Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5324

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, J, Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi, ACJ
M.Simhachalam – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA Nos 1535, 1541, 1692, 1693, 1694, 1695, 1696, 1697, 1698, 1699, 1700, 1701, 1702, 1703, 1704, 1705, 1706, 1707, 1708, 1709, 1710, 1711, 1712, 1713, 1714, 1726, 1727, 1728, 1729, 1730, 1731, 1739, 1740, 1741, 1742, 1743, 1744, 1745, 1746, 1747, 1748, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1752, 1753, 1754, 1755, 1756, 1757, 1758, 1759, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763, 1764, 1765, 1766, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1770, 1771, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777, 1778, 1781, 1789, 1790, 1791 , 2089, 2133, 2134 & 2136 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.Gurudas, Dr.S.Goverdhan Rao, Mr.Venkata Swamy, Ms.N.Naga Prasanthi, Mr.D.Laxminarayana Rao, Mr.Anita Swain, Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, Mr.A.Surender Reddy, Mr.P.Narayana, Mr.M.Mohan Rao, Mrs.K.Bharati, Mr.V.Bhavani Shankar, Mr.G.Raghunath, Mr.N.V.Subbarayudu, Mr.V.Venu Madhava Swamy, Mrs.Rachna Kumari
For the Respondents: Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, Mr.A.Surender Reddy, Mrs.K.Rajitha, Mr.V.Vinod Kumar, Mrs.Rachna Kumari, Mr.N.V.Subbarayudu

The Tribunal directed the respondents to consider claims for a notional increment for pensionary benefits, emphasizing adherence to Supreme Court directives.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Pensionary benefits - Applicants seeking notional increment for pension purposes - Tribunal directs respondents to consider claims for notional increment based on Supreme Court's directions - Matters disposed of at the admission stage with no order as to costs. (Paras 2-7)

(B) Administrative Law - Judicial review - Tribunal's role in ensuring compliance with Supreme Court directives and ensuring just treatment of applicants. (Paras 4-6)

Table of Content
1. identification of applicants and their claims. (Para 1)
2. common relief sought for pension increments. (Para 2 , 3)
3. government's policy decision post supreme court directive. (Para 4)
4. tribunal's directive on notional increments for pension. (Para 5)
5. disposition of cases at admission stage. (Para 6 , 7)

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Judicial Member)

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By these Original Applications, applicants are praying for similar relief, viz., seeking a direction to the Respondents to grant one notional increment from 1^st July / 1^st January, as the case may be, for the purpose of pension and pensionary benefits with all other consequential benefits.

3. Since the issue involved in all these OAs is common, by the consent of the both the sides, matters have been taken up for consideration at the admission stage.

4. When the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, after the Supreme Court’s direction, the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, vide its OM No.19/116/2024-Pers.Pol.(Pay)(Pt), dated 14.10.2024, have also taken a decision following the direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide M.A. Dy. No.2400/2024 in SLP (C) No.4722/2021 (Union of India & Ors Vs. M. Siddaraj), dated 06.09.2024. It is stated that, after the final verdict in the said matters, the same will be adopted by way of policy decision and the benefit will be extended accordingly. Therefore, the Railways have requested this Tribunal to defer the hearing in new cases till a final decision is pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

5. In the earlier O.As, this Tribunal passed the following order:

“…..Therefore, we are of the considered view that if the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of one notional increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits, and not for any other purpose subject to verification that he/she had completed one full year of service, if they fulfil the parameters) of the final orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court as & when passed in above MA(s)/IA(s) in SLP, which are subjudice, then the purpose of filing of these OAs and the relief prayed therein will be fulfilled. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicants for grant of one notional increment for the purpose of pensionary benefits, and not for any other purpose, if they fulfil the criteria / requirement after the final order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in above MA(s) / IA(s) in SLP.”

6. Since we have taken a decision in the earlier O.As, if we continue with the said decision, the interest of the department will not be frustrated. Therefore, we are passing similar order, as above.

7. In view of the same, the O.As are disposed of at the admission stage, in terms of the above directions. No order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document