CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH Original Application No.060/445/2023 Decided on: 23.01.2026 CORAM: HON’BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)

MES No. 365288Jagpal Singh, Aged 66 years, Ex- Refrigerator Mechanic (SK), S/o Late Sub. Sh. Lal Singh, Village and Post Office Gill, Near Patwar Khana District Ludhiana-141002. Group 'C'

... Applicant By Advocate: Mr. Jagdeep Jaswal Versus

1. Union of India through Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi-110011.

2. Commander Works Engineer, MES, Ferozpur Cantt-152001.

Digitally signed

3. The Garrison Engineer, Ludhiana-141008.

by MAMTA WADHWA ... .Respondents By Advocate: Mr. K.K. Thakur

O R D E R

Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-

1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-

(i) That impugned order dated 21.12.2022 (Annexure A-1), to the extent, denying basic pay Rs. 12090/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006 may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal, arbitrary, being contrary to law laid down by CAT Ernakulum Bench in O.A. No. 180/00569/2014 in the case of All India naval Clerks Association Verses UOI & others, (Annexure A-2), which has been followed by this Tribunal in the case of Arvind Sharma versus UOI & Others OA No. 060/524/2018, (Annexure A-3). The judgment passed by Ernakulum Bench has also been affirmed by Hon'ble Kerala High Court in OP No. 179/2018 decided on

04.01.2023(Annexure A-4).

(ii) That respondents be directed to allow the applicant fixation of his pay in a proper manner @ Rs 12090/- under 6th CPC in the revised/upgraded pay scale of Rs 6500-10500/- w.e.f. 1.1.2006, with grade pay of Rs, 4600, w.e.f. all consequential benefits of pay and allowances in the interest of justice.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was appointed as Refrigerator Mechanic on 04.05.1974 and retired on 31.03.2010 after rendering about 36 years of regular service. His retiral benefits were released vide PPO No. 403200902262 (Original PPO No. CENG 180192009). He was granted the first ACP in the scale of Rs.

4000–6000 on 09.08.1999 and the second ACP in Rs. 5000–8000 w.e.f. 24.09.1999. On completion of the requisite service, he was granted the third MACP in Grade Pay Rs. 4600 w.e.f. 01.09.2008.

3. Aggrieved, the applicant filed O.A. No. 988/PB/2011 seeking Grade Pay Rs. 4800 as third MACP, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 19.12.2013. The said order was upheld by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgment dated 15.05.2015 and the applicant was granted Grade Pay Rs. 4800 w.e.f. 01.09.2008.

4. The applicant thereafter came across the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure letter dated 30.10.2008 clarifying that as per the 6th CPC, the pre-revised scales of Rs. 5000–8000, Rs. 5500–9000 and Rs. 6500–10500 were merged and placed in PB-2 of Rs. 9300–34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4600. As on 01.01.2006, the applicant was drawing pay in the scale of Rs. 5000–8000, yet he was wrongly granted Grade Pay Rs. 4200 instead of Rs. 4600.

5. Accordingly, he served a legal notice dated 24.04.2022 (Annexure A-5) seeking fixation of his pay with Grade Pay Rs. 4600 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits. As no decision was taken, he filed O.A. No. 060/662/2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 27.07.2022 directing the respondents to decide his legal notice within eight weeks. He also submitted a supplementary representation dated 31.10.2022 (Annexure A-6) seeking fixation of his pay at Rs. 12090 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 upon merger of scales. He relied upon O.A. No. 180/00569/2014 (Ernakulam Bench), followed by this Tribunal in Arvind Sharma vs. UOI & Others, O.A. No. 060/524/2018, and affirmed by the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 179/2018 decided on 04.01.2023. However, the respondents rejected the claim vide order dated 21.12.2022 (Annexure A-1) which, according to the applicant, is no