution dated 29.08.2008 implementing the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations, under which Group B officers were eligible for the Grade Pay of ₹5,400 in PB-2 on a non-functional basis after four years of regular service in the Grade Pay of ₹4,800.

The Government clarification dated 21.11.2008 provided that the four-year period was to be reckoned from the date on which the officer was placed in the pre-revised scale of ₹7,500–12,000 and that the benefit would accrue from 01.01.2006 where four years had already been completed by that date, or from the date of completion of four years thereafter.

The contrary CBEC clarification dated 11.02.2009, which confined the benefit to cases of regular promotion and excluded financial upgradation under ACP/MACP, was held to be inconsistent with the governing resolution in M. Subramanian v. Union of India; the Madras High Court’s decision was affirmed by dismissal of the Union’s SLP and review petition.

The Tribunal also relied upon its earlier decision in Munish Kumar and others v. Union of India, which had been upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and applied the principle that similarly situated employees must receive equal and non-discriminatory consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the legal position arising from M. Subramanian and the connected proceedings had already been accepted through implementation of the benefit in favour of the successful applicants in the earlier cases.

It further relied on its decision in O.A. No. 1222/2021, which found it discriminatory and inequitable for the respondents to grant the non-functional grade only to employees who had litigated, while denying similar consideration to other employees similarly situated.

The departmental communication dated 10.01.2025 also required Cadre Controlling Authorities to implement the relevant court orders on a person-specific basis where the employee’s case was factually similar to M. Subramanian.

Applying these principles, the Tribunal found no reason to adopt a different view and held that the applicant’s claim required fresh consideration under the applicable legal position, rather than rejection solely on the ground that he was not a party to the earlier proceedings.

The respondents were directed to reconsider and decide the applicant’s claim for the non-functional grade in accordance with law within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal did not itself grant the financial benefit or fix the effective date, leaving those matters to be determined by the competent authority.

No order as to costs was made.