Sambhaji Thakaji Arude vs Union of India - 2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5577

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 - Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme - Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14 - Challenge to conditions in order dated 01.05.2015 regarding merger and re-designation of store keeping cadre - Claim for higher pay scale and grade pay of Rs. 4200 in Pay Band-2 - Conditions in para 3 of impugned order held to be policy decisions not interfered with - No right to re-designation or financial upgradation beyond statutory rules and recruitment rules - Parity claim based on benefit granted to others in 2004 not established - Judicial review of pay matters restricted unless manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable.

(B) Judicial Review - Scope - Policy decisions in matters of pay and classification of posts are within domain of executive unless shown to be arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions - Tribunal cannot substitute its own view or grant benefits not provided in rules. (Paras 14, 15, 16)

(C) Pay Fixation - Merger and re-designation of posts - Mere change of nomenclature does not entail financial upgradation unless specifically provided - Conditions like 'no financial implication' are standard in such policy orders and not contradictory.

Facts of the case:
The applicant, appointed as Civilian Store Keeper Grade-II in 1988, sought quashing of conditions in para 3 of order dated 01.05.2015 issued by Ministry of Defence. He claimed that on merger and re-designation of store keeping cadre, he should be placed in pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 pre-revised (corresponding to PB-2 Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay Rs. 4200). He had been granted ACP in 2000 in lower scale of Rs. 4000-6000. Respondents contended that post of Senior Store Superintendent was not authorised in his establishment; only MACP financial upgradation was permissible. The impugned order contained conditions that merger did not change pay scales, require re-fixation, disturb promotion hierarchy, or entail financial implications.

Findings of Court:
The court held that condition No. 3 of order dated 01.05.2015 was in continuation of MOD letter dated 27.02.2013 requiring departments to complete assessment before merger. Since the post of Senior Store Superintendent was not authorised in applicant's centre (as per communication dated 18.12.2014), his claim for that grade was not tenable. The policy decision could not be interfered with unless shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable. Parity claim based on 2004 order was not comparable as details of service and eligibility were not established. Following Supreme Court judgments in Makhan Chandra Roy and Mumbai Port Trust, the Tribunal declined to interfere.

Issues: 1. Whether conditions in para 3 of order dated 01.05.2015 are arbitrary and liable to be set aside. 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 pre-revised with Grade Pay Rs. 4200 on merger/re-designation. 3. Whether the applicant's claim for parity with other employees granted benefit in 2004 is sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that policy decisions regarding pay scales and classification of posts, taken by the government after due assessment, are not open to judicial review unless manifestly arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions. Mere merger/re-designation does not automatically entitle an employee to higher pay scale unless specifically provided in the rules. The conditions imposed in the order were standard and not contradictory. The applicant's case was governed by the specific recruitment rules of his establishment which did not authorise the post of Senior Store Superintendent. Result : Original Application dismissed with no order as to costs.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Challenge to conditions in order merging store keeping cadre – denial of higher pay scale and grade pay – claim for pay fixation. (Para 1 , 2 )

2. Entitlement to higher grade pay under merger order disputed – conditions challenged as contradictory – respondents deny post authorization. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 , 8 )

3. Can a condition in a government order on merger of posts be challenged as contradictory?

No, when the order is a policy decision based on departmental assessment and the post is not authorized, the condition cannot be interfered with unless shown to be unreasonable or arbitrary. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 )

Central Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench, Mumbai Original Application No. 292/2017 Order reserved on: 02.02.2025 Order pronounced on: 24.02.2026 Coram :

Hon’ble Mr. Shri Krishna, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

Sambhaji Thakaji Arude Aged about 54 years, son of Shri Thakaji Manjaba Arude Residing at Survey No. 147/1/6, Ganesh Nagar, Bhopkhel, CME, District Pune 31 …..Applicant (By Adv: Shri P.J. Prasadrao )

Versus

1. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi 110011

2. Coord & Pers Directorate/E1A Engineer-in-chief's Branch IHQ of MoD(Army)

Kashmir House, Rajaji Marg DHQ PO, New Delhi- 110011

3. Commandant Headquarters Bombay Engineer Group & Centre, Kirkee Pune 411 003

4. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Southern Command), No.1 Finance Road, Pune 411001 VIJAY Digitally KUMAsigned R b K y U V M I A JA

.... Respondents

(By Adv: Shri N.K. Rajpurohit)

ORDER

Per : Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking therein the following reliefs:

“A. To allow this O.A.

B. This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the conditions contained in para 3 of the impugned order dated 01st May 2015 and direct the respondents to fix the pay contained in para 2 in respect of the store keeping cadre in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- corresponding revised scale of PB2 of Rs. 9300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs. 4200/-.

C. This Hon'ble Tribunal be please to direct the Respondent No.3 & 4 to grant the arrears consequent on the re-fixation of pay and all consequential benefits with arrears thereon with 12% interest thereon as the respondents delayed the promotion of the applicant even after notification of government order.

D. Any other further order(s) as deemed fit in the interest of justice.

E. Cost of this application be paid in favor of the Applicant.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated in the Original R KUMAR Application, are that the applicant was appointed as Civilian Store Keeper Garde-II on 13.09.1988 vide letter No.

10265/2/V-26-TUE/A4 dated 13.09.1988 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-25-1500 under 4^th CPC. As per the recommendations of the 5^th CPC, the applicant's pay was fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590. Further, on completion of Rs. 12 years of service on 13.09.2000, the first ACP in the next higher pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 was granted to the applicant. It is stated that on granting ACP, the applicant should have been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- pre-revised, but the respondents fixed in the lower pay scale of Rs. 4000-8000.

2.1. Thereafter, the applicant was promoted on 17.01.2003 on the post of Civilian Store Keeper Grade-I. It is stated that respondent No. 3 ought to have granted the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 vide order No. TED-03/2003 dated 29.01.2003 on revision of pay scales as notified in the impugned order dated 01.05.2015 and 27.02.2013 with consequential benefits. However, there was no fixation granted on 17.01.2003 as per the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence F.

No.410/2009-D(CIV-I) dated 27.02.2013.

VIJAY Digitally

2.2. It is stated that respondent No. 2 vide letter No. 39384/SKK/62/8CC/F&IE1A dated 20.01.2012 has already initiated an action for the creation of the post of store keeper Grade-I in the Army Units under his control to grant grade pay of Rs. 4200/- in the Pay Band-2 of 9300-34800. Vide order dated 10.04.2004, the applicant’s post of Civilian Store Keeper Grade-I was redesignated as Civilian Store Keeper Grade-II. On redesignation, respondent No. 3 ought to have granted pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and thereafter on 01.01.2006, his pay should have been fixed in Pay Band–II 9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200.

2.3. It is stated that respondent No. 3, as per the impugned order dated 27.02.2013, redesignated the Store Keeping Cadre into three grades in the order No. 75328-B/169/Ci

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5577

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Krishna, Member (A), Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Sambhaji Thakaji Arude – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 292/2017

Policy decisions on pay scales and post restructuring are within executive domain; judicial interference is warranted only if manifestly arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. Can a condition in a government order on merger of posts be challenged as contradictory?

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5577

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALShri Krishna, Member (A), Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)Sambhaji Thakaji Arude – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentOriginal Application No. 292/2017

Policy decisions on pay scales and post restructuring are within executive domain; judicial interference is warranted only if manifestly arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

3. Can a condition in a government order on merger of posts be challenged as contradictory?

Cases Referred (2)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Shri Krishna, Member (A), Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)
Sambhaji Thakaji Arude – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 292/2017