M P SINGH SENGAR vs GEOLOGICAL SURVEY OF INDIA on 27 October 2026

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :- The applicant joined Geological Survey of India (GSI) as Assistant Chemist (Group B Gazetted) at Mangalore, on 31.05.1983 and was later transferred from Mangalore to Jaipur on 31.05.1986. After rendering about seven years of service, following UPSC selection, the applicant joined as Chemist (Junior), an Organised Group ‘A’ Junior Time Scale post, on 09.05.1991. Between 06.02.1995 and 23.02.1998, he served on deputation as Senior Analyst in the Ministry of Finance before being promoted to Chemist (Senior) in Senior Time Scale on 24.02.1998. DOP&T then issued an OM regarding formal promotions on 17.09.1998.

2. The applicant was transferred from Jaipur to Chandigarh on 01.08.2008. On 31.12.2008, he received a promotion order to the post of Director (Geochemistry) JAG in PB-3 Grade Pay Rs. 7600 with a transfer to Patna, where he joined on 12.01.2009 after availing joining time. The DOP&T issued OM No. AB.14017/64/2008-Estt.(RR) setting guidelines for Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Organised Group ‘A’ Services on 24.04.2009, followed by OM No. AB.14017/61/2008-Estt.(RR)/Pt. on 15.12.2009

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

revising eligibility requirements for promotion to SAG and HAG. On 02.12.2010, the Ministry of Mines issued letter No. 27/118/2008-M-II advising GSI to grant NFU as per revised eligibility criteria pending service rule amendments. The applicant was later appointed on the post of Director (Chemistry) NFSG in PB-4 Grade Pay Rs. 8700.

3. The DOP&T issued OM No. AB.14017/47/2011- Estt.(RR) on 01.08.2012, clarifying that officers not meeting eligibility on 1st January are to be considered for NFU w.e.f. 1st April of the next vacancy year. On 10.12.2012, DOP&T issued OM No. AB.14017/30/2011-Estt.(RR) noting that a 1993 batch IAS officer was posted to the Centre as Joint Secretary on 19.11.2012, thereby covering 1991 batch Organised Group A officers for NFU. The crucial eligibility date for calendar year vacancy 2013 was 01.01.2013. New Recruitment Rules for GSI Chemical Service Group A were notified on 28.06.2013. Shortly after, DOP&T issued an OM dated 24.07.2013 showing a 1994 batch IAS officer posted as Joint Secretary, covering 1992 and earlier batches for NFU.

4. The applicant superannuated from service as Director (Chemistry) NFSG on 31.07.2013. On 23.05.2014, GSI granted NFU in DDG grade w.e.f. 01.04.2011 to Dr. U. K.

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

Mishra based on 2010 recruitment rules. The DOP&T issued OM No. 22011/6/2013-Estt.(D) on 28.05.2014 clarifying the 3-month gap between the crucial eligibility date (1st January) and the vacancy year commencement date (1st April). On 14.09.2015, the respondents issued an office order granting NFU w.e.f. 01.04.2014 to batchmates of the applicant while excluding the applicant as he was retired.

5. The applicant filed OA No. 291/00647/2015 before the CAT Jaipur Bench, which was allowed to be withdrawn on 28.07.2016 with liberty to file a fresh Application. He then filed OA No. 291/00675/2016 on 24.08.2016. The Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal passed an order in a related service matter on 26.10.2016, and DOPT issued OM No. I-11019/5/2017-CRD on 03.04.2017 explicitly listing GSI Chemical Service Group A as an Organised Group A Service. On 11.12.2018, the CAT Jaipur Bench allowed the withdrawal of OA No. 291/00675/2016 to pursue administrative representation. The applicant submitted a representations to the Director General, GSI, on 27.12.2018 and on 02.07.2019, and the Ministry of Mines advised GSI via PG Portal to consider representations of retired officers as per DOP&T guidelines.

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

6. The Applicant filed OA No. 741/2019 before CAT Jaipur Bench on 02.12.2019 (re-numbered as OA No. 1665/2022 upon transfer to Principal Bench, New Delhi) seeking the following relief(s) :- “i) That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) to the applicant in the pay scale PB-4 and grade pay of Rs.10000/- w.e.f. 01.01.2013 as per DOPT office memorandum dated 10.12.2012 (Annex.-A/13) with retrospective effect and may further be directed to pay all the consequential benefits and interest till date.

OR

That the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the benefit of Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) in the pay scale PB-4 and grade pay of Rs.10000/- w.e.f. 28.06.2013 as per DOPT office memorandum dated 1st August, 2012 (Annex.- A/4)& Govt. of India notification dated 28th June, 2013 with retrospective effect and may further be directed to pay all the consequential benefits and interest till date.

ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to modify the pension of the applicant accordingly from the date of superannuation after granting him the benefits of Non Functional Upgradation (NFU) from the effective date with retrospective effect and to pay the arrears accruing therein with all consequential benefits and interest till date.

iii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble tribunal deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may be granted to the applicant.”

7. In addition to the pleadings in the OA, the applicant has filed additional affidavit/reply to addition affidavit and written synopsis reiterating his claim in the OA. The applicant who appears in person submitted that that the

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

GSI Chemical Service has continuously been an Organised Group A Service since the DOP&T notification dated 31.07.1982. The applicant completed the qualifying service of 4 years on the post of Director (Geochemistry) JAG w.e.f. 30.12.2012 calculating from the promotion order date i.e. 31.12.2008, rendering him eligible for NFU w.e.f. 01.01.2013. Alternately, counting 4 years residency from his joining date of 12.01.2009, the applicant completed 4 years of service on 11.01.2013 and became eligible for NFU w.e.f. 01.04.2013 as per para 15 of DOP&T OM dated 01.08.2012 prior to his superannuation on 31.07.2013. Furthermore, DOP&T OM dated 10.12.2012 covered 1991 batch Organised Group A officers for NFU upon the central posting of a 1993 batch IAS officer on 19.11.2012, and the Ministry of Mines instructed GSI on 02.12.2010 to grant NFU benefits pending service rules amendment. The applicant submitted that superannuation on 31.07.2013 cannot deprive him of NFU benefits accrued during active service as per para 5 of DOP&T OM dated 25.09.2009, making the denial of NFU to him while extending it to batchmates vide order dated 14.09.2015 which is discriminatory and arbitrary.

8. Pursuant to notice, the respondents filed their reply opposing the OA. In addition to the counter affidavit, the

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

respondents have also filed additional affidavit/reply to additional affidavit filed by the applicant and written synopsis maintaining their stand. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was not eligible for the grant of NFU to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in Pay Band-4 Grade Pay Rs. 10000 on the crucial eligibility date of 01.01.2013 because the requisite residency period was not completed. NFU is governed strictly by empanelment, residency criteria, and promotional norms mandated under DOP&T OM dated 24.04.2009. It is submitted that as per the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Deputy Director General (Chemistry), the individual should be superintending chemist with eight years of regular service in the grade including NFSG i.e. Director (Chemistry) or Officers with 17 years of regular service in Group ‘A’ posts in the service out of which at least four years regular service should be in the grade of Superintending Chemist (including service rendered in the NFSG of the JAG i.e. Director (Chemistry) and the said criterion are to be met as on 01.01.2013, as per the DOP&T OM. The applicant has completed 17 years of regular service in Group ‘A’ cadre as on 08.05.2008, whereas he has not completed the mandatory four years regular service in the JAG level as on

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

01.01.2013 as his date for promotion to the post of Director Geochemistry is 12.01.2009. He has completed the same on 11.01.2013 and has not fulfilled the promotional norms as on 01.01.2013 for the post of Deputy Director General (Chemistry) and is not eligible for consideration for NFU for the vacancy year 2013-14. The rules for formal promotion requirements under DOPT OM dated 17.09.1998 and promotional norms apply directly for the grant of NFU benefits. Since the applicant superannuated on 31.07.2013 prior to fulfilling the required eligibility conditions under the applicable service rules for financial year 2013-14, he cannot be granted the benefit. This is reinforced by Dr. U. K. Mishra speaking order dated 24.12.2024, which confirms that an officer must fulfil all promotional eligibility conditions and residency periods in the feeder grade as on the crucial date without any relaxation.

9. In support of their contentions, the respondents have relied upon the order of the Tribunal passed in OA No.2159/2022 dated 30.05.2023, wherein it has been held that no promotion can be granted with retrospective effect.

10. In rejoinder, the applicant submitted that the respondents incorrectly stated in Tribunal order dated 08.01.2026 that the date of posting of the 1993 batch IAS

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

officer was 19.11.2013 instead of the correct date of 19.11.2012. The respondents wrongly confused the criteria for formal vacancy-based promotion under OM dated 17.09.1998 with the non-vacancy linked NFU scheme introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2006. In terms of DOP&T OM dated 01.08.2012 and 28.05.2014, an officer completing residency between 02.01.2012 and 31.03.2013 stands eligible for NFU w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The applicant completed over 22 years of Group A service and more than 4 years and 7 months of continuous service in JAG/NFSG prior to retirement on 31.07.2013. The speaking order dated 24.12.2024 in Dr. U. K. Mishra’s case is clearly distinguishable because the applicant held the feeder post in a regular capacity well within the eligibility period. Additionally, the Ministry of Mines directive dated 02.07.2019 explicitly directed the consideration of retired officers' claims as per DOP&T guidelines.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings available on record as well as perused the Written synopsis/Additional Affidavits and replies thereto filed by the respective parties.

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

Issues

12. Having regard to the pleadings and the submissions, the following questions arise for determination:

(i) whether the applicant, a member of the GSI Chemical Service Group 'A' of the 1991 batch, was eligible for Non- Functional Upgradation (NFU) to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) in PB-4 with Grade Pay Rs. 10000/- under DoP&T OM dated 24.04.2009 before his superannuation on 31.07.2013, and if so, from which date;

(ii) whether the four years' regular service in the Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) is to be counted from the date of the promotion order (31.12.2008) or from the date on which the applicant assumed charge of the promotional post (12.01.2009);

(iii) whether an officer who completes the residency period after the crucial date of 1st January can be made to wait until 1st April of the next vacancy year, and whether his superannuation in the interregnum defeats his claim; and

(iv) the relief, if any, to which the applicant is entitled.

Undisputed position

13. Several facts are not in dispute. The applicant entered the Organised Group 'A' service as Chemist (Junior) on

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

09.05.1991 and belongs to the 1991 batch. He was promoted to the JAG as Director by order dated 31.12.2008, which also transferred him from Chandigarh to Patna, and he joined at Patna on 12.01.2009 after availing joining time. He held the JAG, and later its Non-Functional Selection Grade as Director (Chemistry) in PB-4 with Grade Pay Rs. 8700/-, until he superannuated on 31.07.2013. He had completed 17 years of regular service in Group 'A' posts on 08.05.2008. The respondents themselves state, in their reply, that he completed four years of regular service in the JAG on 11.01.2013.

14. It is also not disputed that the GSI Chemical Service Group 'A' is an Organised Group 'A' Service to which the NFU scheme applies. The DoP&T OM dated 03.04.2017 lists it as such, and the respondents have not contended otherwise. The question of the organised status of the technical streams of the Geological Survey of India has in any event been settled by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union of India v. Kanhaiya Singh, W.P.(C) 16769/2004 with W.P.(C) 1541/2012, decided on 28.01.2026, where it was held: "As noted hereinabove, since 1982, it had been recognised that GSI is an Organized Group 'A' Service." (para 45)

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

15. As to the date on which the 1991 batch became due for consideration, DoP&T OM dated 10.12.2012 [Annexure A/13] records that the first officer of the 1993 batch of the IAS was posted at the Centre as Joint Secretary on 19.11.2012, so that officers of the 1991 batch and earlier of the Organised Group 'A' Services became due for consideration for NFU to the SAG with effect from that date. The reference to 19.11.2013 in the submissions noted in the order dated 08.01.2026 is an evident error and is corrected accordingly. On 19.11.2012, however, the applicant had not completed four years in the JAG on any computation, and he could not have been granted NFU on that date.

The scheme of NFU

16. NFU was introduced on the recommendation of the 6th CPC to secure batch-wise parity between the IAS and the Organised Group 'A' Services. Under para 1(i) of DoP&T OM No. AB.14017/64/2008-Estt.(RR) dated 24.04.2009, whenever an IAS officer is posted at the Centre in a particular grade, officers of the Organised Group 'A' Services belonging to batches senior by two years or more who have not been promoted to that grade are to be granted that grade on a non-functional basis from the date of

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

posting of the IAS officer. The grant is governed by the terms and conditions in Annexure-I to the OM. Two of them are material as reproduced by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Shri Kant & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) 13600/2019 and connected matters, decided on 01.07.2026, they read: "All the prescribed eligibility criteria and promotional norms including 'benchmark' for upgradation to a particular grade pay would have to be met at the time of screening for grant of higher pay scale under these orders." (Annexure-I, para 3)

"Grant of higher pay scale on the non-functional basis would be from the date of posting of the 1st officer belonging to the particular batch of IAS officer at the Centre. In case of any delay in the issue of order, financial benefits under these orders will be given from the due date." (Annexure-I, para 6)

17. Two features of the scheme follow from these provisions. First, the officer must satisfy the eligibility conditions prescribed for promotion to the grade, including the residency period in the feeder grade; batch parity alone does not suffice. Secondly, NFU is not a promotion. It is a financial upgradation that carries no change of post, and the scheme itself contemplates that it will operate from a past date, namely the due date, with financial benefits flowing from that date even where the order is issued later.

The eligibility condition

18. The eligibility for promotion to the SAG prescribed by DoP&T OM dated 15.12.2009 is that the officer should be

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

in the JAG with eight years' regular service in the grade including the NFSG, or should have 17 years' regular service in Group 'A' posts in the service out of which at least four years' regular service is in the JAG including service in the NFSG. The Ministry of Mines, by letter No. 27/118/2008-M-II dated 02.12.2010, advised the GSI to grant NFU in accordance with these revised criteria pending amendment of the service rules, and the Recruitment Rules for the GSI Chemical Service Group 'A' notified on 28.06.2013, while the applicant was still in service, are stated by the respondents to embody the same condition. The respondents apply this very test in their reply. There is therefore no dispute as to the yardstick. In Shri Kant (supra) the Hon'ble High Court held that entitlement must be judged by the rules in force when the officer superannuated: "In the absence of any such amendment, the entitlement of Petitioners 1 and 2 to NFFU in terms of the DOPT OM dated 24 April 2009 has to be decided on the basis of the RRs as they existed on the date when the said petitioners superannuated." (para 57)

19. Judged by the condition in force on 31.07.2013, the applicant satisfied the requirement of 17 years in Group 'A' on 08.05.2008. The only question is when he completed four years of regular service in the JAG.

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

Counting of JAG service: 31.12.2008 or 12.01.2009

20. The applicant contends that the four years should be reckoned from the date of the promotion order, 31.12.2008, so that they were complete on 30.12.2012 and he was eligible on the crucial date of 01.01.2013. We are unable to accept this. Regular service in a grade commences when the officer assumes the duties of the post. The order dated 31.12.2008 promoted the applicant and transferred him to Patna, and he assumed charge there only on 12.01.2009. The period of joining time before that date was not service rendered in the JAG. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government of West Bengal & Ors. v. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., 2024 INSC 906, held, as quoted by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Shukla, W.P.(C) 16274/2024, decided on 24.09.2025 (para 29): "The legal precedents discussed above establish that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation."

21. To count service from 31.12.2008 would be to antedate the applicant's JAG promotion by twelve days, which is impermissible. The applicant completed four years of regular service in the JAG on 11.01.2013, as the respondents themselves state, and became eligible on

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

12.01.2013. The first limb of relief (i), seeking NFU with effect from 01.01.2013, therefore fails. The crucial date and the deferral to 1st April

22. The respondents' case is that eligibility for NFU is to be tested on the crucial date of 1st January preceding the vacancy year, by applying the instructions on the crucial date for promotion contained in DoP&T OM dated 17.09.1998. Since the applicant was short of four years in the JAG by eleven days on 01.01.2013, he was not eligible for the vacancy year 2013-14; he could only be considered for the vacancy year 2014-15 commencing on 01.04.2014, by which date he had retired. This is also the basis on which his batchmates were granted NFU with effect from 01.04.2014 by the office order dated 14.09.2015. The respondents also rely on the clarification issued by DoP&T on 01.08.2012, which, in substance, provides that an officer who does not meet the eligibility requirement as on 1st January of the corresponding vacancy year is to be considered in the subsequent vacancy year on completion of the qualifying service, with effect from 1st April, that is, the first day of the next vacancy year.

23. The applicant reads the same clarification differently. According to him, the vacancy year corresponding to the

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

coverage of his batch on 19.11.2012 was 2012-13; he completed the qualifying service within that year, on 11.01.2013, and the clarification therefore entitles him to NFU from the first day of the next vacancy year, 01.04.2013, which falls within his service.

24. It is not necessary for us to choose between these two readings of the clarification, for the question is now governed by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in Shri Kant (supra). In that case the respondents had granted NFU to officers of the CRPF only from 1st April of the year following the year in which they completed the residency period in the feeder grade. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court held: "That said, however, we see no justification for the respondents granting NFFU to Petitioner 1 and Petitioner 2 only from the first day of April of the year following the year in which they satisfied the requirement of two years' residency in the SAG. There is nothing in the DOPT OM dated 24 April 2009 which justifies postponement of the date from which NFFU would be granted to the first day of April of the year following the year in which the officer was entitled thereto." (para 60)

"Clause 3 of Annexure-I of the OM required the officers to fulfill the prescribed eligibility criteria and promotional norms for promotion to the grade in which NFFU was sought. That requirement was satisfied in the case of Petitioner 1 on 10 July 2010 and in the case of Petitioner 2 on 8 July 2008. The said petitioners, therefore, became ipso facto entitled to NFFU in the HAG scale from those dates." (para 61)

25. The Hon'ble High Court accordingly advanced the dates of NFU of those officers from 1st April of the following year to the very dates on which they completed the

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

residency period. The ratio is that, once the batch of an officer has been covered by the posting of the corresponding IAS batch at the Centre, the officer becomes entitled to NFU on the date on which he satisfies the eligibility condition of Annexure-I, para 3, and the parent OM dated 24.04.2009 does not permit that date to be postponed to the commencement of the next vacancy year. That decision binds this Tribunal.

26. We have considered whether the instructions relied upon by the respondents take the case out of the ratio in Shri Kant. In our view they do not. The OM dated 17.09.1998 regulates the crucial date for determining eligibility for promotion against vacancies of a vacancy year, to be filled through a Departmental Promotion Committee. NFU is not vacancy based. It is triggered by an external event, namely the posting of an IAS batch at the Centre, and the date from which it operates is fixed by para 1(i) and Annexure-I, para 6 of the OM dated 24.04.2009. The clarification dated 01.08.2012, which is an executive clarification of that OM, cannot be read so as to postpone an entitlement that the parent OM confers from the date of eligibility. Indeed, DoP&T itself, in OM No. 22011/6/2013- Estt(D) dated 28.05.2014, acknowledged the anomaly

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

produced by the three month gap between a 1st January crucial date and a vacancy year commencing on 1st April: "Due to this gap, for any such vacancy year, even if the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting is held in time as per the Model Calendar, there is always a possibility of few officers not fulfilling the eligibility criteria as on the crucial date of eligibility, though they are fulfilling the same as on the date of commencement of the vacancy year." (para 2)

27. We are conscious that the OM dated 28.05.2014 operates only from the vacancy year 2015-16 onwards (para 3 thereof), and we do not rest the applicant's entitlement on it. We refer to it only because it shows that the result for which the respondents contend, under which an officer who completes the residency period on 11.01.2013 and is in service when the vacancy year begins on 01.04.2013 is nonetheless shut out altogether, is one that the nodal Department itself regarded as anomalous.

28. Applying Shri Kant, the applicant, whose batch stood covered from 19.11.2012, became entitled to NFU to the SAG on 12.01.2013, the date on which he completed four years of regular service in the JAG. That date fell more than six months before his superannuation on 31.07.2013.

Effect of superannuation

29. The respondents' further objection is that the applicant had retired before the office order dated

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

14.09.2015 was issued. That is no answer to a claim whose due date falls during service. Annexure-I, para 6 of the OM dated 24.04.2009 expressly provides that where there is delay in issuing orders, financial benefits are to be given from the due date. The DoP&T clarifications of 01.08.2012 relied on by the respondents themselves also state, in substance, that retired officers who were otherwise eligible on the due date are to be considered for the upgradation. In Kanhaiya Singh (supra), an officer of the Geological Survey of India who had superannuated on 31.08.2007 was held entitled to NFU, and the Hon'ble High Court directed: "The petitioner no. 1 is held entitled to grant of the NFU in terms of the O.M. dated 24.04.2009 read with the O.M. dated 25.09.2007 of the DoP&T. The consequential benefits of the same shall be released by the respondents to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum." (para 49)

30. In Shri Kant (supra) itself, the officers who were denied NFU on account of retirement were those who had superannuated before completing the residency period in the feeder grade (paras 80 and 81). The applicant is not in that position. He completed the residency period on 11.01.2013 and remained in service till 31.07.2013.

The decisions relied upon by the respondents

31. The respondents rely on the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 2159/2022 dated 30.05.2023 for the proposition

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

that promotion cannot be granted with retrospective effect. The proposition is well settled and has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amal Satpathi (supra) and applied by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Ramesh Chandra Shukla (supra), where it was held: "Merely because vacancies exist, or that the name of the officer has been recommended by the DPC for promotion, the same will not create a right in such officer to claim promotion till it is actually granted." (para 29)

32. We have applied that principle in rejecting the applicant's plea that his JAG service should be counted from 31.12.2008. It does not, however, assist the respondents on the main question. In Ramesh Chandra Shukla, an officer of the GSI sought retrospective regular promotion to the post of Deputy Director General in order to create the residency period he needed for NFU to the next grade, and the Hon’ble High Court declined because promotion takes effect only from the date it is granted. The applicant before us seeks no antedating of any promotion. He relies only on service actually rendered in the JAG from 12.01.2009 to 31.07.2013, and he claims NFU from a date that the scheme itself fixes. NFU, as noted above, is not a promotion, and its retrospective operation from the due date is a feature of the scheme, not a departure from it.

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

33. The speaking order dated 24.12.2024 in the case of Dr. U.K. Mishra is relied upon for the proposition that all promotional eligibility conditions must be met in the feeder grade as on the crucial date, without relaxation. We have held that the eligibility conditions must be met, and the applicant is being granted NFU only from the date on which he met them. To the extent that the speaking order treats the crucial date of 1st January and the commencement of the next vacancy year as postponing an entitlement already accrued under the OM dated 24.04.2009, it cannot prevail over the law declared in Shri Kant (supra), which it does not consider.

Plea of discrimination

34. The applicant has also contended that his exclusion from the office order dated 14.09.2015, while his batchmates were granted NFU, is discriminatory. On the respondents' own approach, the batchmates were granted NFU from 01.04.2014, a date on which the applicant was no longer in service, so his exclusion from that order did not by itself amount to differential treatment of persons similarly situated. The applicant's grievance is better founded on the correct date of his own entitlement, which we have determined above. In view of that conclusion, it is

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

unnecessary to decide the plea under Article independently.

Moulding of relief

35. The applicant has prayed for NFU with effect from 01.01.2013 or, in the alternative, with effect from 28.06.2013. In his written submissions he has also pressed for 01.04.2013. The date to which he is found entitled, 12.01.2013, lies between these dates and flows from the same cause of action and the same instruments on which the OA is founded. The respondents have had full notice of the claim and have met it on merits. We, therefore, mould the relief under prayer (iii), which seeks any other relief that the Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Delay and arrears

36. Although the respondents have opposed the claim on merits, we have also considered the question of delay. The cause of action arose with the office order dated 14.09.2015. The applicant approached the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal in 2015 itself. That OA was withdrawn on 28.07.2016 with liberty to file a fresh Application, which he filed on 24.08.2016. That OA was withdrawn on

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

11.12.2018 to enable him to pursue his representation, which he submitted on 27.12.2018 and followed up on 02.07.2019, and the Ministry of Mines advised the GSI to consider representations of retired officers in accordance with DoP&T guidelines. The present OA was filed on 02.12.2019. The applicant has thus pursued his claim continuously since the cause of action arose. Further, the claim concerns pay fixation and the consequential revision of pension, which give rise to a recurring cause of action. The principle in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, under which arrears in belated claims are ordinarily restricted to three years before the filing of the proceedings, is intended to deal with claimants who sit over their rights. It has no application to an applicant who has been before this Tribunal or the authorities without break. We therefore see no reason to restrict the arrears.

Conclusion and directions

37. In view of the foregoing discussion, the OA is partly allowed in the following terms:

(a) The office order dated 14.09.2015 is set aside insofar as it excludes the applicant from the grant of NFU to the SAG.

(b) The prayer for grant of NFU with effect from 01.01.2013 is rejected.

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

(c) The respondents shall grant the applicant NFU to the Senior Administrative Grade in PB-4 with Grade Pay Rs. 10000 with effect from 12.01.2013, in terms of DoP&T OM dated 24.04.2009, subject only to his fulfilling the other conditions in Annexure-I thereto, including the benchmark, as on that date. For this purpose the respondents shall hold a review screening for the applicant within the time stipulated below.

(d) Upon such grant, the respondents shall fix the applicant's pay notionally in the upgraded scale with effect from 12.01.2013 in accordance with the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and shall pay him the arrears of pay and allowances for the period from 12.01.2013 to 31.07.2013.

(e) The respondents shall thereafter revise the applicant's pension, gratuity, leave encashment, commuted value of pension and all other retiral benefits on the basis of the pay so fixed, with effect from 01.08.2013, issue a revised Pension Payment Order, and pay the resulting arrears.

(f) The above exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If the arrears under directions (d) and (e) are not paid within that period, they shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of expiry of the three months until the date of actual payment.

RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR

(g) The respondents shall pass a reasoned order in compliance with these directions and communicate it to the applicant.

38. All pending MAs, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr.Chhabilendra Roul) Member (J) Member (A)

‘rk’

Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR