H N Bhagavan vs ISRO on 28 October 2026

1. H.N. Bhagavan, Emp code: IS 03130, S/o H Narasimha Iyengar, Age: 74 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o D-601 Hoysala Ace Phase 2, 20th Main, 20th Cross A block Sahakaranagar Bengaluru-560092

2. T.P. Murali, Emp code: IS01559, S/o Late T Parthasarathy Iyengar, Age: 72 yrs Occ: SO 'G', R/o MIG 4, Murali Nivas, KHB Colony, Second Stage, Basveswaranagar, Bangalore-560079

3. B.S.Nataraju, Emp code:IS00456 S/o Late B.Srikantia, Age: 77 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o B.S.Nataraju, 852, 8th 'B' Main road, ISRO Layout, Bengaluru 560 111

4. M.R. Thyagaraj, Emp code: IS01294, Age: 69 yrs S/o Mysore Ramaswamy, Occ: SO 'G' R/o 236, 2nd main, 2nd cross, ISRO Layout, Vikramnagar, Bangalore – 560111

5. Umapathy C N, Emp code: IS01504, S/o C Natarajan, Age: 67 yrs, Occ: SO/Engg 'G' R/o E 1304, ETA Garden, No 9, Magadi Road Bangalore 560023

6. Shirolikar D L, Emp code: IS00610, S/o Shirolikar L S, Age: 71 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o Shirolikar D L #865 9B MAIN, ISRO Layout Bengaluru-560111

7. S R Nagaraj, Emp code: IS00027, S/o Late SNR Sastry, Age: 76 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o SR Nagaraj, #83, 11th Main, NTI Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bangalore-560097

8. M V Kannan, Emp code: IS00307, S/o M R Vijaya Raghavan, Age: 75 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o T3 11A Pashmina Waterfront, Old Madras Road, Bhattarahalli, Bengaluru 560049

9. Raveendranath G.N, Emp code: IS02508, S/o Nagappa, Age: 67 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o 37, 4th Main, Syndicate bank Layout, Herohalli, Viswaneedam P.O., Bangalore-560091

10. V Mahadevan, Emp code: IS01393, S/o R. Venkatasubramanian, Age: 68 yrs,Occ: SO 'G' R/o No.234 Block B2 2nd Floor: Kendriya vihar Apartments Bangalore Bellary Road: Yelahanka; Bangalore, 560064

11. D. Mallikarjuna Rao, Emp code: IS 00434, S/o D. Krishna Murthy, Age: 77 yrs Occ: SO 'G' R/o #145, 6th Cross, NTI Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru, 560097

12. Bhagwant Vyankatesh Kanade, Emp code: MCF00024, S/o Vyankatesh Kanade, Age: 71 yrs,Occ: SO 'G' R/o #125, Shiva Sai Residency, 1st A Main, East of NGEF, Kasturi Nagar, Bangalore-560043

13. Reviraj N, Emp code: IS03728, S/o Narayana Iyer, Age: 67 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o 405, 9th C Main, HRBR 1st Block, Kalyan Nagar, Bangalore 560043

14. Rupinder Singh Bhatia, Emp code:IS00454, S/o Kuldip Singh, Age: 73 yrs, Occ: Sci 'G' R/o 132 5th cross, 9th main, NTI layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru 560097

15. V. K. Jain, Emp code: AC05066 S/o Laxmi Chand Jain, Age: 71 yrs,Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Nayan Kumar Jain, Flat-3038, Tower -3, Prestige Park Square, Bannergatta Road, Bangalore-560083

16. Lal Bahadur Kushwaha, Emp code: AC02006, S/o Kripal Singh, Age: 75 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Ashish Kumar, 8124 Mykonos, Sobha City, Near Thanisandra Road, Bangaluru-560077, Karnataka

17. Krishna Mukhopadhaya, Emp code: AC05717, D/o Ramani Mohan Chakraborty, Age: 70 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o Krishna Mukhopadhyay, C/o Sarika Anusuya, A-301, Chitrakut Environs Apartments, 3rd Main, 7th Cross, Talacavery Layout, Basavanagar, Bengaluru 560037

18. Ashok Vasant Apte, Emp code: AC05172, S/o Vasant Narayan Apte, Age: 71 yrs Occ: SO 'G' R/o Ashok Vasant Apte, C/o Shri Jayawant Hardikar, Sumadhura Sandoval, Survey No 70, Thumbarahalli, Next to Gayatri Ocean blue, Bangalore 560066 (Karnataka)

19. M. K. Sharma Emp code:AC05366, S/o Lajjia Ram Sharma, Age: 77 yrs Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Rohit Sharma, Flat No. 2035, Prestige Park View, Hope Farm Junction, White field Road, Bangalore-560066.

20. Kirti N Padia, Emp code: AC05753, S/o Natvarlal Padia, Age: 65 yrs Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Yesha Padia, 4045/46, Assetz, opp. Paras Manyata, Rachenahalli, Bangaluru,560045.

21. Shri Ganibhai Fakirmohmed Vohra, Emp code:AC04011, S/o Fakirmohmed Vohra, Age: 71 yrs Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Malay K Shah, Block H Door, 302 Streling Gardens Apartment, Kempapura Hebbal, Bangalore-560024.

22. Yogesh.H.Trivedi, Emp code: AC05169, S/o Harshadray Trivedi, Age: 72 yrs,Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o K. Nagendra, 493, East End Main, Jayanagar, 9th Block East, Bangalore-560069

23. Dr. Haresh S. Bhatt, Emp code: AC05914, S/o Suryakant, Age: 64 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Rajesh Kriplani, #71, Ashray, Giddama layout, B Narayanapura, Bengaluru-560016

24. Vikas Kumar Patel, Emp code: AC06759, S/o Prahladbhai M Patel, Age: 67 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o Phase 2-101, Innovative Oak Garden, Bhoganahalli, Bangalore 560103

25. DS Purohit, Emp code: AC00369, Age: 79 yrs S/o Subanacharya Purohit, Occ: SO 'G' R/o 3, Matharishwa, 2nd Main Road, 4th Cross Road, Hongasandra, Bengaluru 560068

26. CM Nagrani, Emp code:AC00390, S/o Mangalji, Age: 78 yrs,Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Ananth, 18141, 18th Tower, 14th Floor, Prestige Finsbury Regent, Aerospace Park, Near Shell Technologies, KIADB, Gummanahalli, Bangaluru 562149

27. Dilip Balmukund Bhatt, Emp code: AC05220, S/o Balmukund Bhatt, Age: 72 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o K.Nagendra, 493 East End Main Road, Jayanagar, 9th Block East Bangalore 560069 Karnataka

28. Anil Chand Mathur, Emp code: AC05217, S/o Jagdish Chand Mathur, Age: 68 yrs, Occ: SO 'G', R/o C/o Dr. Alok Mathur, A-502, Segment 3, Brigade Omega, Thurahalli, Subramanyapura, Bengaluru-560061

29. T P Srinivasan, Emp code: AC05974, S/o T R Pichai, Age: 64 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o T P Srinivasan, C/o Ambaprasad S Shastry, FF-1 Sai Surya Comforts No.125, 2nd Main, Near 8th Cross, Vasanth Vallabh Nagar Phase 1, Vasanthpura, Bengaluru-560061

30. Dr. K.R. Murali, Emp code: AC07067, S/o (Late) K.V. Rajamani, Age: 65 yrs,Occ: SO 'G', R/o Dr. K.R. Murali, C/o S. Anantharaman - D 0801, Mantri Serenity - Kanakapura Road, Doddakallasandra - Bengaluru 560062

31. N C Bhavsar, Emp code: AC00976, Age: 83 yrs S/o Chaturbhai Bhavsar, Occ: SO 'G', R/o C/o Snehal Bhalja, P1701, Ajmera Infinity, Electronic City, Phase 1,Neeladri Road,Bangalore 560100

32. J G Vachhani, Emp Code: AC04015, Age: 71 yrs S/o Govindbhai, Occ: SO 'G' R/o A2 -901, Golden palm Apartment, Golden palm road, Near Kristu Jayanti college, K Narayan Pura road, Bangalore 560077

33. Vijai Kumar, Emp code: AC07414, Age: 79 yrs S/o Ram Autar Gupta, Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Vishruti, F-1302, Ajmera Green Acres, Bannerghatta, Hosur Road, Kalena Agraha, Bengaluru-560076

34. Dr. N. K. Patel, Emp code:AC00966, Age: 74 yrs S/o K. G. Patel, Occ: SO 'G' R/o Dr. N.K. Patel, C/o Veerabhadrappa Ganjihal, Apt. No. S09-0803, Smondoville, Neotown, Electronic City Phase 1, Bangalore 560 100

35. R. K. Gupta, Emp code:AC06555, S/o Yaspal, Age: 77 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Raj Priya Bhartiya, 45/7, B-106, 2nd Floor, Polaris Apt., Radha-Reddy Layout, Doddakannahalli, Bangalore-560035

36. Rajesh Nandkishore Khandelwal, Emp code:AC06319, S/o Nandkishore Khandelwal, Age: 61 yrs, Occ: SO ‘G’ R/o Rajesh Nandkishore Khandelwal, C/o Ritika Khandelwal, FLAT B-008, Durga Coral Apartment, Kadubeesanahalli, Panathur, Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560103

37. Virender Kumar, Emp code:AC06431, S/o Kasturi Lal, Age: 64 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o 132, 9th Main 5th Cross, NTI Layout, Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru-560097

38. Ajay Kumar Lal, Emp code:AC06372, S/o Kunwar Behari Lal Mathur, Age: 63 yrs Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Shri Pradeep Gupta, A1-1014, Assetz East Point, Kadubeesanahalli Road, Bangalore-560103

39. Dr P C Joshi, Emp code: AC05693, S/o Shri Goverdhan Joshi, Age: 75 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o D-305 Purva Seasons, Khagadaspura Main Road, C V Raman Nagar, Bangalore 560093

40. Ashvinkumar Sendhabhai Patel, Emp code: AC06269, S/o Sendhabhai Mafatlal Patel, Age: 61 yrs Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Hiral Patel, Phase 2 - 101, Innovative Oak Garden, Bhoganahalli, Bangalore-560103

41. Anand Vishnuprasad Pathak, Emp code: AC06232, S/o Vishniprasad Pathak, Age: 62 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o Anand Pathak, C/o, Ishani Pathak, A103, Uber Verdant Phase 2, Sarjapur Road, Bangalore-560035

42. Nitin Premji Thacker, Emp code: AC06416, S/o Premji Pragji Thacker, Age: 62 yrs, Occ: SO 'G' R/o Nitin Premji Thacker, C/o Hiral Patel Phase 2-101, Innovative Oak Garden, Bhoganahalli, Bangalore-560103

43. Dilipkumar Ramanlal Patel, Emp code: AC05710, S/o Late Shri Ramanlal Ishwarlal Patel, Age: 65yrs Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Malay K Shah, Block H, Door 302, Sterling Gardens Apartment, Kempapura Hebbal, Bangalore 560024 (Karnataka)

44. R. M. Bhalja, Emp code: AC05468, S/o Mohanlal J Bhalja, Age: 69yrs Occ: SO 'G' R/o C/o Snehal R. Bhalja, P- 1701, Ajmera Infinity, Electronic city phase 1, Neeladri Road, Bangalore – 560100 .... Applicants (By Ms. Anita Swain, Advocate through video conference)

Vs.

1. The Union of India represented by its Secretary, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110 001

2. The Chairman of ISRO and Secretary, Department of Space, Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) Antariksh Bhavan, New BEL Road, Bangalore-560 231

3. The Director, UR Rao Satellite Centre (URSC), Old Airport Road, Vimanapura Post, Bengaluru 560 017 Karnataka

4. The Director, Space Application Centre (SAC) ISRO, Jodhpur Tekra, Ahmedabad 380 015

5. The Director, Master Control Facility (MCF) Department of Space, Salagame Road Hassan Karnataka 573 201

6. The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary Dept. of Pension and Pensioners Welfare Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance & Pensions, Lok Nayak Bhavan, 3rd floor, Khan Market, New Delhi 110 003

7. The Government of India, Represented by its Secretary Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 110 011

…Respondents

(By Shri Arvind Kamath, ASG-through video conference along with Shri K. Gajendra Vasu, Senior Panel Counsel)

O R D E R

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “Declare the inaction of the respondents in not rectifying the anomaly with regard to pensions in grade of Scientists/Engineers/G drawing lesser pension than juniors Scientists/Engineers SG is illegal and arbitrary and unjust, hence this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to rectify the anomaly and extend the benefits to the applicants as it was extended to similar situated pensioners by the Coordinate Ernakulam Bench in OA 180/00137/2016 dated 28.5.2018 which obtained finality on dismissal of OP (CAT) 199/2018 by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and dismissal of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 62073/2025 dated 8.12.2025 by Hon’ble Supreme Court.

2. Direct the respondents to implement the cabinet decision with regard to removal of anomaly of seniors in Scientists/Engineers G grade drawing less emoluments as compared to juniors in feeder grade of Scientists/Engineers SG by granting two additional increment which may be treated as pay and further grant all consequential benefits to the applicants from the date of their eligibility as stated in Annexure-1 of OA.

3. Direct the respondents to rectify the pay/pensions anomaly of applicants by remedial step of grant of two increments to Scientists/Engineers in G & H grade according to their eligibility with all consequential benefits.

4. Consequently direct the respondents to treat the two additional increments as ‘Pay’ for all purposes including pension and pay the amount due to the applicants towards the upward revision of terminal benefits by revising the pension and terminal benefits based on declaration and direction sought for supra.

5. Direct to release the amounts after revision together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with quarterly rests from the date on with the same has become due and payable till the date of actual payment.

6. Further declare that the applicants are entitled for the costs of the litigation thrust on them by the respondents not extending the benefits and pass such other order and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Facts as narrated by the applicants are that they are retired Scientists/Engineers in Grade ‘G’ and worked under Department of Space. The applicants have joined the service between 1967 to 1991 and promoted to Scientist ‘G’ between 1999 to 2017 and subsequently superannuated. Their grievance arises on account of the anomaly resulting in pensioners of lower grade drawing higher pension than seniors like applicants who were in the higher grade of Scientists/Engineers ‘G’ and ‘H’ in Department of Space. The Government of India as per Presidential order dated 03.02.1999 granted two additional increments with effect from 01.01.1996 as incentives but by the subsequent clarification it was not treated as basic pay for the purpose of DA, HRA, Pension etc.

In the challenge made before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, it was declared that the additional increments granted fall within the definition of pay and necessary attributes that may be added to emoluments reckoning pay shall have to be paid and that pension is also reckoned based on pay drawn and hence the additional increments should be taken into account for the purpose of pension. SLP filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court against the said order was dismissed. However, while revising the pension of the applicants, the two additional increments which contribute to pension were ignored, as a result, there arose an anomaly with regard to pensions in grade of Scientists/Engineers ‘G’ drawing lesser pension than junior Scientists/Engineers ‘SG’. The applicants issued legal notices to set right the anomaly but in vain. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents to grant the entitled benefits, the applicants have approached this Tribunal.

3. Learned counsel Ms. Anita Swain representing the applicants submitted non-grant of two additional increments to the grade of Scientist/Engineer ‘G’ in the scale of Rs. 18,400-22,400/- caused anomaly inasmuch as seniors of Scientist ‘G’ grade began to draw less emoluments as compared to juniors in the feeder grade of

‘SG’ (Rs. 16,400-20,000/-). Ultimately, the cabinet in its meeting held on October, 2007 passed an order to rectify the anomaly. It was ordered to grant two additional increments to those promoted Scientists ‘G’ and ‘H’ grade at the time of promotion. However, the decision of cabinet in this regard, to resolve the anomaly, was not implemented by the respondents. Placing reliance on the order passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 137/2016 dated 28.05.2018, learned counsel submitted that the same has been confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in dismissing OP (CAT) No. 199/2018 filed by the respondents and the respondents have challenged the same unsuccessfully before the Hon’ble Apex Court resulting in dismissal of SLP (Civil) Diary No. 62073/2025 dated 08.12.2025. In terms of the said judicial pronouncement, the two additional increments are to be treated as 'pay' for all purposes including pension and further grant of all consequential benefits from the date of their eligibility. Despite the law has been crystallised, the respondents have failed to remove the anomaly in granting the benefits to the applicants.

4. Learned ASG Shri Arvind Kamath along with Senior Panel Counsel Shri K. Gajendra Vasu representing the respondents submitted that the issue relating to not counting the two increments as pay for the purpose of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance, Pension etc., was challenged by some Scientists/Engineers of ISRO/Department of Space in Writ Petition (C) No. 29358, 29710 and 31525/2004 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and in Writ Petition No. 207/2012 before the Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand. The said Hon'ble Courts had directed that the two increments granted to Scientists/Engineers- ‘SD’, Scientist/Engineers-‘SE’, Scientist/Engineers-‘SF’ and Scientist/Engineers-‘SG’ with effect from 01.01.1996 shall be treated as pay for payment of Dearness Allowance, House Rent Allowance and Pension and Pensionary benefits. The said judgments were challenged by the Department of Space before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition Nos. 555- 560/2008 and Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No. 18942/2013, which came to be dismissed. Review Petition filed against the same also came to be dismissed. Subsequently, taking into account the orders issued by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and Uttarakhand and in consultation with the Ministry of Finance, the Department of Space had decided to implement the said directions to all similarly placed employees. Accordingly, the basic pension/family pension of all pensioners who had retired from service on or after 01.01.1996 from the grades of Scientist/Engineer-‘SD’, Scientist/ Engineer-‘SE’, Scientist/Engineer-‘SF’, Scientist/Engineer-‘SG’ has been revised taking into account the two additional increments granted to them. Given that the identified grades were determined based on reasonable classification and for the sole purpose of encouraging, retaining and motivating Scientists/Engineers, the said additional increments were not extended to the higher grade for the reasons that the higher grade Scientists/Engineers (Grade 'G' and 'H') are more experienced and fall under a higher pay scale. However, the department had taken up the matter for grant of two additional increments on promotion to Scientist/Engineer 'G' grade in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 18400-22400 vide letter dated 17.11.2007 to the Cabinet Secretariat. After examining the matter in consultation with the Department of Expenditure, Cabinet Secretariat rejected the request to include Grade 'G' and Grade 'H' under the Memorandum dated 03.02.1999. Hence, Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 had no scope to extend the policy to employees such as the applicants.

5. Learned ASG submitted that the two additional increments were incentives attached to certain identified cadres to attract, motivate, inspire and retain and upon recognising the distinctiveness of cadres. The higher pension drawn by a few officials due to the specific reasons will not enable a person who retired in ‘G’ grade to claim stepping up of pay with reference to a junior in ‘SG’ grade. Further, under merit promotion scheme being followed by DOS/ISRO for Scientists/Engineers, the concept of junior/senior is not applicable. The applicants in the grade of Scientist/Engineer ‘G’ are not covered by the OM dated 03.02.1999 for grant of two additional increments and hence they are not eligible for the same from the date of their promotion to the grade of Scientist/Engineer ‘G’ from the lower grade of Scientist/Engineer ‘SG’.

6. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar reported in AIR (1952) SC 75, learned ASG submitted that to pass the reasonable classification test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from

others and that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. The incentives given to identified grades was a classification based on distinct intelligible criteria and with a rational nexus to the distinct object sought to be achieved. Whilst two additional increments were given to lower/middle level Scientist/Engineer-‘SD’ to ‘SG’ to retain young talent, special pay to Scientist/Engineer was given to ensure higher pay in promotional post at same Level 14. The two additional increments were incentives attached to a certain identified grade and only an incumbent who occupies the post in that grade can claim the benefit. Reliance is placed on the following decisions:

1. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. vs. G. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors., (1989) 2 SCC 290,

2. Union of India and Ors. vs. P. Jagdish and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 176,

3. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. vs. M. Pandurang and Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 11,

4. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. vs. V. Veera Raghavan, (1999) 9 SCC 266.

7. Justifying the OM dated 03.02.1999, learned counsel submitted that the clarificatory OM dated 22.05.2014 is to be read in light of the merit promotion scheme and other prevailing service conditions. Further, learned counsel submitted that the order passed by Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal and the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala referred to supra are not binding precedents. Emphasis was made on the dismissal of Special Leave Petition in limine solely on the ground of delay against the order dated 30.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, upholding the decision of the Ernakulam Bench. In support of this proposition that the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine does not constitute a binding precedent, reliance is placed to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kunhayammed vs. State of Kerala reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 and State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Ors. reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770. Neither the Ernakulam Bench nor the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala considered the relevant issue concerning the vires of the OM dated 03.02.1999, in light of the established 'reasonable classification' test. As such, the said orders/judgments cannot be followed by this Tribunal even as persuasive value or as identical or comparable issue.

8. Referring to the provisions of Fundamental Rule 22, learned counsel argued that the stepping up of pay on promotion can be done only when both the junior and senior officers belong to the same cadre, and the post in which they have been promoted or appointed should be identical and in the same cadre, the scales of pay of lower and higher post in which they are entitled to draw pay should be identical. In the merit promotion scheme, there is no relevance to the concept of seniority and an employee who is senior in the lower grade may draw more pay than a junior meritorious employee who is in the higher grade. Special Pay of Rs. 2000/- was given to Scientist/Engineer ‘H’ grade whereas in DAE, the special pay was given in Scientist ‘G’ grade. In ISRO/DOS, the Scientists/Engineers in ‘H’ grade was promotional grade of Scientist/Engineer ‘G’ at the same 14 pay level. Accordingly, learned counsel seeks for dismissal of the OA.

9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. The undisputed facts are that the Department of Space sanctioned two additional increments to Scientists/Engineers in the grade ‘SD’, ‘SE’, ‘SF’ and ‘SG’ with effect from 01.01.1996. It provides incentives for Scientists/Engineers of all three Department i.e., Department of Space, Department of Atomic Energy and

Defence Research and Development Organization, keeping in view the role played by them in the development of high technology and systems for strategic applications. It is in order to attract, retain, inspire and motivate them to give their best contributions, two additional increments to Scientists (Recruitees/Promotees) in pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200 (SO ‘D’), Rs. 12000-16500 (SO ‘E’), Rs. 14300-18300 (SO ‘F’), Rs. 16400-20000 (SO ‘G’) vide memo dated 03.02.1999 was extended after their normal pay fixation. It is the grievance of the applicants that no two additional increments to the grade of Scientists/Engineers 'G' in the scale of Rs. 18400- 22400 has been given which caused anomaly inasmuch as seniors of Scientist 'G' grade begun to draw less emoluments as compared to juniors in the feeder grade of ‘SG’ (Rs. 16400-20000).

11. The issue involved herein has been extensively considered by CAT, Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 137/2016 dated 28.05.2018 (M.M. Aprem and Ors. vs. The Secretary and Chairman, Department of Space and Others), wherein it is observed thus: “14. The case involves disparity in pensions of a section of employees who retired as Scientist/Engineers-G grade from various institutions under the Department of Space. As an incentive for the meritorious service to the country at large, two increments were ordered to be given to various categories in the scientific establishments. However, these incentives stopped at the level of Grade-F, and Scientists/Engineers of Grade G&H were excluded. Subsequently, in compliance with various court orders on the subject, DOS had taken up the matter for rectification of the said anomaly. This was also necessitated on account of the Council of Ministers decision of 2007. From the documents and pleadings, this Tribunal sees that a certain amount of misunderstanding has occurred in the subsequent steps that were taken. The authorities were under the mistaken notion that a special pay of Rs.2000 was granted to G & H categories. this was not correct as the special pay had been allowed only for H category. Thus, while Scientists/Engineers belonging to H category were assuaged the grievance of G Grade personnel continued to fester.

15. It is a matter of concern that despite categoric orders of even the Hon'ble Apex Court on the inherent principle thereof, personnel who retired from a higher grade are being paid less pension than those who were their juniors and exited from a junior grade. The reply provided in the Office Memorandum at Annexure A5 that the disparity “exists even otherwise now. The consequent impact cannot be rectified", brings no credit to the respondent organization. This Tribunal concludes that the anomaly has to be urgently rectified. The prayer in the OA is allowed in full. All consequential benefits are to be allowed to the applicants and related orders passed within three months of the receipt of the order. No costs.”

12. Against the said order, respondents preferred OP (CAT) No. 199/2018 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, which was connected with other similar matters and by a common order dated 30.05.2024 the said Original Petitions were dismissed, confirming the order passed by Ernakulam Bench. The relevant paragraphs read as follows:

“12. A perusal of Ext.P5 order would show that the Tribunal has proceeded on a clear premises that the anomaly involves the disparity in pension between senior Scientists/Engineers (Grade G and H) when compared to the Scientists in (Grade SF and SG) who are juniors compared to the Scientists/Engineers (Grade G and H). The fact that anomaly persist directly in conflict with the cabinet decision in October 2007 and that the High Court of Patna under Annexure A6 judgment in Civil Jurisdiction Case No.10757/2010 directed the anomaly to be rectified and held that a person in the higher grade cannot draw less remuneration or less pension than who was in the junior grade.

13. An incentive for a meritorious service to the country at large has resulted in an ordering of two increments to various categories in the scientific establishment. However, these incentives were stopped at the level-F and Scientists/Engineers (Grade G and H) were excluded. Subsequently, in compliance with various court orders on the subject, the Department of Space have taken up the case for rectification. When the Department of Space took up the case for rectification of these anomalies, a decision was made in 2007. From the documents and pleadings, the Tribunal found that there existed some misunderstanding on the steps that were taken by the authorities who were under the mistaken notion that the special pay of Rs.2,000/- was granted to G and H categories and the same was not correct since special pay was allowed for H category. Thus, the Scientists/Engineers belonging to H Category were redressed their grievance, the grievance of Scientists/Engineers in G grade continued to fester.

14. It is pertinent to note that the reply provided in the Office Memorandum as Annexure A5 clearly admits that the disparity exists even now and the consequential impact cannot be rectified. It is in the above premises that the Tribunal proceeded to grant the relief sought for in the Original Application.

15. In our considered view, the applicants before the Tribunal who had brought laurels to our country and were instrumental in developing the programs in the space organization allowing our country to reach the heights in par with the developed

countries were thoroughly neglected by the Department of Space. When there is a clear admission to the reply to Annexure A5 that the disparity even though existed, its impact could not be rectified shows the narrow mind of the authorities in rectifying the grievances of the Scientists at Grade G category.

16. It is also trite law that a senior pensioner cannot draw less pension in the same grade than his junior is drawing. Viewed in the above perspective, we are in full agreement with the findings of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench that the disparity as referred above should be rectified by the Department of Space.

In that view of the matter, we find no justifiable grounds to interfere in the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in allowing the Original Petitions. Accordingly, the O.P.(CAT)s are dismissed. No order as to costs.”

12A. Challenge made by the respondents to the said order before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 62073/2025 came to be dismissed on the ground of delay vide order dated 08.12.2025, whereby the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) Nos. 199/2018 and allied matters has reached finality.

13. Incentives, namely, special pay to Scientists/Engineers 'H' in the scale of pay of Rs. 18400-22400 and additional increments for Scientist/Engineers in the scale of pay of Rs. 10000- 15200; Rs. 12000-16500; Rs. 14300-18300 and Rs. 16400-20000 are issued vide OM dated 03.02.1999 by the Department of

Space, Government of India. Learned ASG made an endeavour to justify the said OM based on intelligible differentia. In other words, justifying the classification as reasonable, not being arbitrary or discriminatory, thereby avoiding violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

14. It is well-settled that once the validity of a provision has been decided by a competent court, it cannot be reopened in a subsequent petition on a new ground. Strict finality has to be attached to the judicial decisions. Allowing concluded cases to be reopened in subsequent OAs simply because a new legal point is raised would lead to chaos in the administration of justice. In the present case, the principles of parity in service jurisprudence is the legal principle rooted in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents having suffered an adverse order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala challenged unsuccessfully before the Hon’ble Apex Court cannot raise new grounds or fresh pleas in a subsequent proceeding/application if those grounds were available at the time of earlier litigation. Any matter that might and ought to have been made a ground of defence in the former proceedings is deemed to have been a matter directly and substantially in issue. The respondents cannot split its case and bring up fresh grounds in a second round of litigation to bypass an earlier binding judgement. Allowing a party - especially the State with its extensive legal machinery – to keep making new grounds in successive petitions after failing to overturn the initial order would destroy the finality of judicial decisions. Reasonable classification as explained in Anwar Ali Sarkar, supra, stipulates two conditions namely, that (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia and (ii) that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In the present case, the anomaly found and established is with respect to the inherent principle of personnel who retired from a higher grade being paid less pension than those who were their juniors and exited from the junior grade.

15. 'SG' grade is admittedly the feeder grade from which the applicants were promoted to grade 'G'. The comparison pleaded by the applicants is not based on inter se seniority within the single grade, but upon the admitted grade hierarchy grade 'G' and 'H' being higher than the feeder grade 'SG'. It is precisely this hierarchical comparison that the respondents themselves drew and admitted as anomalous at Sl. No. 5 of the clarificatory OM dated 22.05.2014.

Hence, the arguments of the learned ASG regarding the reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia must fail. This argument cannot efface the express admission of the anomaly subsequently made by the respondents themselves in the clarificatory OM dated 22.05.2014. An administrative communication dated 07.07.2009 (Annexure R2) cannot prevail over a judicial pronouncement of 2018, affirmed in 2024 and 2025. Structural and admitted cause of the anomaly, namely, the grant of two additional increments to the feeder grade without any neutralising measure for the seniors is glaring. The respondents having suffered before the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra, the applicants cannot be discriminated from the employees to whom benefits have been extended in terms of CAT, Ernakulam Bench in M.M. Aprem, supra.

16. Absolutely there is no distinguishing feature, factual or legal with that of the employees situated in M.M. Aprem, supra. The argument that the classification granting two increments is based only to grades 'SD' to 'SG' on intelligible differentia would indeed perpetuate the anomaly admitted in the clarificatory OM

dated 22.05.2014. While the applicants do not assail the original incentive to the feeder grades, the failure to neutralise its discriminatory effect upon the seniors has no rational nexus with any legitimate object and is squarely hit by Articles 14 and 16.

16A. In G. Sreenivasa Rao, supra, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed thus: “14. We do not agree with the High Court/Tribunal. Doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be put in a strait-jacket. Although the doctrine finds its place in the Directive Principles but this Court, in various judgments, has authoritatively pronounced that right to 'equal pay for equal work' is an accompaniment of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless the abstract doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be read in Article

14. Reasonable classification, based on intelligible criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is permissible.

15. "Equal pay for equal work" does not mean that all the members of a cadre must receive the same pay packet irrespective of their seniority, source of recruitment, educational qualifications and various other incidents of service. When a single running pay scale is provided in a cadre the constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal work is satisfied. Ordinarily grant of higher pay to a junior would ex facie be arbitrary but if there are justifiable grounds in doing so the seniors cannot invoke the equality doctrine. To illustrate, when Pay fixation is done under valid statutory rules/executive instructions, when persons recruited from different sources are given pay protection, when promotee from lower cadre or a transferee from another cadre is given pay protection, when a senior is stopped at efficiency bar, when advance increments are given for experience/passing a test/acquiring higher qualifications or incentive for efficiency; are some of the eventualities when a junior may be drawing higher pay than his seniors without violating the mandate of equal pay for equal work. The differentia on these grounds would be based on intelligible criteria which has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. We do not therefore find any good ground to sustain the judgments of the High Court/Tribunal.”

The aforesaid ratio has been reiterated in M. Pandurang and Ors., supra, as well as in V. Veera Raghavan, supra.

17. This legal proposition covers the cases where parity of scale of pay to the seniors working in the same cadre is concerned, but the applicants herein are working in a higher cadre than that of their juniors but getting lesser pay/pension compared to their juniors.

18. In P. Jagdish, supra, the respondents-employees were working as Senior Clerks and while working so they were promoted to the post of Head Clerks. Under the orders of the competent authority 10% of the posts of Senior Clerks were identified to be the posts involving arduous nature of work and those of the incumbents who were being posted to those identified posts were getting special pay of Rs. 35/- per month. The respondent employees who were not working against identified posts of Senior Clerks promoted to the post of Head Clerk claimed that their juniors who were posted against the identified posts of Senior Clerks used to get Rs. 35/- as special pay until they were promoted as Head Clerks thereby they were getting higher salary than those who have been promoted earlier. Hence, on equitable consideration, the salary of the earlier promoted Head Clerks should be stepped up so that they would not get less than what their juniors are getting. In that context, it was observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court that a special pay of Rs. 35/- per month is attached to certain identified posts in the category of Senior Clerks and therefore, only those who would be posted against those identified posts can claim the said special pay. In the present set of facts, no posts involving arduous nature of work are carved out like 10% of the posts of Senior Clerks identified to be the posts involving arduous nature of work and those of the incumbents who were being posted to those identified posts were getting special pay of Rs. 35/- per month. Moreover, this issue being already covered against the respondents in M.M. Aprem, supra, we find no reason to deviate from the earlier decision of this Tribunal confirmed by the jurisdictional High Court of Kerala, SLP against which being dismissed.

19. It is significant to note that the Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 207/2012 (DD: 03.08.2012), considering the identical issue held thus: “Except Dr. A.K. Tiwari, who has expired and who is represented in the instant writ petition by his wife Dr. Meera Tiwari, all the other petitioners are alive. Dr. A.K. Tiwari, a Scientist of Indian Space Research Organization died in harness. Except petitioner Nos. 6, 9, 10 and 14, all are retired. It appears that in relation to two increments and postponement of one allowance, people, similarly situated to that of the petitioners and Dr. A.K. Tiwari, approached the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and succeeded before the said High Court. The matter was taken unsuccessfully before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Petitioners and Dr. A.K. Tiwari, accordingly, asked for similar treatment. The same having been denied, present writ petition has been filed.

2. Since the claim is on account of remuneration payable to the petitioners and Dr. A.K. Tiwari and since there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of payment of remuneration to the same class of employees, we direct the respondents herein to implement the judgment and the order of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court also in favour of the petitioners and Dr. A.K. Tiwari.

3. With the direction as above, the writ petition is disposed of. It is hopped and expected that the respondents will comply with the directions as above, as quickly as possible but not later than three months from the date of service of a copy of this order upon the Indian Space Research Organisation.”

20. The said judgment has been upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No. 18942/2013 even on merit. It is observed that in view of the fact that the order passed by the Kerala High Court relied upon by the Uttarakhand High Court has been left undisturbed by the Apex Court in SLP(C) Nos.555-560 of 2008, hence, no fault can be found with the impugned order. The Petition for Special Leave to Appeal has been dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merit. The said judgment reads thus: “Heard Mr. Mohan Parasaran, learned Additional Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the order passed by the Kerala High Court relied upon by the Uttarakhand High Court has been left undisturbed by this Court in SLP(C) Nos.555-560 of 2008, we cannot find any fault with the impugned order. Moreover there is a delay of 305 days in filing this petition. The special leave petition is dismissed on the ground of delay as also on merit.”

In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the order passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal in M.M. Aprem, supra, deserves to be followed.

21. Resultantly, we pass the following:

:ORDER:

Respondents are directed to extend the benefits to the applicants as it was extended to similarly situated pensioners by the coordinate Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 137/2016 dated 28.05.2018 (M.M. Aprem and Ors. vs. The Secretary and Chairman, Department of Space and

Ors.) which has reached finality on dismissal of OP (CAT) No. 199/2018 by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala and dismissal of SLP (C) Diary No. 62073/2025 dated 08.12.2025 by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Respondents are directed to rectify the pay/pension anomaly of applicants by remedial step of grant of two increments to Scientists/Engineers in ‘G’ and ‘H’ Grade according to their eligibility with all consequential benefits treating the two additional increments as ‘pay’ for all purposes including pension by revising the pension and terminal benefits.

Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, in any event not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

OA stands disposed of in terms of above. No order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/ksk/