Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 3907
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, Member (J), Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Mallikarjun Vazirappa – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00213/2023|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00396/2024|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00601/2024|ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00604/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Shri S. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri S. Sugumaran, Senior Panel Counsel
Bunching benefits under 6th CPC Rules granted only if two or more consecutive pre-revised pay stages fix at same revised stage; not automatic on merger of scales – fitment via 1.86 factor, pre-revised tables + merged grade pay applies. (28 words)
Headnote:(A) Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 - Rule 7(1)(A)(i) & (ii), Note 2A, Note 2B, Illustrations 4A & 4B - Bunching benefits on merger of pre-revised pay scales Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000, Rs.6500-10500 into PB-2 with Grade Pay Rs.4200/Rs.4600 - Retired employees claimed bunching increments by multiplying existing basic pay by 1.86 factor and adding increments for every two stages in pre-revised scale - Tribunal held fitment tables corresponding to pre-revised scales apply for pay in pay band; grade pay of merged/upgraded scale added; bunching benefit only if two or more consecutive stages bunch at same stage in revised structure (for every two stages bunched, one increment at 3% of pay in pay band); not automatic or by default - Illustration 4A specific to cases where actual bunching occurs (e.g., pay Rs.3125 in Rs.3050-4590 upgraded); Illustration 4B shows no bunching for merged scales example (Rs.5600) - Claims rejected as no bunching admissible in facts. (Paras 6, 11-13, 24-25)
(B) Limitation - Claims arising 16 years prior to filing hit by delay; pay fixed per RBE Nos.103/2008, 108/2008 - No entitlement to refixation with bunching. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Retired railway employees from Group 'C' posts in merged pre-revised scales claimed bunching benefits in 6th CPC pay fixation w.e.f. 01.01.2006, alleging incorrect application of fitment tables instead of Rule 7 with increments for stages spanned in pre-revised scales; representations rejected; OAs filed seeking refixation, arrears, consequential benefits.
Findings of Court:
Applicants' pay correctly fixed per Rules using 1.86 multiplication on pre-revised basic pay, fitment tables for pay band, adding merged grade pay; no bunching as revised stages not identical; Illustrations 4A/4B not for arbitrary increments but only where admissible on actual bunching.
Issues: Whether bunching benefits admissible on merger of specified pay scales under Rule 7, Notes 2A/2B, Illustrations 4A/4B; applicability of fitment tables vs. claimed increment method.
Ratio Decidendi: Bunching mitigates pay compression where two+ consecutive pre-revised stages fix at same revised stage; benefit of one increment per two bunched stages on pay in pay band only if admissible (not default); merger cases follow Note 2B/Illustration 4B using fitment per pre-revised scale + merged grade pay; prior Tribunal orders relying solely on Illustration 4A without clarificatory OMs/RBEs distinguished.
Result: OAs dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. retired railway employees claim 6th cpc bunching benefits. (Para 2) |
| 2. applicants argue for bunching per rule 7 and illustration 4a. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents cite limitation and correct rule 7 application. (Para 4) |
| 4. court frames issue on rule 7 bunching entitlement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 5. revised pay schedules merge pre-6th cpc scales. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 6. bunching occurs when pre-revised stages fix at same revised level. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 7. rule 7 details fixation and bunching for mergers/upgradations. (Para 13 , 14) |
| 8. oms clarify fitment tables inapplicable to mergers. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 9. no bunching in merged scales like 6500-10500. (Para 17) |
| 10. government clarifications limit bunching benefits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 11. prior judgments misapplied illustration 4a. (Para 21 , 22) |
| 12. bunching not automatic; illustration 4b governs merger. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 13. oas dismissed; no bunching benefits granted. (Para 26) |
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
Since common and akin issues are involved, all these matters are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. Facts in brief are that the applicants are retired railway employees of various departments of South Western Railway, Hubli Division (OA Nos. 396/2024, 601/2024 and 604/2024) and Central Railway, Solapur Division (OA No. 213/2023). Applicants claim that they are entitled to the bunching benefits in their pay fixation as per 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations, since pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000/-, Rs. 5500-9000/- and Rs. 6500-10500/- were merged and provided with a common Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-/ Rs. 4600/-, representations submitted by them in this regard have been rejected. Being aggrieved, the applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking for the following reliefs:
OA NO.170/00213/2023 “(a) It is prayed to call for the records pertaining to the case.
(b) It is prayed to set aside the impugned order:
No. SUR/P/C&W/CPGRAM/23 dated 11.05.2023:
issued by Respondent No. 2 vide Annexure No. 1 (c) It is prayed to issue an order or an appropriate direction to the 2nd respondent to refix my pay as per the provisions as submitted in the Grounds Para 5 with effect from 01.01.2006 and arrange all the consequential financial benefits.
(d) It is further prayed that the judgment benefit of fixation of pay with bunching increments, as mentioned in the ground’s para; may please be extended in my case also; as I am similarly situated employee in the best interests of Justice and for appreciation, the Original Application Number is reproduced hereunder for perusal of this Hon’ble Tribunal.
S.C SHARMA vs. UOI – O.A. No. 141/2012-
CAT/JAIPUR.”
Similar reliefs are claimed in the other connected matters.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS:
3. Learned counsel Shri S. Srinivasa Rao representing the applicants in all matters argued that consequent on implementation of 6th CPC recommendations, while revising the pay of the applicants as on 01.01.2006, the authorities have not properly followed the instructions issued for fixation of pay of the existing employees, i.e., as per rule 7 (1) (A) (i) and (ii) of the Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (‘Rules’ for short). As per the Rules, pay scales of Rs. 5000-8000/-, Rs. 5500-9000/- and Rs. 6500- 10500/- were merged and a common Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- or Rs. 4600/- was provided. Accordingly, when the pay scales were merged or upgraded, the pay of the employees shall be fixed as per the Rule 7 (1) (A) (i) and (ii) by following Note 2A or 2B and the illustration available in the explanatory memorandum. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants’ pay fixed in accordance with fitment table provided in OM dated 30.08.2008 is totally incorrect since the said fitment table is applicable to normal replacement and not to the cases of merger or upgradation. The applicants are entitled to the benefit of bunching as per Illustration 4A of Rule 7 (i) of the Rules which is equal to 3% of Pay Band plus corresp
