Tribunal directs reconsideration of pay anomaly claim by comparing "similarly placed" employees.

The applicant, Shri Vijay Kumar Raikwar, was initially appointed as a Civilian Motor Driver on December 15, 2011, with a Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/-.

He was subsequently promoted to AFV Driver Grade-II in Pay Matrix Level 4 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- effective from January 1, 2020.

The applicant submitted a representation on February 6, 2021, and a legal notice on April 22, 2021, seeking a Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/-.

He contended that he was similarly situated to the applicants in OA No. 163/2007, which was decided by the Tribunal on April 28, 2008.

The respondents, via a letter dated March 13, 2021, rejected his claim, asserting that the order in OA No. 163/2007 was only applicable to the parties involved in that specific OA.

The applicant then filed the present Original Application seeking a revised pay scale and arrears.

The learned counsel for the applicant argued that once a judicial pronouncement is made, administrative authorities must extend similar benefits to similarly placed employees, citing *UOI & Others Vs DGOF Employees Association & Anr.*, Civil Appeal No. 1663/16.

The respondents contended that the order in OA No. 163/2007 was not *in rem* and only directed reconsideration for the specific applicants therein.

During the hearing on February 10, 2026, the Tribunal sought clarification on how the applicant's case was similar to the beneficiaries of OA No. 163/2007 and whether benefits were extended to them.

The applicant's counsel submitted written arguments but did not fully address the query regarding similarity.

The respondents did not furnish any written submission.

1. Whether the applicant is similarly placed to the applicants in OA No. 163/2007, who were granted a higher grade pay?

2. Whether the respondents' rejection of the applicant's claim for Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/- was justified given the previous tribunal decision in OA No. 163/2007?

The Tribunal operates under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The principle of extending benefits of judicial pronouncements to similarly placed employees, as highlighted by the Apex Court in *UOI & Others Vs DGOF Employees Association & Anr.* regarding rectified errors based on Pay Commission recommendations and historical similarity, was considered.

The Court noted that the core issue was whether the applicant was "similarly placed" as the beneficiaries of OA No. 163/2007.

Despite direct queries to both counsels during the hearing, the applicant's counsel failed to adequately substantiate the similarity.

The respondents also did not provide a written submission to clarify why the applicant was *not* similarly placed.

Consequently, the Tribunal found itself without appropriate assistance from either party to make a considered view on the fundamental query of similarity.

The Tribunal's decision in OA No. 163/2007 had directed reconsideration for its applicants, leading to benefits granted to them, but the current applicant's specific parallel to those beneficiaries remained unestablished for the Tribunal.

The Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the applicant's prayer.

This reconsideration must involve preparing a comparative chart of the present applicant *vis-à-vis* a sample applicant from OA No. 163/2007, detailing their service hierarchy movement to infer whether the applicant is similarly placed.

The respondents are also required to justify their conclusion based on extant Recruitment Rules, Pay Commission recommendations, and DOP&T guidelines.

This exercise is to be completed within 12 weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order was made as to costs.