ABHIRAM MANDAL vs DEFENCE on 14 October 2026

ORDER

PER: RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The applicant has approached this Tribunal against the impugned order dated 06.06.2022 and impugned letter dated 05.01.2024 and for a further direction upon the respondents to grant the applicant Nonfunctional Selection Grade of Junior Administrative Grade (Pay Level 13 of the 7th CPC) retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2022 or w.e.f. 01.01.2023 when officers of 2009 IDAS batch officers have been promoted with all consequential benefits including arrear monetary benefits.

2. Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was promoted to the Junior Time Scale of the Indian Defence Accounts Service (Scale of Pay of Rs. 15600-39100 plus Grade Pay Rs. 5400) vide order dated 27.09.2011. He had been granted two years of weightage and had been allotted 2009 IDAS batch in terms of Rule 10 of the “Indian Defence Accounts Service Rules, 2000”. As such, the applicant is entitled to Non-Functional Selection grade along with the 2009 batch of JTS officers in

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

terms of Rule 9 of the Indian Defence Accounts Service Rules, 2021. The respondents vide order dated 14.02.2022 promoted/placed nine officers serving in Junior Administrative Grade of the Indian Defence Accounts Service (Pay Level 12 of the 7" CPC) of 2009 batch in the Non- Functional Selection Grade of Junior Administrative Grade (Pay Level 13 of the 7" CPC) of the service w.e.f. 01.01.2022 whereas the applicant has not been granted the NFSG along with 2009 batch. Thereafter, by letter dated 26.12.2022, twenty five (25) officers of 2010 batch juniors to the applicant have been placed in the Non-functional Selection Grade of Junior Administrative Grade (Pay Level 13 of the 7" CPC) with effect from 01.01.2023, whereas the applicant is of 2009 batch of IDAS has not been granted NFSG along with the officers of 2009 batch or with 2010 batch. Learned counsel has also brought out the letter dated 06.06.2022 issued by the Sr. ACGDA (Pers-1) of Defence Accounts Department, Headquarters wherein it was informed the CDA, Narangi Cantt. Guwahati that request of the applicant to place him in Non-Functional Selection Grade of

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

Junior Administrative Grade of the IDAS against the vacancy year 2022 along with direct recruits IDAS officers of 2009 batch with whom his seniority is clubbed has been examined and considered by the competent authority but the same could not be accepted to in terms of DOP&T provisions on the subject.

3. As per Sri Chanda, in terms of Rule 9, Rule 7(2) and SI. No. 5 of the Schedule II of the Indian Defence Accounts Service Rules, 2021, the applicant is entitled to Non-functional Selection Grade of Junior Administrative Grade retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2022 when officers of 2009 batch have been promoted whereas the impugned letter dated 05.01.2024 has been issued on the basis of some vague clarification of the DOP&T. It is settled position of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Paluru Ramkrishnaiah Vs Union of India (1989) 2 SCC 541 and in Punjab State Warehousing Corp., Chandigarh v. Manmohan Singh & Anr. (2007) 9 SCC 337 that terms and conditions of services of an employee governed under rules made under a statute or the

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India cannot be taken way by issuing an executive instruction. To buttress the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the following judgments/orders:

(i) Judgment and order dated 08.09.2026 passed by CAT, Guwahati Bench in the case of Shri Smarajit Kanungoe Vs. Union of India and Ors. O.A. No. 369 of 2023. Operative portions of the order are being reproduced below:

9. The present applicant was initially selected in IPS from State Police Service and was allotted with 1999 batch. He was granted Selection Grade on 09.04.2012(Annexure-A/4). However, his date of allotment was subsequently withdrawn by the respondents by fixing it to the next year of allotment i.e. from 1999 to 2000. Subsequently, vide Order dated 14.03.2018 (Annexure-A/10), his allotted year was again restored to the year 1999 in place of 2000. Therefore, as his initial allotted year 1999 has been restored, he is entitled for restoration of his Selection Grade from the earlier date i.e. from 09.04.2012. Though, he had made a representation before the authority in this regard, however, vide Order dated 05.03.2022 (Annexure- A/1), his representation was rejected on the ground that he had superannuated on 31.12.2012. As per the applicant,

10. It is an admitted fact that in terms of the ratio laid down in the case of Praveen Kumar in CWP No. 15798 of 2009 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana and upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs vide order dated 24.10.2017 (Annexure-A/9) had revised the year of allotment of Tripura Police Service Officers, who

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

were appointed to the IPS of Tripura Cadre. Accordingly, the select lists of 2005, 2007, 2009 and 2010 in respect of Tripura Cadre were prepared and the applicant had been allotted the year 1999, as appointee/selectee to the IPS cadre of. Therefore, after revision and allotment of year 1999 as IPS to the applicant, he is entitled for Selection Grade in Pay-Band - 4: Rs.37400-67000; plus Grade Pay Rs.8700/- at least with effect from 01.01.2012 on completion of 13 years of services in terms of Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 2007. However, same was denied by the respondents vide Order dated 05.03.2022 (Annexure-A/1), which in our considered opinion, is not sustainable as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Shukla S/O Sh. Sarabjit Shukla vs Union Of India and Ors., reported in AIR 1994 SC 2480.

11. Accordingly, O.A. stands allowed. The impugned Order No. F-23(27)-GA(P&T)/18 dated 05.03.2022 (forwarded to the applicant vide letter dated 24.08.2022) (Annexure-A/1) is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to grant the Selection Grade in Pay-Band - 4: Rs.37400-67000/-plus Grade Pay Rs. 8700/- at least with effect from 01.01.2012 to the applicant and to revise his pay and pensionary benefits of the applicant with arrear monetary benefits.

12. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent authorities as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 06.04.2022 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. C.R. Madhava Murthy and Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 2087-2088 of 2022. Operative portion of the said Judgment is being reproduced below:

6. Therefore, it was a case where a junior was drawing more pay on account of upgradation under the ACP Scheme and there was an

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

anomaly and therefore, the pay of senior was required to be stepped up. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has rightly directed the Appellants herein to step up the pay of the original writ Petitioners keeping in view of pay scale which has been granted to the juniors from the date they have started drawing lesser pay than their juniors. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court. No interference of this Court is called for.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed and the same are dismissed, accordingly.”

4. Sri Chanda has further contended that during 2024, another set of officers junior to the applicant i.e. Sl. No. 183 to 200 of 2011 batch have been promoted as Selection Grade w.e.f. 01.01.2024 vide letter dated 07.12.2023 without considering the case of the applicant. Being aggrieved, applicant submitted a detail representation on 05.12.2023 to the Controller General of Defence Accounst, New Delhi for redressal of his grievance, which was however, rejected vide order dated 05.01.2024. As per the learned counsel, denial of placement of the applicant in the Non-functional Selection Grade of Junior Administrative Grade with the officers of 2009 batch, the applicant has been seriously prejudiced. As such,

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

the impugned letter dated 06.06.2022 and 05.01.2024 are liable to be set aside and quashed.

5. Written statement has been filed by the respondents through Sri A. Kundu, learned Addl. CGSC, who submitted that the applicant was initially appointed as an Auditor on 28.09.1987. Subsequently, he was promoted as under:

1. Section Officer (A)

2. Assistant Accounts Officer (Group-B, Gazetted) February, 1999

3. Accounts Officer

4. Sr. Accounts Officer

5. Junior Time Scale of IDAS

6. Sri Kundu has further submitted that as per the Schedule II of the Indian Defence Accounts Service Rule 2021 (Hereinafter mentioned as "IDAS Rules 2021"), an officer is eligible for appointment to Non-Functional Selection Grade when he has completed 13 years of regular service and has entered the 14th year of service on the 1st January of the year calculated from the year following the year of the examination on the basis of which he/she is recruited or the year of inclusion in the select list of Junior Time Scale on promotion. Eligibility for granting of placement in NFSG of JAG

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

grade not depends on batch basis, but it requires entering into 14th year of service, as on 1st January in Group "A" service.

7. Sri Kundu has reiterated that 14th year of service in Group 'A' as on the 1st January of the year is calculated from the year following the year of examination in case of directly recruited officers. In case of promotee officers, for the placement in NFSG, he/she has to complete 13 years of service in Group 'A' and his placement in NFSG of JAG to be taken place after 1st January of the year of his entering into 14th year, subject to other conditions of NFSG issued by DoP&T from time to time. The promotion of the applicant to the grade of JTS was made against the vacancy year 2011. He has been granted 2 years weightage in seniority in accordance with Rle 8(b) of IDAS Rules 2000 and was placed below the 2009 batch of direct recruits of IDAS. The applicant had not completed the essential criteria of entering 14th year of Group “A” service on 1st of January, 2022. Had the applicant not superannuated in February, 2024, he would have entered into the 14th year of service in Group “A” on

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

01.01.2025. Therefore, as per the learned Addl. CGSC, applicant is not entitled for grant of NFSG of JAG. He has also placed reliance upon the case of Surendra Pal Vs. Union of India and Ors. dated 10.11.2022 passed by the CAT, Lucknow Bench in O.A. No. 332/00226/2016 and submitted that the issue of the said case identical with the present case. Operative portion of the said order is being reproduced below:

10. The problem is that the applicant is not at all facing the fact that seniority and promotion are indeed per the IDAS Rules, 2000 and Note-2 including Schedule-II Sl-5 extracted below are only and only related to seniority and promotion - whereas the Sl-5 of Schedule-II clearly concerns the grant of N.F.S.G. to JAG [Junior Administrative Grade] officers and is based on the time of completing 13 years in IDAS rather than only seniority. The N.F.S.G. is not a promotion based pay grant but time based and in particular, viz 13 years of service in the IDAS – that when the officer is born into the IDAS service per their recruitment year and not the seniority advantage of two years per Rule-8(2)(b). Thus, with regards to the promotees the same is countable from the number of actual physical years served when a given promotee was born into the service viz IDAS and not from the year of seniority he got when he was granted the IDAS Gp’A’ because he was admittedly given out of turn seniority benefit of two years when he got selected and hence recruited in a given year into the IDAS. The provision of N.F.S.G. and seniority operate at through different drivers – promotion by seniority- cum-selection and N.F.S.G. by number of years spent physically once born into the service and not seniority which continues to be protected as

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

happened in the case of the applicant when he got his JAG in time with the 2001 DRs presumably.

11. That just about concludes the onerous discussion and we have tried hard to explain the principles as clearly, lucidly and elaborately as humanly possible. And surely as required by justice discharging thereby, the duty of jus aequum – law that is equal and fair. To quote Sameul Alito – a Supreme Court Justice in the US, -“ A judge can’t have any preferred outcome in any particular case. The judge’s only obligation – and it’s a solemn obligation – is the rule of law.”

12. In summa, the assertions of the respondents are upheld in view of the above discussions and the O.A is therefore, liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.”

8. By filing rejoinder, Sri M. Chanda, learned counsel for the applicant has brought out Recruitment Rule of IDAS of 2021 and submitted that an officer requires 13 years of service of Group A for placement to NFSG of Junior Administrative Grade from the year of inclusion in the select list of Junior Time Scale of IDAS. The applicant was included in the select list of JTS of IDAS in the year 2009. Accordingly the applicant has completed the requisite service for placement as on 01.01.2022. Hence, he is eligible for grant of NFSG of JAG.

9. We have heard the rival submissions in the light of the materials placed before us and orders/judgments relied upon.

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

10. The primary issue rests on a distinction between inter-se seniority placement and actual length of service residency required for financial upgradation under the relevant service rules. The applicant seeks to leverage his two-year seniority weightage, which placed him in the 2009 batch, to claim that he must receive the Non-Functional Selection Grade (Pay Level 13) simultaneously with the direct recruits of that batch year.

11. However, a perusal of Schedule II of the Indian Defence Accounts Service Rules, 2021, which governs the cadre, reveals a clear, unambiguous requirement. For an officer to be appointed to the Non-Functional Selection Grade, they must have completed 13 years of regular service and entered the 14th year of service on the 1st January of the year, calculated from the year of inclusion in the select list of the Junior Time Scale on promotion.

12. The applicant entered the regular Group 'A' cadre only in the year 2011. Therefore, as on 01.01.2022, he had completed only 11 years of regular service in Group 'A'. Seniority weightage is an administrative mechanism designed

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

to protect an officer's placement in the inter-se gradation list relative to direct recruits; it cannot be treated as actual physical service or structural residency within a cadre to satisfy a separate promotion rule.

13. The applicant's reliance on the precedents is misplaced due to distinct factual foundations: In Shri Smarajit Kanungoe (Supra), the applicant's promotion was based on the specific Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 2007, and his initial year of allotment (1999) was actively restored after an administrative withdrawal. The court explicitly noted that the Selection Grade became due “on completion of 13 years of services”. In the present case, the applicant has simply not completed the 13 years of physical regular service in Group 'A'.

In C.R. Madhava Murthy (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealt with a pay anomaly where a direct junior was drawing more pay on account of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, necessitating a stepping-up of pay. In the present case, the direct recruits of the 2009 batch and the juniors of the batches who received NFSG completed their mandatory actual residency blocks inside the Group 'A' service ahead of the applicant, eliminating any claim of illegal pay anomaly.

Digitally signed by PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY

14. The condition of entering the 14th year of regular service in Group 'A' as on the 1st of January of the vacancy year is a mandatory requirement under Schedule II of the IDAS Rules, 2021. To alter this timeline by substituting fictional batch calculations for actual service blocks would violate the statutory framework. The competent authority has properly applied the recruitment rules and DoPT guidelines, and the applicant's claim for a retrospective Pay Level 13 upgrade cannot be sustained.

15. In view of the clear statutory residency requirements laid down in Schedule II of the IDAS Rules, 2021, the applicant has failed to establish any violation of his service rights.

16. The O.A. is hereby dismissed. Pending M.A., if any, stands disposed of. No order as to costs.

(MALLIKA ARYA)

(RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

PB

PRASANNA BASUMATARY PRASANNA BASUMATARY