ORDER

Sh. K.M. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the present OA, pointing out that verification of the OA by way of an affidavit has been done only by one applicant out of 16 applicants, who seek to join this OA together. Accordingly, until and unless each and every applicant verifies, this OA cannot be taken up for admission. Learned counsel for the applicant, on the other hand, submits that Vakalatnama has been signed by all the applicants and hence, all of them need not necessarily sign the verification.

2. Mr. K.M. Singh further submits that in terms of procedure, mere authorization to a counsel by way of a Vakalatnama is no substitute for verification. In case only one of the applicants is to verify, the said applicant has to be authorized by the other applicants for such verification.

3. I have given due consideration to the objection raised by learned counsel. The question before me is whether this objection, which is procedural and technical in nature, should stand in the way of consideration of the relief sought in the OA, especially considering the fact that the subject of the OA heard just prior to this item, i.e., OA No. 951/2024 was the same as this one. Since all the applicants have signed the Vakalatnama and authorized their counsel to file this OA, in my considered view, non-

signature on verification should not stand as an impediment. Therefore, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents stands overruled.

MA No. 909/2024 Vide the associated MA, the applicants, herein, seek identical relief of one notional increment on account of their having retired on 30th June. This issue has been adjudicated in a large number of OAs and the relief sought is similar to all. For the reasons stated in the MA and as recorded above, MA is allowed. The applicants are permitted to pursue the associated OA jointly in terms of Rule 4 (5) of the CAT Procedure Rules, 1987.

OA No. 952/2024 The applicants have made the following prayer in the OA:-

“(a) Re-calculate the applicants pension and other retrial benefits from the dates of their respective retirements on 30 th June by notionally taking into account the last increment falling due on the date of retirement in accordance with the decision taken by the respondents as per CWC office order dated 02.02.2024.

(b) To revise pension, grant arrear of pension and other retirement benefits as indicate above to all the applicants.

(c) Allow the costs of this OA and/or (d) Any other relief in the applicants favour as deemed appropriate by this Hon'ble Tribunal.”

6. Issue notice to the respondents. Mr. K.M. Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on advance service accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He fairly seeks a reasonable period of time to file an appropriate reply to the OA, or in the alternative, obtain appropriate instructions in the matter. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have extended the benefit of one notional increment to a sizeable number of employees and therefore, on the same analogy, it could be extended to the present applicants also otherwise it would amount to discriminatory treatment.

7. Just a few minutes back, in the previous item, the same relief was sought against the background of same facts and circumstances. Therefore, it would be appropriate to reproduce the order passed a few minutes back in OA No. 951/2024. The said order reads as under:-

“ MA No. 908/2024 The applicants, herein, seek identical relief of one notional increment on account of their having retired on 30th June. This issue has been adjudicated in a large number of OAs and the relief sought is similar to all.

2. For the reasons stated in the MA and as recorded above, MA is allowed. The applicants are permitted to pursue the associated OA jointly i