UNION OF INIDA AND 4 OTHERSversusKHURSHEED AHMAD HASHMI AND ANOTHER

          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.    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