it2025_00520 — Eligibility for non-functional upgradation requires explicit departmental notification, which was not done for NPOL employees. Since the Applicants' posts were not substantively included in the eligible category, they are not entitled to the benefit.

Eligibility for non-functional upgradation requires explicit departmental notification, which was not done for NPOL employees. Since the Applicants' posts were not substantively included in the eligible category, they are not entitled to the benefit. — This chunk discusses an Original Application (O.A. No. 180/00842 of 2019) filed by retired Private Secretaries and Stenographers from the Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory, seeking non-func... — Facts: The Applicants, retired Private Secretaries and Stenographers from the Naval Physical and Oceanographic Laboratory (NPOL), seek non-functional upgradation to a Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 in PB-2, which was denied to them despite meeting the eligibility criteria under the CCS (RP) Rules. The Applicants were initially granted a Grade Pay of ₹ 4,800 under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) and they completed four years of regular service before retirement. Aggrieved by the denial of non-functional upgradation, they have filed this Original Application (O.A.). The Applicants contended that as per Clause

(x) of the Ministry of Finance (DoE) Resolution, dated 29-8-2008, Officers in the Private Secretary or equivalent grade with ₹ 4,800 Grade Pay in PB-2 would be granted ₹ 5,400 in PB-3 after four years, and that clause (x)

(e) of the resolution states that Group 'B' officers of certain departments are entitled to ₹ 5,400 in PB-2. Further, a clarification from the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) on 21-11-2008 explained that non-functional upgradation eligibility is based on completion of four years in the pre-revised pay scale of ₹ 7,500 - 12,000. The Ministry of Defence, through a Letter, dated 3-5-2019, extended this benefit to the following categories of officers of the Navy.

(a) Civilian Education Instructor, Grade-I.

(b) Technical Assistants of Naval Dockyards.

(c) Civilian Technical Officers (Mechanical/Amn. and Exp./ Design) of Naval Armament Inspectorate.

(d) Civilian Technical Officers of Naval Aviation Cadre. The Applicants relied upon the order passed by Hon'ble CAT Hyderabad Bench in O.A. No. 296 of 2014 wherein ASPs and SPs were granted the benefit of financial upgradation. Based on the above, the Applicant No. 1 filed a representation, dated 9-7-2018 seeking financial upgradation which was not disposed of by the Respondents. The Applicants also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of M. Subramanian v. Union of India and also the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 168 of 2013 in the case of Union of India and others v. Kawaljit Singh and others. The Applicants also referred to the order of Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 321 of 2022 wherein it has been held that the decision in M. Subramanian's case is an order' in rem' and not 'in personam'. The Applicants therefore contended that they are entitled to the same benefit under the principle of equal treatment in financial upgradation and the Applicants seek grant of non-functional upgradation to Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 in PB-2 along with consequential benefits. The Respondents contended that Revised Pay Rules lists specific categories of employees eligible for non-functional upgradation to Grade Pay of ₹ 5,400 which does not include the Applicants. The resolution only covers Office Staff in the Secretariat and certain external organizations with historical parity to CSS/CSSS, excluding NPOL. The cases cited by the Applicants pertain to the Department of Posts and Revenue, which were explicitly listed in the Ministry of Finance (DoE) Resolution of 29-8-2008 and NPOL, which is a part of Department of R&D sector, never sought similar equivalence, making the Applicants ineligible for non-functional upgradation. Moreover, the Applicants retired between 2012 and 2016 and the MACP benefits pertains to the year 2008. The OA has been filed in 2019, long after retirement, and only on the outcome of M. Subramaniam's case. The Respondents further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [ (2008) 8 SCC 648 ] to contend that a recurring wrong is not a continuing wrong.