The court affirmed that previous judgments regarding grade pay do not have universal application, allowing for administrative redress of grievances.

O R D E R (ORAL)

Per : Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V. Bhairavia, Member (J)

1. Mr. M.S. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. H.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents present through digital mode.

2. Being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 12.12.2014 (Annexure A/1), whereby the office of CAG informed the Principal Accounts General that the benefit of CAT Chennai Bench judgment in OA No. 966 & 967/2009 cannot be treated as universal and extended to similarly placed persons and impugned memos issued from the year 2014-2016 (Annexure A/2(i) to Annexure A/2(xix), whereby the respondents have informed to the respective applicants that the matter regarding anomalous situation in Grade Pay of seniors borne on the cadre of AAO with respect to their juniors/subordinates has been referred to DoPT for consultation, applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

“8. Relief:-

A. Call upon the Official respondents No.2, 3 & 4 herein to place before this Hon'ble Tribunal the original records, files, notings, etc., as the case may be, which gave rise to the issuance of the impugned communication dated 12.12.2014 at Annexure-

A/1 hereto.

B. Upon a close perusal of the aforesaid original records, files, notings, etc., as the case may be, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to :-

B-1 quash and set aside the impugned communication bearing No. 732/Staff/Hak1/242-2014 dated 12.12.2014 at Annexure-A/1 hereto issued by the Respondent No.2 herein as also the consequent Memos at Annexure-A/2(i) to Annexure- A/2(xix) hereto, issued by the respondents no.3 & 4 as the case may be, holding and declaring the same to be ex facie arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory thereby violating the Articles 12, 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India;

B-2 hold and declare that the applicants herein are lawfully as of right entitled & eligible to be granted the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- p.m. effective from the date [as shown in the last column of the tabular statement of particulars pertaining to the applicants herein at Annexure-A/3(i)] viz. the date/s on which their respective subordinate officials were granted the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- as 3^rd Pay Upgradation under the MACP Scheme solely by virtue of completion of 30 years of service in the department.

B-3 issue appropriate directions in the nature of writ of certiorari commanding the official respondents herein to forthwith grant the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- p.m. effective from the date (as shown in the enclosed tabular statement at Annexure-A/18 hereto) with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary arising therefrom tougher with interest thereon @ 12% p.a. till the date of actual payment.

C. Grant such other and further relief/s as may be deemed fit and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case.”

3. It is apt to mention that initially this Tribunal after hearing counsel for the parties had disposed of this OA vide order dated 13.01.2017, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

“3. We have learnt that an identical issue came up for consideration before the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.350/01418/2015 i.e. ( Anjan KR. Pal v. Union of India ). The Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal being confronted with certain questions "whether to follow the later view of the Principal Bench which has taken a view contrary to its earlier decision or to follow the Madras Bench order affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court would be on a higher pedestal being already tested before the Hon'ble High Court" by the order dated 30-5-2016, referred the matter to the Hon'ble Chairman. 4. We have also perused the order of the Calcutta Bench dated 30-5-2016 in OA No.350/01418/2015 ( Anjan KR. Pal v. Union of