Superintendents are entitled to non-functional Grade Pay of ₹5,400 after four years’ regular service.

The Union of India challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench’s order granting the respondents Grade Pay of ₹5,400 on a non-functional basis from completion of four years of regular service until they received ACP/MACP in Grade Pay ₹4,800, with consequential and revised retiral benefits.

The petitioners argued that the Tribunal had relied on earlier decisions without independently examining the individual respondents’ cases and sought remand for fresh adjudication.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

Whether the Tribunal’s order granting the respondents Grade Pay of ₹5,400 on a non-functional basis warranted interference for want of individual assessment.

Whether the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication.

No statute or specific legal provision is identified in the High Court’s order.

The Court considered the Tribunal’s reliance on Surendra Singh and Others v. Union of India and Others, whose order was upheld by the Kerala High Court and whose challenge was dismissed by the Supreme Court in an SLP, and on M. Subramaniam v. Union of India and Others.

The Court accepted the principle that similarly situated employees should not be denied the benefit of a prior decision merely because they were not parties to it.

It also noted that the Tribunal had relied on settled principles laid down by various High Courts and the Supreme Court, without specifying them in this order.

The High Court rejected the petitioners’ contention that the Tribunal had merely followed earlier decisions without independent consideration.

It found that the Tribunal had also considered the Madras High Court’s decision in M. Subramaniam and had independently addressed the matter by applying settled legal principles.

In the Court’s view, the respondents’ absence from the earlier proceedings did not justify denying them the benefit, and there was no sufficient basis to interfere or order a remand.

The writ petition was dismissed.