Dismissed

M Rama Rao v. Department of Personnel and Training

CAT15 Sept 2026O.A./625/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The CAT dismissed the OA at the admission stage. Relying on Apex Court precedents and a recent O.M., the Court directed respondents to pass a reasoned order within 30 days regarding notional increments and pending representation, without adjudicating merits.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to pass a reasoned order within 30 days; consequential relief (including interest at GPF rate if payment delayed) granted only if conditions met.

M Rama Rao vs Department of Personnel and Training — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2026)

¶1

OA/625/2026

¶2

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH : HYDERABAD

¶3

OA/020/625/2026

¶4

HYDERABAD, this the 15th day of September, 2026

¶5

HON’BLE Mr. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON’BLE Mrs. SHALINI MISRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

¶6

M.Rama Rao, IAS (Retd.), S/o late Shri M.Nagaiah, Aged 66 years, Occ: GOI Pensioner, H.No.126-3-247/1, 3/3, Annapurna Nagar West, Gorantla, Guntur-522 034, Andhra Pradesh.

¶7

... Applicant

¶8

(By Advocate: Mr.G.Jaya Prakash Babu)

¶9

¶10

Union of India, Rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi-110 001.

¶11

The Principal Secretary to Government (Political), General Administration Department, Velagapudi, AP Secretariat, Amaravati, Andhra Pradesh.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

(By Advocate: Mrs. B.Gayatri Varma, Sr.CGSC)

¶14

SATYANARAYANA DUMPALADigitally signed by SATYANARAYANA DUMPALADN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=[email protected], CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.16 15:21:05+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0

Page 1 of 3

OA/625/2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

¶19

In the instant OA, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

¶20

“To grant notional annual increment on completion of one year of service as on 01^st July to 30^th June of the year following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in RP (C) No.1731/2019 in SLP (C) No.22008/2018 in the case of Ayyamperumal and also Hon’ble Supreme court in Judgment and grant Annual Grade Increment due as on 01.07.2020, by raising the pay from Rs.1,38,500/- to Rs.1,42,500/-, and to declare the inaction of the respondents as unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory and to pass such other order or orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

¶21

Heard Mr.G.Jaya Prakash Babu, learned counsel for the Applicant and Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.

¶22

Since the matter pertains to grant of notional increment, which is no longer Res integra, which is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in its judgment dated 11.04.2023 in CA.No.2471/2023 along with MA.No.2400/2024. To the aforesaid effect, a office memorandum No.19/116/2024-Pers.Pol.(Pay) (Pt), dated 20.05.2025, has already been issued. Rather, it is unfortunate, that the applicant has been compelled to approach this Tribunal, despite there is a representation pending and the said representation ought to be disposed of in terms of OM dated 20.05.2025, as observed, which has been issued in terms of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

Page 2 of 3

OA/625/2026

Mrs.B.Gayatri Varma, learned Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel, seeks time to file appropriate response.

¶27

However, considering that the matter pertains to notional increment, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate reasoned and speaking order, and pass consequential order, if so, in accordance with law within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The consequential relief may follow 30 days thereafter. Needless to mention that we have not gone into the merits of the case since the specific prayer is for grant of notional increment. We also make it clear that if the consequential order is passed and the payment is not made within 30 days, the applicant shall also be entitled to interest at the GPF rate.

¶28

With the above direction, the OA is disposed of at the admission stage. Pending MAs, if any, also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶29

(SHALINI MISRA) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶30

/DSN /

¶31

Digitally signed by SATYANARAYANA DUMPALADN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor, HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=e9139f685446ba88b1951014524a4686cad5619e209d584134900f3759545854, SERIALNUMBER=2185a73b6158e7c1d87ad8c68c3773e034c1e5d18191c31d7a3f9699631571dc, E=[email protected], CN=SATYANARAYANA DUMPALAReason: I am the author of this documentLocation: Date: 2026.09.16 15:21:05+05'30'Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.4.0

¶32

SATYANARAYANA DUMPALA

¶33

Page 3 of 3

M Rama Rao v. Department of Personnel and Training

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M Rama Rao v. Department of Personnel and Training

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arif Ramzan Parray vs General Administrative Department

Mohammad Shafi Sofi vs Health and Medical Education Department

Subhan Ali vs Department of Posts

Ravi Kant Pandey vs Department of Defence Production

Suraj Bhan vs Ordnance Factory

Firdous Ahmad Giri vs Home Department

K K Umadevi vs the General Manager Southern Railway Hq Office Park Town Chennai

Mahesh Kumar vs General Manager, N E Rly