IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of employees to pay scale benefits and the rejection of denial of benefits based on FR 22(I)(a)(1) and OM dated June 01, 2001.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral) - This petition has been filed by the petitioner/Union of India through its functionaries challenging the order dated March 31, 2022, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.4564/2014 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has allowed the OA filed by the respondents herein by stating in paragraph 13 which we reproduce as under:

"13. It is not in dispute that the case is relating to Draughtsmen Grade-II who are/were working in Surveyor General of India, which is having various units all over India, and the rules and terms and conditions of service are equally applicable to its employees all over India. Hence, relying on the ratio of the various judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as quoted above, as also the recommendations of the V CPC, we are of the considered view that the applicants are entitled to the reliefs as sought by them. Accordingly, the OA is allowed with the following directions:

(i) Impugned order dated 28.02.2014 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside;

(ii) The respondents are directed to step up the pay of the applicants at par with their juniors from the date the anomaly crept in;

(iii) Pursuant to stepping up of pay, the respondents are further directed to calculate the difference in pay and allowances and pay arrears thereof to the applicants who are still in service;

(iv) In case some of the applicants have retired/died, their pension/family pension shall be revised by revising their PPOs on the basis of grant of stepping up of pay and the respondents shall grant arrears of pension/family pension to pensioner/family pensioner with interest of 6% p.a. on such arrears;

(v) The above exercise shall be completed within a period of 04 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs."

2. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Tribunal has erroneously and overlooking the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. R. Vasudev Murthy, (2010) 9 SCC 30, quashed the speaking order dated February 28, 2014, passed by the petitioner No.2 and allowed the OA in the manner it has done in the impugned order.

3. According to him, the reliance placed by the Tribunal on the order of the Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, dated May 30, 2003, in OA. 14/2002 is misplaced, in view of the mandate of the Supreme Court in R. Vasudev Murthy (supra). He submits that the respondents had initially approached the Tribunal in OA.457/2005, and sought direction against the petitioners to the extent the benefit of the judgment of the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal be given to all Draughtsmen Grade II of the Survey of India with arrears of pay and interest including to those Draughtsmen, who had died or retired with all consequent benefits. The Tribunal in OA.457/2005, did not got into the question as to whether the respondents are similarly placed like the applicants in OA.14/2002 decided by the Guwahati Bench of the Tribunal and secondly whether the respondents are guilty of suppressing material facts in not disclosing the issuance of OM dated June 01, 2001 by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. According to him, the respondents did not disclose the factum of issuance of memorandum dated June 01, 2001 which superseded earlier memorandum dated October 19, 1994 and the respondents were guilty of suppressing this material fact from the Tribunal. It was further held that the relief claimed in the OA was hit by the principles of res-judicata.

4. Aggrieved by the said order dated February 27, 2006, passed by the Tribunal in OA.457/2005, the respondents filed a review application being RA. No.63/2006, which came to be dismissed vide order dated August 18, 2006. Aggrieved by the order dated August 18, 2006, the respondents approached this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.17207/2006. This Court held that, the respondents had got the higher scale of Rs.425-700 (revise