Smt Lakshmi Bhattacharjee vs M/O DEFENCE on 14 October 2026

ORDER

PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief(s):- “8.1 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to set aside and quashed the impugned letter dated 20.05.2024 (Annexure- Al). 8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the benefit of financial upgradation under the MACP scheme in terms of the judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Hon'ble CAT, Principal Bench, and also in the light of the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, letter bearing No. 3(5)/2020-D(AF) dated 03.03.2021, in the Grade Pay of 4200, 4600 and 4800 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service under the MACP scheme as early as possible, by way of re-fixing the pay and pensionary benefit to the present applicant, who have already retired on superannuation from service, with all consequential benefit, including arrear monetary benefit. 8.3 Costs of the application. 8.4 Any other relief(s) to which the applicants are entitled to, as the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.”

2. This application is made against the impugned letter dated 20.05.2024, whereby extension of benefit of judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 passed by the Learned C.A.T., Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 3204/2011 (Shri Madhu Sudan and Others. -vs- Union of India and others) has not been granted to the present applicant. The applicant is also

SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

entitled for extension of the said benefit in the light of the implementation of order dated 03.03.2021 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence bearing letter No. 3(5)12020-D(AF) and therefore, applicant is praying for grant of financial upgradation under MACP Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200, Rs. 4600 and Rs. 4800 on completion of 10, 20 and 30 years of regular service in the cadre of CSBO Grade- II/CSBO Grade- I with all consequential benefits including arrear monetary benefits by way of re-fixation of pay and pensionary benefit in the case of retired applicant in lieu of Time Bound Promotion Scheme. Since, the applicant is similarly situated and serving in the cadre of CSBO in the establishment of Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, in North Eastern Region under the Administrative Control of Director General of Sigs 4 (c), General Staff Shakha, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), New Delhi. The counsel of the applicant issued lawyer's notice dated 29.04.2024 to the local administration for extension of the benefit of judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 passed in O.A. No. 3204/2011, since the present applicant is exactly a similarly situated employee. However vide impugned communication dated 20.05.2024 issued to the counsel of the applicant, stating that the similar issue is sub-judice before the

SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

Hon'ble Supreme Court; as such suitable action will be taken up after outcome of the pending SLP. Finding no other alternatives, the applicant is approaching before this Tribunal praying for a direction upon the respondents for extension of the benefit of judgment and order dated 26.10.2015 passed in O.A. No. 3204/2011.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the averments made in written statement and submitted that the orders passed in OA No. 3204/2011 Sh. Madhu Sudan & others Vs. Union of India & others which has travelled upto Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be treated as precedent for the reason that SLP preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed "in limine" and does not lay down any law as envisaged under Article 141 of the Constitution. In this context, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India & others reported as (1989) 4 SCC 187, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held as under: – "It as a well-settled principle of law that when a special leave petition summarily dismissed under Article 136 of the Constitution, by such dismissal this Court does not lay down any law, as envisaged by Article 141 of the Constitution, contended by the learned Attorney General. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. State of Bihar (1986) 4 SCC 146

SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

it has been held by this Court that the dismissal of special leave petition in limine by a non-speaking order does not justify any inference that, by necessary implication, the contentions raised in the special leave petition on the merits of the case have been rejected by the Supreme Court. It has been further held that the effect of a non-speaking order of dismissal of a special leave petition without anything more indicating the grounds or reasons of its dismissal must, by necessary implication, be taken to be that the Supreme Court had decided only that it was not a fit case where special leave petition should be granted. In Union of India v. All India Services Pensioners' Association (1988) 2 SCC 580 this Court has given reasons for dismissing the special leave petition. When such reasons are given, the decision becomes one which attracts Article 141 of the Constitution which provides that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all the courts within the territory of India. It. therefore, follows that when no reason is qiven, but a special leave petition is dismissed simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a declaration of law by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution." (emphasis supplied).

Counsel also states that order passed in Sh. Madhu Sudan case (supra) is based on equity (i.e. the relief having been granted on basis of benefit given to Staff Car Drivers who are entirely in a different cadre) and it is settled position of law that in case of conflict between equity and law, law prevails.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed rejoinder, wherein he averred that the applicant was serving in the cadre of CSBO in the establishment of Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, in North Eastern under the then, Administrative Control of Director General of Sigs 4 (c) General Staff Shakha, Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Army), New Delhi.

SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

Learned counsel for the applicant also states that, as per similar facts and circumstances of this case, the applicant was covered vide Judgement and Order dated 04.11.2025 passed in O.A. No. 322/2021 by this Tribunal, the applicant herein, being similarly situated, is also entitled to the same relief.

5. Heard the parties and perused the records.

6. The applicant was an Ex-Civilian Switch Board Operator, Grade-I, who served in the establishment in Government of India, Ministry of Defence. The applicant claims for the implementation of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200, 4600 & 4800 respectively on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years of regular service in the cadre of CSBO Grade- II/CSBO Grade- I with all consequential benefits including arrear monetary benefits by way of re- fixation of pay and pensionary benefits. He had also submitted Representations[Annexures- A/7 & A/10(Colly)] seeking the above relief. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 29.04.2024 was also issued for looking into the matter of the applicant.

7. The applicant places reliance on the decision of Principal Bench of this Tribunal rendered in O.A. No. 3204/2011 which, after verification of the entire facts and circumstances had

SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

allowed the O.A., directing the respondents to grant the financial upgradation to the applicant therein in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200, 4600 & 4800 on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years respectively. It seems that the matter was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court unsuccessfully and thereafter, before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. Thereafter, order of Principal Bench of this Tribunal was implemented as would be evident by Annexure-A/3. Further, the applicant’s case is also supported by one Administrative Sanction Order dated 07.08.2026 issued by Director for Adjutant General for implementation of Order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal i.e. Chandigarh Bench in O.A. No. 1095/2021, wherein the applicants had prayed for grant of financial upgradation under the MACP Scheme in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4200, 4600 & 4800 respectively on completion of 10, 20 & 30 years of regular service in the cadre of CSBO Grade- II/CSBO Grade- I.

8. After hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents, we are of the considered opinion that since similarly situated persons were granted the benefit of financial upgradations, then, as to why

SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR

the applicant should not be extended the same benefit who is on the same footing. Accordingly, we are inclined to dispose of the present O.A. directing the competent authority among the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant in the light of the judgement relied hereinabove and communication mentioned above and after satisfying that if the present applicant is also placed on the same footing, similar benefits be extended to them in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. Ordered accordingly.

9. The benefits due to them shall also be paid to them within a period of two months thereafter with all consequential benefits.

10. Accordingly, OA stands disposed of. Pending M.A.(s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (R.S. DOGRA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J) /SK/

SOURABH KUMAR SOURABH KUMAR