High Court · 2025

officers of the Postal Department, have challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.332/00287/2021. The aforesaid Original Application was filed by the opposite parties to this petition challenging the validity of an order dated 08.06.2021 whereby the claim of the opposite parties for payment of grade pay of Rs.5,400/- in Pay Band-2 seeking parity with numerous other persons who had been granted similar benefits in view of a judgment passed by the Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No.13225 of 2010 decided on 06.09.2010 was rejected on the ground that the said benefit is confined to the persons in whose favour Court Orders have been passed. 2 (4) The opposite parties were appointed as Stenographers in the Postal Department in the year 1982-83. All of them were granted the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) by granting them pay scale of Rs.5,000-8000 with effect from 09.08.1999 i.e. the date of introduction of the scheme. They were granted second ACP in the pay scale of Rs.5,500- 9,000/- on completion of 24 years of regular service. On the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 were merged in a single pay band with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600. After introduction of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, the opposite parties were granted third financial upgradation on completion of 30 years of regular service by placing them in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800. (5) In the case of M. Subramaniam (supra), the Madras High Court held that if an officer has completed 4 years from the date on which he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000 (pre-revised), on 01.01.2006 or earlier, he will be given non- functional upgradation with effect from 01.01.2006 and if the officer completes 4 years period 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.7,500-12,000 (pre-revised) and he will be entitled to grade pay of Rs.5400 when he completes 4 years in the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000 (pre-revised) and he will be entitled to grade pay of Rs.5400/-. (6) After passing of the aforesaid judgment in the case of M. Subramaniam (supra) the opposite parties submitted representation claiming grant of grade pay of Rs.5400. The claim was rejected by the order dated 08.06.2021. 3 (7) The Tribunal allowed the claim by holding that the petitioners have decided not to extend the benefit of the judgment passed in the case of M. Subramaniam (supra) to all similarly placed officers, but they are considering the implementation of orders passed by the CAT/Court in specific cases in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and several such instances were placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to decide the claim of the opposite parties in the light of the orders passed in Original Application No.1982 of 2018 by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in O.A. nos.060/00522/2020 & 060/00523/2020 by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and in OA No. 1595 of 2019 by the Calcutta Bench, Kolkata of Central Administrative Tribunal. (8) Shri Deepanshu Dass, learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the case of M. Subramaniam (supra) is not applicable to the opposite parties as the petitioners in that writ petition were working as Inspectors in the Central Excise Department, whereas the opposite parties are working as Stenographers in the Postal Department. He has further submitted that the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India has passed a Resolution dated

29.08.2008 accepting the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission with certain modifications. Regarding Group 'B' Cadre, Commission's recommendations have been modified in the manner mentioned in clause (x) of the Resolution. Clause (b) thereof provides that "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". 4 (9) Clause (x)(e) of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 provides as under: "(e) Group B officers of Departments 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." (10) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that clause (x) (b) is applicable to the opposite parties wherein the grade pay of Rs.5400 will be payable after 4 years of regular service as Section Officer/Private Secretaries with grade pay of Rs.4800 and clause (x)(e) is not applicable to the petitioners. Except opposite party no.2, all other opposite parties are not Officers of the grade qualified for non-functional grade. The opposite party no.2 had been promoted to the post of Private Secretary with effect from 01.06.2021 and he has not completed 4 years of regular service in qualifying grade and, therefore, he was also not granted the benefit of non-functional grade. The other opposite parties got grade pay of Rs.4800 under MACP scheme on different dates and they had not been regularly appointed in the said grade and, therefore, they are also not entitled to get grade pay of Rs.5400/-. (11) Per contra, Shri G. C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 has stated that this issue has been decided by various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He has submitted a compilation containing photocopies of the judgments passed by the Calcutta Bench, Chandigarh Bench and Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He has also placed the orders passed by some High Courts affirming the orders passed by the Tribunals wherein similarly situated stenographers of the Postal Department have been held entitled to receive grade pay of Rs.5400. 5 (12) Shri Verma, learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed before the Court a copy of the letter dated 24.07.2023 sent by ADG (GDS/PCC), Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government of India to the Chief Postmaster General, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata stating that the matter was examined in consultation with the Nodal Departments. The Department of Expenditure has conveyed its approval to implement the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Central Administrative, Kolkata Bench, Original Application No.1595 of 2019 in respect of the petitioners only. (13) Interestingly, the Union of India had challenged the order dated

14.07.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, O.A. No.1595 of 2019 by filing WPCT 85 of 2021 before the Calcutta High Court, which writ petition was dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 22.02.2022. The Calcutta High Court has held as under: "The certainty of law is the virtue. There cannot be different parameters at different parts of the country under the central legislation and, therefore, the similar benefits should be extended uniformly. The Central Government decided to accept the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission and the Ministry of Finance issued the resolution dated 29.08.2008, extending it to the Group-B officers of the Department of Posts. The moment the right is fructified and accrued on the date of the decision of the Government extending benefit, such right cannot be destroyed but must be extended to the concerned employee strictly in terms thereof. We do not find any justification in the stand of the Union of India that the benefit of successfully rendering service for 4 years was done away with upon introduction of the MACP in the year 2009. The moment the respondents have fulfilled the criterion enshrined in paragraph (x)(e) of the resolution dated 29.08.2008, we do not find any justification in the stand of the Union of India in 6 denying the benefit thereunder. The said scheme was extended to the Department of Posts and admittedly the respondents are the Group-B officers in the said Department. The authorities, therefore, acted contrary to the law laid down by the Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam (Supra) in rejecting the representation." (14) We find ourselves in complete agreement with the aforesaid view expressed by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. We are of the considered view that when the petitioners have taken a conscious decision to grant the benefit of grade pay of Rs.5400 to numerous other similarly situated persons in whose favour orders have been passed by the different benches of Central Administrative Tribunal, the same benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners. (15) Accordingly, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated

06.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.332/00287/2021. (16) The writ petition lacks merit, which is hereby dismissed. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 6.2.2025 akhilesh/- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

officers of the Postal Department, have challenged the validity of a judgment and order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.332/00287/2021. The aforesaid Original Application was filed by the opposite parties to this petition challenging the validity of an order dated 08.06.2021 whereby the claim of the opposite parties for payment of grade pay of Rs.5,400/- in Pay Band-2 seeking parity with numerous other persons who had been granted similar benefits in view of a judgment passed by the Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam vs. Union of India and others, Writ Petition No.13225 of 2010 decided on 06.09.2010 was rejected on the ground that the said benefit is confined to the persons in whose favour Court Orders have been passed. 2 (4) The opposite parties were appointed as Stenographers in the Postal Department in the year 1982-83. All of them were granted the benefit of the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP) by granting them pay scale of Rs.5,000-8000 with effect from 09.08.1999 i.e. the date of introduction of the scheme. They were granted second ACP in the pay scale of Rs.5,500- 9,000/- on completion of 24 years of regular service. On the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 were merged in a single pay band with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600. After introduction of the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme, the opposite parties were granted third financial upgradation on completion of 30 years of regular service by placing them in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4800. (5) In the case of M. Subramaniam (supra), the Madras High Court held that if an officer has completed 4 years from the date on which he was placed in the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000 (pre-revised), on 01.01.2006 or earlier, he will be given non- functional upgradation with effect from 01.01.2006 and if the officer completes 4 years period 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.7,500-12,000 (pre-revised) and he will be entitled to grade pay of Rs.5400 when he completes 4 years in the pay scale of Rs.7,500-12,000 (pre-revised) and he will be entitled to grade pay of Rs.5400/-. (6) After passing of the aforesaid judgment in the case of M. Subramaniam (supra) the opposite parties submitted representation claiming grant of grade pay of Rs.5400. The claim was rejected by the order dated 08.06.2021. 3 (7) The Tribunal allowed the claim by holding that the petitioners have decided not to extend the benefit of the judgment passed in the case of M. Subramaniam (supra) to all similarly placed officers, but they are considering the implementation of orders passed by the CAT/Court in specific cases in consultation with the Department of Expenditure and several such instances were placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the petitioners to decide the claim of the opposite parties in the light of the orders passed in Original Application No.1982 of 2018 by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, in O.A. nos.060/00522/2020 & 060/00523/2020 by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and in OA No. 1595 of 2019 by the Calcutta Bench, Kolkata of Central Administrative Tribunal. (8) Shri Deepanshu Dass, learned counsel for the Union of India has submitted that the case of M. Subramaniam (supra) is not applicable to the opposite parties as the petitioners in that writ petition were working as Inspectors in the Central Excise Department, whereas the opposite parties are working as Stenographers in the Postal Department. He has further submitted that the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Government of India has passed a Resolution dated

29.08.2008 accepting the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission with certain modifications. Regarding Group 'B' Cadre, Commission's recommendations have been modified in the manner mentioned in clause (x) of the Resolution. Clause (b) thereof provides that "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". 4 (9) Clause (x)(e) of the Resolution dated 29.08.2008 provides as under: "(e) Group B officers of Departments 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." (10) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that clause (x) (b) is applicable to the opposite parties wherein the grade pay of Rs.5400 will be payable after 4 years of regular service as Section Officer/Private Secretaries with grade pay of Rs.4800 and clause (x)(e) is not applicable to the petitioners. Except opposite party no.2, all other opposite parties are not Officers of the grade qualified for non-functional grade. The opposite party no.2 had been promoted to the post of Private Secretary with effect from 01.06.2021 and he has not completed 4 years of regular service in qualifying grade and, therefore, he was also not granted the benefit of non-functional grade. The other opposite parties got grade pay of Rs.4800 under MACP scheme on different dates and they had not been regularly appointed in the said grade and, therefore, they are also not entitled to get grade pay of Rs.5400/-. (11) Per contra, Shri G. C. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 has stated that this issue has been decided by various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He has submitted a compilation containing photocopies of the judgments passed by the Calcutta Bench, Chandigarh Bench and Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. He has also placed the orders passed by some High Courts affirming the orders passed by the Tribunals wherein similarly situated stenographers of the Postal Department have been held entitled to receive grade pay of Rs.5400. 5 (12) Shri Verma, learned counsel for the opposite parties has placed before the Court a copy of the letter dated 24.07.2023 sent by ADG (GDS/PCC), Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government of India to the Chief Postmaster General, West Bengal Circle, Kolkata stating that the matter was examined in consultation with the Nodal Departments. The Department of Expenditure has conveyed its approval to implement the order dated 14.07.2021 passed by the Central Administrative, Kolkata Bench, Original Application No.1595 of 2019 in respect of the petitioners only. (13) Interestingly, the Union of India had challenged the order dated

14.07.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, O.A. No.1595 of 2019 by filing WPCT 85 of 2021 before the Calcutta High Court, which writ petition was dismissed by means of a judgment and order dated 22.02.2022. The Calcutta High Court has held as under: "The certainty of law is the virtue. There cannot be different parameters at different parts of the country under the central legislation and, therefore, the similar benefits should be extended uniformly. The Central Government decided to accept the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission and the Ministry of Finance issued the resolution dated 29.08.2008, extending it to the Group-B officers of the Department of Posts. The moment the right is fructified and accrued on the date of the decision of the Government extending benefit, such right cannot be destroyed but must be extended to the concerned employee strictly in terms thereof. We do not find any justification in the stand of the Union of India that the benefit of successfully rendering service for 4 years was done away with upon introduction of the MACP in the year 2009. The moment the respondents have fulfilled the criterion enshrined in paragraph (x)(e) of the resolution dated 29.08.2008, we do not find any justification in the stand of the Union of India in 6 denying the benefit thereunder. The said scheme was extended to the Department of Posts and admittedly the respondents are the Group-B officers in the said Department. The authorities, therefore, acted contrary to the law laid down by the Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam (Supra) in rejecting the representation." (14) We find ourselves in complete agreement with the aforesaid view expressed by a Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. We are of the considered view that when the petitioners have taken a conscious decision to grant the benefit of grade pay of Rs.5400 to numerous other similarly situated persons in whose favour orders have been passed by the different benches of Central Administrative Tribunal, the same benefit cannot be denied to the petitioners. (15) Accordingly, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated

06.03.2024 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in Original Application No.332/00287/2021. (16) The writ petition lacks merit, which is hereby dismissed. . [Subhash Vidyarthi, J.] [Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.] Order Date :- 6.2.2025 akhilesh/- AKHILESHWAR KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench