G. Vijayan & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

V. Rama Mathew, Member A

The factual matrix of the issue is as under :

The applicants are pensioners who were working as Private Secretaries in the Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL in short). Applicants 1-5 were working as Private Secretaries and Applicant 6-7 were Stenographers. According to the provisions of CCS (RP) Rules, employees in PB-2 with a Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on completion of 4 years regular service in that grade. Judicial pronouncements have clarified that the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- can be granted to employees who have attained the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- either through functional promotion or through career progression schemes like the MACPS. All the applicants received Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2 pursuant to MACP and had completed 4 years of regular service in that grade prior to their retirement but have been denied the benefit of non-functional upgradation and consequential pay fixation. Aggrieved by the above, the O.A has been filed.

It has been argued that as per the terms of Clause (x)(b) of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure Resolution dated 29.08.2008 (produced as Annexure A-1) after 4 years of regular service in the Section Officer/Private Secretary/equivalent grade of Rs.4800/- Grade Pay in PB-2, officers of Central Secretariat Service, Central Secretariat Stenographers Service and other similarly placed HQ services will also be granted the non-functional grade of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 and not in PB-2. Clause (x)(e) of the Resolution states that Group B officers of Department of Posts, Revenue etc., will be granted Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-2 on non-functional basis after 4 years of regular service in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-2. Paragraph 7 of the Resolution clarified that Department specific recommendations which are not included in this Resolution shall be processed by the concerned Department/Ministry and approval of the Government obtained in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and/or Department of Personnel and Training. It was submitted that in the entire Resolution only Grade Pay has been specified and not the post.

The Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Central Board of Excise & Customs) clarification dated 21.11.2008 regarding how the the 4 years period is to be counted for the purpose of granting non-functional upgradation was also cited as Annexure A-6 wherein it was clarified that the reference point would be the date on which an officer is placed in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 (pre-revised). Thus, if an officer has completed 4 years on 01.01.2006 or earlier, he will be given the non-functional upgradation with effect from 01.01.2006. If the officer completes 4 years on a date after 01.01.2006, he will be given non-functional upgradation from such date on which he completes 4 years in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 (pre-revised). This clarification was modified by another clarification dated 11.02.2009, which order was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.No.13225 of 2010 as contrary to the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. The Ministry of Defence vide its letter No.CP.(P)/8416/VICPC/22/US(MP)/D(N-II)/2019 dated 03.05.2019 (produced as Annexure A-5) clarified that the following categories of officers of the Navy were entitled to the benefit of Rs.5400/- Grade Pay in PB-2 on the above lines :

(a) Civilian Education Instructor Grade-I

(b) Technical Assistants of Naval Dockyards

(c) Civilian Technical Officers (Mechanical/Amn & Exp/Design) of Naval Armament Inspectorate

(d) Civilian Technical Officers of Naval Aviation Cadre

It was also clarified that the post of Administrative Officer (equivalent) which were in the scale of Rs.7500-12000 prior to 01.01.2006 are eligible for the scale of PB-2 + GP of Rs.4800/- and after completion of 4 years PB-2 + GP of Rs.5400/-. Also produced was the order of the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.296/2014 wherein ASPs & SPs were granted the benefit of financial upgradation. Based on the above Applicant No.1 filed a representation seeking financial upgradation vide letter dated 09.07.2018 which is yet to be responded to by the respondent.

Produced in support of the argument is the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at New Delhi in O.A.No.1944/2016 where the issue of Superintendents of Service Tax entitlement of Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- was decided based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in M.Subramaniam vs. Union of India (W.P.No.13225/2010), as also the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Kawaljit Singh & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.168/2023), etc where the same principle has been upheld in the case of ASPs and SPs of the Department of Posts. The applicant has submitted that the table produced at Page 8 of the O.A wherein the benefit of financial upgradation has been granted to Private Secretary was not in dispute. The order of the Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A.No.321/2022 has categorically held that the decision in M.Subramaniam's case is an order 'in rem' and not 'in personam', the applicants being Inspectors of Central GST.

The respondents have argued on 3 limbs. It is categorically admitted that the grant of Rs.5400/- Grade Pay is not the issue under dispute. The concerns are primarily that the 6th Pay Commission was accepted in a restricted manner. Para 1(x) of Annexure A-1 Resolution lists who are covered and Para 7 on how they are covered. R&D of Ministry of Defence has not accepted the need for such upgradation. Produced in support of this argument is Part 'B' of the Resolution under the Revised Pay Rules (produced as Annexure R-2) which list the categories of Government servants to whom the rules apply. Section II of Part 'B' of the Revised Pay Scales lists the categories of officers who are eligible for NFU, Part I being Office Staff in the Secretariat and organisations/services who have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS which is not the issue under question here. Part II lists the Office Staff working in organisations outside the Secretariat which refers to staff working in the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 (not working in the grade) ie. Administrative Grade II/Sr.Private Secretary/equivalent. The applicants not being listed, are not eligible. This is limb 1 of the argument.

Limb 2 of the argument is that all the case laws cited here refer to the Department of Posts & Revenue which are already listed in the Ministry of Finance (DoE) Resolution of 29.08.2008. NPOL, being a Department of R&D, had not sought equivalence.

Limb 3 is the issue of delay has been raised here arguing that the applicants had all retired during the period between 2012 and 2016. The MACP benefits pertains to the year 2008. The 4 year period referred to therein is 2012. The O.A is filed in 2019; no issue was raised prior to retirement but was filed only on the outcome of M.Subramaniam's case. The defence of continuing wrong is not available to the applicants as refixation of salary is not a continuing cause of action in so far as a pensioner is concerned. Here delay would defeat equity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Union of India & Ors., vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648 that a recurring wrong is not a continuing wrong.

It has been argued by the respondents that they have already been granted upgradation and are holding functional posts in the scale. However, the applicants have argued that while the financial upgradation into the scale Rs.7500-12000 has already been granted, the Department cannot shelter behind the CCS (RP) Rules quoted. On the ground of delay since there is a consequential and recurring impact on pensionary benefits, a continuing cause of action remains. The case laws cited by the respondents is that of Chairman, U.P Jal Nigam & Anr. vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr., Civil Appeal No.4790/2006 wherein the issue is the 'date of retirement'; not pay fixation and is therefore not relevant in the current situation. The case of Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare vs. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan (AIR) 1959 SC 798 has clearly held that “If the wrongful act causes an injury which is complete, there is no continuing wrong even though the damage resulting from the act may continue.”

On the basic issue under dispute here, the rule position as cited by the respondents require the pay scale or the post to be specifically notified by the concerned department in consultation with Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) and/or Department of Personnel and Training, which has not happened here. Nor is it the case that Sec.II refers to the pay scale only; in which case it can be categorically argued that the applicants are entitled to the non-functional upgradation based on upgradation. In this connection, we hold that the case of M.Subramaniam vs. Union of India & Ors. (W.P.No.13225/2010), which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the law of the land on the issue. It has been pointed out that following the ratio laid down in M.Subramaniam (supra) a series of orders/judgments have been passed by various Tribunals/High Courts granting financial upgradations of Rs.5400/- Grade Pay to officers on completion of four years of regular service in Rs.4800/- Grade Pay irrespective of whether it was due to functional promotion or ACP/MACP. In one such recent order passed on 28.07.2025 in O.A.No.180/990/2018 this Tribunal issued the following orders -

“12. The crux of the arguments which are put forth is that since parity has been already established with the CSS and CSSS up to the level of Office Superintendent and the next level of promotion is that of Administrative Officer, there should be parity at the next promotion level as well. The comparative chart which has been produced by the applicants shows that the promotion path for the CGO, CSS and AFHQ from Assistant is SO and CSO/US/DD whereas the promotion path for the Navy and MES from Assistant/Office Superintendent is AO-2 and AO-1. The question to be considered here is whether the SO in the Headquarters organisation and the Administrative Officer in the lower formation discharges the same level of duties, the nature of work of SO in the Headquarters organisation and that of Administrative Officer II in the lower formation is identical or not. It should be noted from the chart produced by the applicants that they are identically situated as that of AO-2 of the Navy and other lower formations. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicants are not identically situated and that the Annexure A-6 order of the Tribunal had already declared that Administrative Officer Grade II of Indian Navy are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in PB-II and Rs.5400/- in PB-III on completion of 4 years service in PB- II. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to extend the principles laid down in the Annexure A-6 order to the applicants who are AO-II of MES. Further, we find that the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicants vide Annexure A-9 dated 04.07.2018 solely on the ground that they have never approached the Tribunal for upgradation of the Grade Pay from Rs.4600/- to Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/-after completion of 4 years of service. The logic of Annexure A-9 order is contrary to the position taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (2006) 10 SCC 346, Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Association (Direct Recruit) vs. State of U.P has referred to the decision in the case of (2006) 2 SCC 747, State of Karnataka vs. C.Lalitha and observed as under –

“ Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently.”

Therefore, it appears that the stand taken in Annexure A-9 will not stand test of service jurisprudence and is liable to be struck down and the applicants are entitled to the benefits granted to identically placed persons in the Navy which falls under the same Ministry of Defence and which has the same career path as that of the applicants. Ordered accordingly. All consequential benefits arising therefrom shall be paid to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the consequential relief of payment of arrears is restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the O.A in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648.

In the light of the above, the O.A is allowed. No order as to costs.”

The factual matrix in this case in so far as the issue of parity is concerned is identical to the facts as indicated in the above case. Hence, we are in complete agreement with the aforesaid order of this Tribunal and have no hesitation to direct the respondents to grant the applicants the non functional higher Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB2 (Level-9 of the Pay Matrix) with effect from the date on which they had completed four years of service in PB2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-. All consequential benefits arising therefrom shall be paid to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the consequential relief of payment of arrears is restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the O.A in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh (2008) 8 SCC 648.

In the light of the above, the O.A is allowed. No order as to costs.

(Dated this the 30th day of September, 2025)