JUDGMENT (ORAL)

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The issue before us is the entitlement, or otherwise, of the petitioner to non-functional upgradation¹“NFU”, hereinafter in terms of Office Memorandum dated 24 April 2009 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training²“DOPT”, hereinafter. The claim of the petitioner to NFU stands rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal³“the Tribunal”, hereinafter vide judgment dated 29 November 2016 rendered in OA 371/2016⁴R P Saxena v. UOI & Ors.. The petitioner has challenged the said decision before us in the present proceedings.

2. We have heard Mr. Shanker Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Sangita Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, at length.

3. The issue is short and purely legal.

4. The relevant Clauses of DOPT OM dated 24 April 2009 read as under:

“No. AB.14017/64/2008-Estt.(RR)

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

Department of Personnel and Training

New Delhi, the 24th April, 2009

Office Memorandum

Subject:- Non-Functional upgradation for Officers of Organised Group 'A' Services in PB-3 and PB-4

*****

Consequent upon the acceptance of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commiss