HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14037 of 2026 Union of India and 4 others …..Petitioner(s) Versus Khursheed Ahmad Hashmi and another …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jigyasa Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Ms. Jigyasa Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.02.2025 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (‘the Tribunal’) has disposed of the Original Application (‘OA’) No.109 of 2025 filed by the respondents and has issued a direction to the petitioners to ensure that the benefit of order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Tribunal in OA No.1005 of 2019, (Pradeep Kumar and others v. Union of India and others) be also given to the respondents as they are entitled to the same whether they have retired or not. 2 WRIA No. - 14037 of 2026 3. Another order under challenge in this petition is dated 17.11.2025 whereby Review Application No.103 of 2025 filed by the petitioners along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the same, being Misc. Application No.4862 of 2025, has been rejected by the Tribunal. 4. As per the case of the respondents, the respondent No.1 was working as Junior Works Manager and was granted Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- on 08.08.2012 and he retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2022. Similarly, the respondent No.2, while working as Junior Works Manager was granted Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- on 27.07.2012 and he retired from service on 31.12.2020. 5. According to the respondents, since they had completed four years of regular service in the same Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in the year 2016 itself but were not granted the benefit of Non-Functional Upgrade (‘NFU’) in the Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- on completion of four years of regular service, they filed representations before the petitioners requesting grant of NFU in Pay-Band-II with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- with all consequential benefits and when no heed was paid to the same, the OA was filed praying for a direction to allow them NFU having Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-. 6. 6. When the matter came up before the Tribunal on 11.02.2025, in the first paragraph of the order, the Tribunal observed that with the consent of both the parties, the OA was being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The Tribunal, thereafter, proceeded to consider the submissions made on behalf of both sides and based upon an order dated 09.01.2020 passed by the Tribunal in OA No.1005 of 2019 in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra), which was relied upon by both sides, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the respondents were entitled to get the benefit of the said order and, accordingly, disposed of the OA with directions, as already indicated hereinbefore. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has made submissions that respondents were not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the OA in view of 3 WRIA No. - 14037 of 2026 Ist Schedule of notification dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), which was nomenclatured as Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, in Part-C whereof, provisions for REVISED PAY STRUCTURE FOR CERTAIN POSTS IN MINISTRIES, DEPARTMENTS AND UNION TERRITORIES were indicated according to which, the respondents fall in the category of ‘Department of Defence Production’. 8. Submission is that corresponding to the posts held by the respondents in the said Department, Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- only was indicated in the relevant column and there was no provision for grant of NFU after completion of four years of service. 9. Further submission has been made that wherever the Government intended to incorporate a provision for grant of NFU, the same was indicated in the relevant columns as against the posts held by the employees in the Departments of Revenue, Economic Affairs, Home Affairs etc. but no such provision having been made for the employees of Department of Defence Production, which is the relevant Department in the present case, the Tribunal has erred in granting reliefs to the respondents. 10. Further submission has been made that though in relation to the Department of Defence Production also, a subsequent notification dated 15.06.2017 was issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure), which was nomenclatured as Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Amendment) Rules, 2017, however, in relation to the post of Junior Works Manager, which was held by the respondents, clear stipulation was made that eighty per cent of the employees in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- will be eligible for Non-Functional Upgrade to Level 9 (Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, Pay Band-II) which could be granted on completion of four years service in Level-8 on seniority-cum-suitability basis. Submission is that since the respondents did not fall in the said category of eighty per cent of the employees in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/-, 4 WRIA No. - 14037 of 2026 they were not entitled for NFU and, therefore, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 11. It is further submitted that the aforesaid position of law having been subsequently revealed to the petitioners, they filed a review application along with an application seeking condonation of delay, however, the Tribunal rejected the delay condonation application and, consequently, dismissed the review application and though certain observations have been made touching upon the merits of the contentions raised in review application since delay was not condoned by the Tribunal, the said observations cannot prejudice the case of the petitioners before this Court. 12. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 13. Apparently and admittedly, no counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the petitioners before the Tribunal in OA. From perusal of the order dated 11.02.2025, it is clear that the counsel representing the petitioners herein had conceded to the claim raised by the respondents that was based upon the order dated 09.01.2020 passed in OA No. 1005 of 2019 in the case of Pradeep Kumar (supra). The stand taken by learned counsel for the petitioners is contained in paragraph 5 of the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Tribunal, which reads as under:- “5. Per contra, Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue involved in this O.A. has already been decided by this Tribunal in O.A. No.1005/2019, decided on 09.01.2020 as well as High Court of Madras in W.P. No.13225/2010, decided on 06.09.2010, which was affirmed by the Apex Court.” 14. Above being the position, we do not find any error in the order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the Tribunal which was based upon concession made on behalf of the petitioners herein. 15. However, even if we examine the contentions raised by the petitioners based upon the application for review, we find that the review application was filed with a delay of about four months. The same was 5 WRIA No. - 14037 of 2026 accompanied by an application seeking condonation of delay and as far as the merits of the review application are concerned, grounds were raised based upon the aforesaid notifications dated 29.08.2008 and 15.06.2017 and it was sought to be contended that order dated 09.01.2020 passed in OA No. 1005 of 2019 was not applicable in the facts of the case. 16. When the review application along with delay condonation application came up for consideration before the Tribunal on 17.11.2025, the Tribunal examined the grounds seeking condonation of delay and also merits of the review application and recorded following findings:- “13. So far as the contention that the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in M. Subramaniam was applicable only to the petitioners therein is concerned, the Tribunal in the original order has already taken note of the fact that various Benches of this Tribunal as well as different High Courts have treated the said judgment as one operating in rem on account of the uniform nature of pay fixation policy. That view cannot be re-agitated in review proceedings. 14. The next contention of the review-applicants that the applicants had reached the Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- only by way of MACP and not by promotion, and therefore their service cannot be treated as regular service, was also specifically considered by the Tribunal in the original order by holding that pay fixation matters governed by Government's uniform policies cannot be treated differently merely because the benefit flows through ACP/MACP. No apparent error has been pointed out in this regard. 15. The argument based on the Ministry of Finance Resolution dated 29.08.2008 and subsequent CCS (RP) (Amendment) Rules, 2017 is also misconceived. The Tribunal, while granting relief, has relied upon consistent judicial pronouncements holding that such financial entitlements cannot be restricted only to a particular department when the Government policy itself is of general application. Whether 80% ceiling or other conditions apply to JWM (SG) is a matter already canvassed during the original hearing and decided by a reasoned order. 16. The plea that anomalies would arise if the order is implemented, and that in other departments interim orders of stay have been granted, is not a ground for review of the present order. The existence of a stay in some other case does not nullify the effect of the judgment already delivered in this case. 17. As regards the reliance on S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand, it is well settled that while fixation of pay scales is generally within the executive domain, once a judicial forum has interpreted a policy decision or pay rule, the same is binding unless set aside by a higher judicial forum. Merely quoting the general principle cannot justify reopening of the concluded adjudication in the guise of review.” 6 WRIA No. - 14037 of 2026 17. After recording the above observations denying the pleas raised on merits, the Tribunal rejected the review application as well as the application seeking condonation of delay in following words:- “20. Considering the aforesaid facts that the Review Application has been filed with an inordinate delay of nearly four months, without any cogent explanation, the Miscellaneous Application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Even otherwise, on merits also, no ground for interference in review jurisdiction is made out. Accordingly, the Review Application also stands dismissed.” 18. In view of the above discussion, we find no force in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that since delay was not condoned, the findings recorded on merits of the review application are not to be seen. 19. Now coming to the merits of the arguments advanced before this Court with regard to the respondents’ claim for grant of NFU, on perusal of the notifications/Rules/amended Rules relied upon by the petitioners, we find that there is a provision for grant of NFU to Level-9 (Grade Pay of Rs.5400/-, Pay Band-II) applicable for Junior Works Manager, Department of Defence Production also. The said stipulation is meant for eighty per cent of employees in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- but on their completing four years of service in Level-8 and on seniority-cum- suitability basis. 20. Though by a previous order dated 08.09.2026 passed by this Court in the present writ petition, counsel for the petitioners was granted time to place on record further material to substantiate the submissions sought to be made, no further material was produced before the Court and today learned counsel for the petitioners continued to make submissions based upon the material that is already available on record. 21. On a pointed query made by this Court as to whether even if the submissions made by her based upon the stipulation of ‘eighty per cent of the employees being eligible for NFU’ as per Rules of 2017 is accepted, as to what is the material to show that those who fell in the said eligibility criteria had been granted NFU and the petitioners having 7 WRIA No. - 14037 of 2026 not fallen in the said category were denied such benefit based upon the said stipulation, learned counsel expressed ignorance. The Court put further query to the learned counsel as to whether any order was passed by the petitioners at any point of time rejecting the claim of the respondents based upon the above stipulation of ‘eighty per cent of employees’, she did not answer the query of the Court. 22. In view of the above scenario, once the first order passed by the Tribunal was based upon the concession made by the counsel representing the petitioners and in the second order rejecting the review application, submissions made before this Court were also given thoughtful consideration by the Tribunal coupled with the fact that before us also the petitioners have miserably failed to substantiate their contention as to why despite the fact that the respondents had completed four years regular service in Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- up to the year 2016 and they retired respectively in 2022 and 2020, they were not made entitled to get benefit of NFU, we are not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal. 23. The writ petition has no substance; the same is, therefore, dismissed. (Kshitij Shailendra,J) (Arun Bhansali,CJ) September 30, 2026 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad