Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Ramniwas Meena vs Cgda on 26 August, 2025
1
OA No. 101/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
...
ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.101/2024
Order reserved on :22.07.2025
Date of order: 26.08.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. RANJANA SHAHI, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI LOK RANJAN, MEMBER (A)
Ramniwas Meena son of Shri Budh Ram Meena aged about
50 years, resident of Quarter No.206, Redwood Oreal
Society, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017, Rajasthan. Presently
working as Junior Translation Officer, PCDA (Army) Jaipur,
Rajasthan. Mob. 94584-04735, (Group 'B' service), Email-
[email protected]
Vijay Nama son of Shri Shiv Prakash Nama aged about 36
years, resident of Flat No.602, Ruby Sky Notes, 9-12,
Dwarikapuri, Near Maharana Pratap Circle, Pratap Nagar,
Jaipur-302033, Rajasthan. Presently working as Junior
Translation Officer, PCDA (Army) Jaipur, Rajasthan. Mob.
94130-02619, (Group 'B' service), Email:
[email protected]
Naresh Kumar son of Shri Raghubir Singh aged about 42
years, resident of Quarter no.8, Block No.2, Nirman Parisar,
Vidyadhar Nagar, Sector-7, Jaipur-302035, Rajasthan.
Presently working as Junior Translation Officer, PCDA (Army)
Jaipur, Rajasthan. Mob.99231-21462, (Group 'B' service),
Email: [email protected]
2
OA No. 101/2024
Muneesh Kumar Sharma son of Shri Pooran Mal Sharma aged
about 47 years, resident of 89/95, Singh Bhumi, Khatipura,
Jaipur-302005, Rajasthan. Presently working as Junior
Translation Officer, PCDA (Army) Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Mob.70555-72888 Email: [email protected] (Group 'B'
service)
...Applicant
(By Adv: Shri Amit Mathur)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Defence, South Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan
Batore Road, Palam, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi-110010.
3. The Joint Controller General of Defence Accounts, Ulan
Batore Road, Palam, Delhi Cantonment, Delhi-110010.
4. The Principal Controller General of Defence Accounts
(Army), Military Area, Khatipura, Jaipur-302005,
Rajasthan.
...Respondents.
(By Adv: Shri D.S. Raghav)
ORDER
Per :Hon'ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)
The present Original Application had been filed by Applicants who were working as Junior Translation Officer under the Principal Controller-General of Defence Accounts(PCGDA) (Army), Jaipur. TheApplicants are aggrieved by rejection of their claim for the grant of G.P. of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or from the date of their initial appointment as Junior Translator, whichever earlier, pursuant to the acceptance of the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (C.P.C.-VI).
3OA No. 101/2024
2. It had been submitted by theApplicants that since they all were similarly placed in this regard and their grievances were similar and they were relying on the same factual matrix and seeking similar relief based on same grounds, hence they had filed this joint O.A. to avoid multiplicity of litigation. While the said prayer is allowed, the matter hereafter had considered the specific facts for Applicant No.1, wherever required; and the considerations would ipso facto apply to the other Applicants.
3. Based on the pleadings of the case, the relevant matrix of factsin the present O.A. had emerged as follows briefly. The ApplicantNo.01 was initially appointed on 21.02.2006 in the Respondent organization on the post of Junior Hindi Translator, the nomenclature of which had been changed to Junior Translator and then to Junior Translation Officer(all collectively referred to as JHT hereafter). The post of JHT was in the pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay Scale of Rs.(5500-9000)/- in the case of Central Secretariat Official Language Service (C.S.O.L.S.) cadre ; but had carried a lower pay scale of Rs.(5000-8000)/- in subordinate offices of Ministries/Departments of Central Government in non-C.S.O.L.S. posts. Upon acceptance by the Government of the recommendations of the C.P.C.-VI, such anomalous situation of difference in Pay Scales for C.S.O.L.S. and non-C.S.O.L.S. officers, JHTs inter alia, had been redressed vide the clarificatory O.M. dated24.11.2008, issued by the Ministry of Finance (M.O.F.), Department of Expenditure (Implementation Cell) [D.O.E. (IC)] on the subject of Revised Pay Scales for Official Language posts in various subordinate offices of the Central Government. It had inter alia been clarified that -
"... ... in accordance with the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission as accepted by the Government, similarly designated posts existing outside the Central Secretariat Official Language Service 4 OA No. 101/2024 (C.S.O.L.S.) cadre in various subordinate offices of the Central Government have been granted the same pay scales as those granted to C.S.O.L.S..
......
2. Accordingly, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, all Ministries/Departments etc. are required to grant the revised pay scales approved for various posts in the C.S.O.L.S. to similarly designated Official Language posts existing in their subordinate offices."
As part of the same, the revised pay structure for the Official Language cadre belonging to C.S.O.L.S.was also notified, as per which it was recommended inter alia for JHTs,that their pre- revised C.P.C.-V Pay Scale be taken as Rs.(6500-10500)/- notionally for determining their revised Pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 under C.P.C.-VI in PB-2 with G.P. of Rs.4200/-. The same was also required to be adopted for determining the revised fixation under C.P.C.-VI also to non-C.S.O.L.S.JHTs in subordinate offices of all Ministers/ Department, so as to ensure parity.
4. Later, another O.M. dated 13.11.2009 was issued by the M.O.F., D.O.E. (IC) on the subject of 'Grant of revised pay structure of G.P. of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 to posts that existed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of G.P. of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2'. This O.M. was not specific to Official Language posts, but was of general applicability to various such posts across Ministry/Departments.Relevantly, it had been provided thereby that -
"3. Consequent upon the Notification of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 Department of Expenditure has received a large number of references from administrative ministries/ departments proposing upgradation of the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 by granting them G.P. of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2. The matter has been considered and it has now been decided that the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of G.P. of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2, will be granted G.P. of Rs.4600 in the pay 5 OA No. 101/2024 band PB-2 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Further, in terms of the aforementioned provisions of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, in case a post already existed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500, the posts being upgraded from the scale of Rs.6500-10500 should be merged with the post in the scale of Rs.7450- 11500."
5. The Applicants had also represented to be allowed the G.P. of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or the date of recruitment if later than that, whichever applicable ; and the same had been forwarded from the P.C.G.D.A. (South West Command), Jaipur to the Office of C.G.D.A., Delhi for consideration duly in pursuance of the Order dated 11.05.2022 of the Hon'ble Allahabad Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No.1575/2017. The same had been disposed of vide the impugned Letter dated 25.09.2023, inter alia holding that that the intent of O.M. dated 27.11.2008 (supra) was not to provide the pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay Scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- to JHTs, but to provide G.P. of Rs.4200/- under the C.P.C.-VI ; that the O.M. dated 13.11.2009 (supra) had provided inter alia that the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.(6500- 10500)/- as on 01.01.2006 and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of G.P. of Rs.4200/- in the pay band PB-2, will be granted G.P. of Rs.4600/- in the pay band PB-2 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. It was thus intended only for posts which were in the pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay Scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/-, but the JHTs under the Defence Account Department were never in the pre-revised Pay Scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- but were in the Pay Scale of Rs.(5000-8000)/- till 01.01.2006 and had thereafter been allowed the G.P. of Rs.4200/- under the C.P.C.-VI. Also, the M.O.F., D.O.E. had further clarified that even the JHTs of the C.S.O.L.S.had not been granted the G.P. of Rs.4600/. 6 OA No. 101/2024
6. The Applicants were aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 25.09.2023 and had filed the present O.A. inter alia seeking the substantive reliefs that the Order dated 25.09.2023 be quashed and set aside ; that the Respondents be directed to allow the G.P. of Rs.4600/- to the Applicants w.e.f. their initial appointment or 01.01.2006, whichever is admissible ; and that the Respondents be further directed to refix the pay of Applicants accordingly and make the payment of arrears with all consequential benefits and make the payment of interest over the arrears.
7. It was the case of the Applicants that the Order dated 25.09.2023 of the Respondents was violative of the O.M.s dated 24.11.2008 and 13.11.2009 (supra) - since vide the O.M. dated 24.11.2008 the JHTs were purportedly recommended the Pay Scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- in PB-2 with GP 4200/- ; and the same had been revised vide O.M. dated 13.09.2009to purportedly decide that they will be entitled for G.P. of Rs.4600/-. Further, it had been submitted thatHon'ble Benches of this Tribunal - of which mention had inter alia been made of the Ernakulam Bench, Allahabad Bench, Kolkata Bench, Gwalior Bench and the Principal Bench - had already considered the matter and concluded that there was no justification in disallowing the G.P. of Rs.4600/- to JHTs w.e.f. 01.01.2006. In particular, it had also been mentioned that the Full Bench of Ernakulam had decided that JHTs were entitled for G.P. of Rs.4600/- ; and that the same had been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide Judgement & Order dated 01.04.2015 ; and that the Order passed by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court had been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (copy not provided) - therefore the matter had attained finality. Moreover, it had been submitted that there cannot be different scales for employees working in same capacity in the Government of India and since the relief claimed by the 7 OA No. 101/2024 Applicants had been allowed to some other non-C.S.O.L.S. JHTs in compliance to Orders of various Benches of this Tribunal, hence there was no justification for the Respondents to give different treatments to the Applicants.
8. Vide their reply, the Respondents had admitted only to the matter of facts on record ; and had contended that the various other contentions of the Applicants were incorrect, unjust and erroneous. The Respondents had also summarized as background that while the pre-revised pay of Government employees under C.P.C.-V were as per then prevalent Pay Scales, the revised pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006 pursuant to C.P.C.-VI included Pay Bands and G.P. - those being determined as per the respective fitment formula prescribed with reference to the respective pre- revised Pay Scaleunder C.P.C.-V prior to 01.01.2006. Also, for employees who were working in the pre-revised pay scales of Rs.(5000-8000)/-, Rs.(5500-9000)/- and Rs.(6500-10500)-,it had been recommended that their revised Pay structure be of the Pay Band PB-2 and G.P. of Rs.4200/-.
It had also been submitted that a specific dispensation had been made later vide O.M. dated 24.11.2008 for Official Language posts - where two different pre-revised Pay Scales had existed post-wise under the C.P.C.-V - viz. a higher Pay Scale that was allowed to any post that was in the Central Secretariat forC.S.O.L.S.cadre and a lower pay scale that was allowed to the same non-C.S.O.L.S. post in various subordinate and field offices of the Central Government. Thus, in order to remove such anomaly, it had been recommended that the same pre-revised reference Pay Scale of C.P.C.-V be used as the notional basisfor C.S.O.L.S. as well as non-C.S.O.L.S. employees holding the same post - so as to ensure that their pay refixation would get done in the same Pay Band and with same G.P. in therevised pay 8 OA No. 101/2024 structure under C.P.C.-VI w.e.f. 01.01.2006.It was specifically averred that such use of the higher pre-revised pay scale under C.P.C.-V asreference towards fixation of revised pay of C.S.O.L.S. and non-C.S.O.L.S.Official Language employees in the revised pay structure under C.P.C.-VI was only notional ; andthe pay scalesfor them werenot actually upgraded retrospectively for the pre- revised C.P.C.-V period, when they had actually worked in lowerrespective Pay Scales.Thus, this dispensation was made in the C.P.C.-VI pay revision w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to redress the anomalous situation of employees of same level being allowed different Pay Scales, based on whether the posts/employees were from C.S.O.L.S. cadre or non-C.S.O.L.S. - that had existed during the pre-revised C.P.C.-V period.
It was further submitted that another dispensation was made vide O.M. dated 13.11.2009 for posts across all Ministries/Departments that had already existed in the pre- revised C.P.C.-V pay scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure in Pay Band-2 with G.P. Rs.4200/-. It had been recognized that as a result of the merger of the three pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay Scales [Rs.(5000- 8000)/-, Rs.(5500-9000)/-, Rs.(6500-10500)/-] and replacement of those by the revised pay structure in the Pay Band PB-2 of G.P. Rs.4200/-, some set of posts which constituted feeder and promotion grades in the same functional hierarchy would come to lie in an identical pay structure, which could cause consequential functional disturbances. To redress that, it had been provided that while the posts which had existed in the pre-revised Pay scales of Rs.(5000-8000)/- and Rs.(5500-9000)/- should continue to be allowed the revised Pay structure of Pay Band PB-2 with G.P. of Rs.4200/- ; while those posts which had existed in the pre- revised Pay scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- would be allowed the revised Pay structure of Pay Band PB-2 with the next higher G.P. 9 OA No. 101/2024 of Rs.4600/-, corresponding to the pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay scale of Rs.(7450-11500)/-.Thus, this dispensation was made to redress the anomalous situation of employees of different inter-se levels in same functional hierarchy, belonging even to certain feeder and promotion posts, being allowed identical Pay Scales- i.e. a situation that had not existed during the pre-revised C.P.C.- V period but had resulted from certain pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay levels being merged into the same revised C.P.C.-VI Pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
9. Moreover, the Respondents had elaborated the ramifications of the afore-said dispensations for the Applicants in the present O.A. Under the first dispensation afore-said, for the non- C.S.O.L.S. Applicants in the post of JHT, the use of a shadow/reference pre-revised Pay Scale of Rs,(6500-10000)/- had resulted in making their fixation in the revised C.P.C.-VI Pay Structure in the Pay Band PB-2 (i.e. Rs.9300-34800)/- with G.P. of Rs.4200/- together with JHTs of C.S.O.L.S. This identical pay refixation of C.S.O.L.S. and non-C.S.O.L.S. JHTsin the same Pay Band and with same G.P. in the revised pay structure under C.P.C.-VI w.e.f. 01.01.2006 had thus eliminated the erstwhile anomalous differential. However, such use of higher pre-revised pay scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- under C.P.C.-V,fordetermining the revised pay structure under C.P.C.-VI of C.S.O.L.S. as well as non-C.S.O.L.S.JHTs, was only on notional basis, only to remove differences between pay of C.S.O.L.S. and non-C.S.O.L.S. employees in the same post w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It was specifically averred that this did not mean that the pay scale for C.S.O.L.S.and non-C.S.O.L.S.JHTs was actually upgraded from their respective pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay Scale of Rs.(5500- 9000)/- and Rs.(5000-8000)/-in which they had actually worked prior to 01.01.2006.
10OA No. 101/2024 Under the afore-said second dispensation that was not unique to official language posts, it had been provided that while the posts with the pre-revised Pay scales of Rs.(5000-8000)/- and Rs.(5500-9000)/- should continue to be allowed the revised Pay structure of Pay Band PB-2 with G.P. of Rs.4200/- ; but the posts that had already existed in the pre-revised C.P.C.-V pay scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/-and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure in Pay Band-2 with G.P. Rs.4200/- were allowed the revised Pay structure of Pay Band PB-2 with the next higher G.P. of Rs.4600/-. The posts of Applicant JHTs under the Respondent Department had been in the pre-revised C.P.C.-V pay scale of Rs.(5000-8000)/-till 01.01.2006 which would continue to be allowed the G.P. of Rs.4200/- and that was not to be upgraded to the G.P. Rs.4600/- resultantly.
10. The Respondents had also averred that it would also be clear from the Recruitment Rules inter alia for Junior Hindi Translators in Defence Accounts Department published in the Union Gazette Vide SRO-68 dated 21.10.2013 and SRO-7 dated 09.03.2021, that the pay scale of JHT continued to beincluded as PB-2 GP Rs.4200/- in the Sixth C.P.C. pay structure and Pay Level-06 in the 7th C.P.C. Pay Structure. The Respondents had thus contended that the Applicants had completely failed to prove that there was any illegality in the Order dated 25.09.2023 passed by the Respondents. It was also submitted that the Applicants were not entitled to the G.P. of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. date of their initial appointment or 01.01.2006 and consequently neither were they entitled to any re-fixation of pay nor are they entitled to any arrears/ benefits.
11OA No. 101/2024
11. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties along with the relevant O.M.s and guidelines. The arguments on behalf of the parties had also been heard and the other similar cases cited before us were also perused. It had emerged from those that the Applicants herein were non-C.S.O.L.S. appointees as JHTs in the subordinate Offices of Ministries/Departments ; and prior to implementation of the CCS(RP) Rules-2008 they were in the Pay Scale of Rs.(5000-8000)/-. On the other hand, the C.S.O.L.S. officers working as JHTs were allowed the Pay Scales of Rs.(5500-9000)/-. The parity of Pay Scales for officers of non- C.S.O.L.S. and C.S.O.L.S. cadres/posts had been ensured by the method of fixation provided vide O.M. dated 24.11.2008 specific to Official Language posts, whereby the Pay Scale of Rs.(6500- 10500)/-, which was higher than the actual pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay Scale for both C.S.O.L.S.and non-C.S.O.L.S. JHTs,was notionally used as the basis for the revised C.P.C.-VI Pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006 for them both.
It had also emerged that over time, multiple litigations had ensued by interpreting the O.M. dated 13.11.2009which had been issued to resolve the posts at different level of hierarchy being merged into the same revised C.P.C.-VI Pay-Scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 across all Ministries/Departments- for claiming refixation of revised G.P. of JHTs as Rs.4600/- ; or even for revision of their pay structure under C.P.C.-VI w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to be based on the pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay Band of Rs.(7450- 11500)/-. Several other litigations had ensued based on interpretation of admissible benefits under the Assured Career Progression (A.C.P.) or Modified Assured Career Progression (M.A.C.P.) Schemes in the context of adoption of revised C.P.C.- VI Pay Scales, specifically due to merger of certain pre-revised Pay Scales. The present O.A. had also been filed by the Applicants, who had claimed that they were entitled as per the 12 OA No. 101/2024 O.M. dated 13.11.2009 to be granted G.P. of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 under the revised C.P.C.-VI Pay structure, instead of Rs.4200/- as had been granted in pursuance of the O.M. dated 24.11.2008.
12. The matter had been extensively argued across several hearings, from which it emerged that there had been various related decisions through multiple litigations - either before different Hon'ble Benches of this Tribunal ; or which had also at times travelled to Hon'ble superior Courts. The learned Counsel for the Applicants had placed emphatic reliance upon the Hon'ble Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal Orders dated 27.11.2011 in the O.A. No. 107/2011 (T.P. Leena Vs. Union of India & Ors.), whereby non-C.S.O.L.S. JHTs had been allowed the G.P. of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in the revised C.P.C.-VI Pay structure. It was also presented that the same had been affirmed vide Judgment and Order dated 21.06.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in [OP(CAT) No.467of 2012] which had upheld the Order of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal ; and had attained finality upon affirmation by Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.28536 of 2012 (not placed on record). It was also found that the same had been relied upon in various cases filed by the JHTs across various Benches of this Tribunal, many of whom had been cited by the Learned Counsel for the Applicants.
Per contra, the learned Counsel for the Applicants had contended that the basic issue involving the parity between C.S.O.L.S. and non-C.S.O.L.S.JHTs prior to 01.01.2006 had been settled vide the O.M. dated 24.11.2008, which was not under dispute. However, the present dispute was rooted in the issue of different posts in the same functional hierarchy being merged into the same Pay Scale after adoption of revised C.P.C.-VI Pay Scales, which had been sought to be resolved vide O.M. dated 13.11.2009. It had 13 OA No. 101/2024 thereby been provided that the posts which existed in the pre- revised C.P.C.-V Pay scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- as on 01.01.2006 and which were granted the normal pay scale of G.P. of Rs.4200/- in the PB-2 would be allowed the GP of Rs.4600/- in PB-2. The question had arisen whether the G.P. of Rs.4600/- was to be allowed in case of JHTs whose post had not existed in the pre-revised Pay Scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- at any time, but had been considered notionally vide O.M. dated 24.11.2008 for determining the revised C.P.C.-VI Pay structure at par for non- C.S.O.L.S. and C.S.O.L.S.JHTs inter alia. It was the argument of the learned Counsel for the Respondents that the grant of G.P. of Rs.4600/- to the Applicants would tantamount to misconstruing the provisions of the O.M. dated 13.11.2009, since the position of JHT under the Respondent Department was in the pay scale of Rs.(5000-8000)/- and never existed in the C.P.C.-V pay scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- till 01.01.2006.
13. The learned counsel for the Respondents had also presented before us the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 10323/2015 & CM No. 25733/2015 whether this specific issue had been dealt with at length after considering the various related aspects and related guidelines as well as Orders of Tribunals/Courts. The same had been taken on record and on perusal, the conclusions therein had been shown to be as hereunder -
......
" 14. The contention of the respondents which has been accepted by the Tribunal in the impugned order is that the OM dated 13.11.2009 had upgraded/revised the pay scale of the posts in the scale of Rs. 6500- 10,500 to the G.P. of Rs. 4,600 in PB-2, corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs. 7,450-11,500. The respondents contend that as JHTs were given the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 with effect from 1.1.2006 vide OM dated 24.11.2008, they are entitled to higher G.P. of Rs. 4,600 in PB- 2 in terms of OM dated 13.11.2009. This contention, we say with respect, is fallacious and wrong. JHTs prior to 1.1.2006, were in the scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000 and SHTs were in the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500. 14 OA No. 101/2024 As a result of the recommendation of the 6th CPC and clause (ii) of Part B of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008, the pay scales of JHTs were to be revised to Rs. 6,500-10,500 and that of the SHTs to Rs. 7,450-11,500. This was a specific and clear-cut recommendation made by the 6th CPC in para 7.19.68. Thereafter, the OM dated 24.11.2008 was issued to implement the recommendation of the 6th CPC in this regard. This OM dated 24.11.2008 would be in accord and as per Clause (ii) of Part B of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008.
15. The OM dated 13.11.2009 deals with a different situation and anomaly. It seeks to correct unintended effect on account of merger of pay scales of Rs. 5,000-8,000, 5,500-9,000 and 6,500-10,500, in one G.P. of Rs. 4200/- in PB-2. When and where said merger of pay scales had taken place and the employees in different hierarchical posts were given G.P. of Rs. 4,200 in PB-2, grievance and problems had arisen. Employees already in the scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500, prior to 01.01.2006, had raised the grievance that their pay scales should be upgraded and should be higher than those who were junior to them and in the feeder cadres. This grievance should have been taken note of in terms of Clause
(ii) of Part B of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008, before implementing the merger of scales in the service. Possibly, this was not taken into consideration in certain services/cadres. This was the precise reason and cause why OM dated 13.11.2009 was issued and had postulated that employees who were earlier, i.e. before the Revised Pay Rules 2008, in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 and were given the G.P. of Rs. 4,200 in PB-2 would be upgraded to the G.P. of Rs. 4,600 in PB-2, which was applicable to pre-revised scale of Rs. 7,450-11,500. This Circular would be obviously not applicable to the respondents, for in their cases, vide OM dated 24.11.2008, SHTs who were in pre-revised scale of Rs. 6,500- 10,500 were given the upgraded/revised pay scale of Rs. 7,450-11,500 and accordingly placed in G.P. of Rs. 4,600 in PB-2. What was granted by the OM dated 13.11.2009 had already been granted to the respondents in the present case vide Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2008. The OM dated 13.11.2009 would be applicable to those cases and services where similar benefit had not been given prior to the said Circular. Albeit, it will not be applicable to those cases and services where similar benefits was given while passing orders in terms of Clause (ii) of Part-B of the Revised Pay Rules, 2008.
16. The sequitur to the aforesaid discussion is that the respondents herein were rightly given benefit of G.P. of Rs.4,200 in PB-2 as JHT and G.P. of Rs.4,600 in PB-2 as SHT. Accordingly, JHTs would be entitled to first financial upgradation from G.P. of Rs.4,200 to Rs.4,600. In fact, if we accept the plea of the respondents, the JHTs would have become entitled double benefit. The first benefit would accrue to them in terms of the OM dated 24.11.2008, which has the effect of upgrading the pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,500 to Rs.6,500-10,500 and Rs.7,450-11,500 with effect from 1.1.2006 as applicable to the post of JHT and SHT. Thereafter, the second benefit is claimed if we apply and give them benefit of OM 15 OA No. 101/2024 dated 13.11.2009 as the pay-scales of Rs.6,500-10,500 would get further upgraded to Rs.7,450-11,500 i.e., G.P. of Rs.4,600 in PB-2. Those in the scale of Rs.7,450-11,500, would thereupon seek further upgradation. Once the aforesaid position is clear, reference to paras 5, 6 and 6.2 of the MACP Scheme and their interpretation do not pose any difficulty.
17. Para 5 of MACP Scheme, quoted above, states that promotions earned/upgradation granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to grades which now carry the same G.P. due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission, shall be ignored. This is correct, fair and justified. The respondents would be entitled and have to be given the benefit of the said upgradation because the pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,000 has been upgraded to that of Rs.6,500-10,500. Accordingly, the G.P. of JHT was Rs. 4,200 in PB-2. The first financial upgradation or promotion would be to the G.P. of Rs.4,600 in PB-2. This benefit cannot be denied by the petitioners and in fact the petitioners have stated at the Bar, is not being denied to the respondents.
18. The contention of the respondents, on the other hand, is that the G.P. of JHT, after the OM dated 13.11.2009, is Rs.4,600 in PB-2. Reference in this regard is also made to the judgment of the Kerala High Court in OP(CAT) No.142/2014 (Z) dated 1.4.2015 and also the judgment of the Patna High Court in WP(C) Case No.8459/2014 titled Om Prakash Sinha v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 17.3.2016. With respect, we are unable to agree to the ratio in the said judgments. For the reasons stated above, the respondents herein would be covered by the OM dated 24.11.2008 and accordingly the OM dated 13.11.2009 would not be applicable to them. As recorded above, the OM dated 13.11.2009 would only be applicable where the pre-existing scales of Rs.5,000-8,000, 5500- 9,000 and 6,500-10,500 as they existed prior to 1.1.2006, were merged and given the G.P. of Rs.4,200 in PB-2. In the present case, however, this factual position is different. The pay-scale of JHT were upgraded from Rs.5,500-9,000 to Rs.6,500-10,500 and that of the SHT were upgraded to Rs.7,450-11,500 with effect from 1.1.2006 and they were given the G.P. of Rs.4,200 and 4,600 respectively in PB-2. The OM dated 13.11.2009, therefore, is not applicable in the present case. The OM dated 24.11.2008 had already given the benefit mentioned and accorded by the OM dated 13.11.2009.
19. As far as paras 6 and 6.2 of MACP Scheme are concerned, para 6 would not be specifically applicable, for the case would be covered by para 6.2 of the MACP Scheme. Para 6.2 states that where financial upgradation has been granted to government servants in the next higher scale in the hierarchy of their cadre, as per the provision of ACP Scheme of 1999, and upon implementation of Revised Pay Rules 2008, the higher post in the hierarchy has been upgraded by giving a higher grade pay, such employees would be given revised pay structure as fixed with reference to the higher grade pay. This was accorded and has been given to the respondents in the present case. The respondent employees who were granted benefit of the ACP Scheme and were given the pay scale of 16 OA No. 101/2024 Rs.6,500-10,500 as applicable on the promotional post of SHT, have now been given the higher G.P. of Rs.7,450-11,500, i.e., the G.P. of Rs,4,600 in PB-2. This is for the reason that the pay scale of the JHT has been upgraded to the scale of Rs.6,500-10,500, which was earlier the scale applicable to the SHT. Scale of SHT or the first financial upgradation of JHT would be in the scale of Rs.7,450-11,500, i.e., G.P. of Rs.4,600 in PB-
2. This being the position, we are of the opinion that the JHTs are entitled to G.P. of Rs.4,200 in PB-2, i.e., pay band of Rs.9,300- 34,800. They would be entitled to first financial upgradation in the G.P. of Rs.4,600, the second financial upgradation in the G.P. of Rs.4,800 and the third financial upgradation in the G.P. of Rs.5,400.
20. The 7th CPC, in its Report relating to C.S.O.L.S., has also considered the prayer/recommendation of JHT, now called Junior Translators for ugpradation from G.P. of Rs.4,200 to Rs.4,600. This request was specifically rejected vide para 11.22.125 to 127. The 7th CPC Report, therefore, itself indicates that the G.P. applicable to JHT is Rs.4,200 and not Rs.4,600.
21. Learned counsel for the respondents, in the aforesaid situation, has submitted that, pursuant to the orders passed by the Tribunal in different cases, some Directorates under the Ministry of Finance, had granted G.P. of Rs.4,600 to JHT. Where the said upgradation had been made pursuant to specific decisions, principle of res judicata would apply after the decisions have attained finality. That, however, would not, in our opinion in the factual matrix of the present case, be a good ground to dismiss the present writ petitions, for the consequences can be severe and will have deleterious and domino effect elsewhere in different services. It would also effect the recommendations of the 7th CPC, which have now been implemented. The petitioners have also stated that wherever there was no court order, they have withdrawn the grant of G.P. of Rs.4,600. Some orders were shown to us in the Court.
22. There may be some cases in which the JHTs have been paid the G.P. of Rs.4,600, pursuant to the order of the Tribunal or even otherwise. Where the decision has attained finality, principle of res judicata would apply. In other cases, before making recoveries of arrears, the petitioners would issue show cause notices and follow the mandate of law in State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih, 2015(4) SCC 334. Speaking orders will be passed in each case, and if any employee is aggrieved, he will be entitled to question and challenge the same in accordance with law.
23. The writ petitions, in the aforesaid discussion, are allowed to the extent indicated above. All the pending applications are also disposed of."
(Emphasis provided)
14. The learned Counsel for the Respondents had also stated that the matter being agitated had also been decided against the non-C.S.O.L.S. JHTs in certain litigations, in particular citing the 17 OA No. 101/2024 recent Order dated 25.04.2024 of CAT, Kolkata Bench in O.A. No.1954/2021 (Sanjay Kuma Jha & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.), which was taken on record. From the operative part, it was found that the same had decided inter alia that -
"5.4 The letter of DoPT dated 19.09.2013 and the clarification of DoE quote above leave no scope for a doubt as to the applicability of the provisions of DoE's letter of 13.11.2009 to the Junior Hindi Translators who are clearly not entitled to the G.P. of Rs. 4600/- as on 01.01.2006. Consequently, they are not entitled to the G.P. of Rs. 4800/- on their first financial upgradation under MACP Scheme. In our considered opinion, the claim of the applicants is without any merit.
6. OA stands dismissed being devoid of merit. MA(s), pending if any, also stands dismissed. No costs."
The learned counsel for the Applicants had in turn cited the order dated 26.11.2004 of CAT, Kolkata Bench in OA No.1623/2019 (Smt. Rita Shaw & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) to present that the same issue had been decided in favour of the Applicants therein by the same Hon'ble Kolkata Bench of this Tribunal. The said Order had been taken on record ; and from its operative part, it was found to have decided inter alia that -
" 5... Thereafter, the Government of India, Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi had issued another letter dated 02.05.2013 to the Secretary, All Ministries, Department of Govt. of India wherein, it stipulates as follows:-
"Dear Secretary,
1. You may be aware that Expenditure Dept. Ministry of Finance had ordered vide their O.M. No. 1/1/208-IC dated 24th Feb, 2008 (Copy encl) that the designations and Pay Scale of Official Language posts in subordinate offices of Govt. of India will be similar to that of Central Secretariat Official Language Service. It has been brought to the notice of Official Language Dept that the order of Expenditure Department has not yet been implemented in all sub-ordinate offices, which causes discontentment in the Official language officers employed there.
2. I shall be grateful if you ensure compliance in the subordinate offices of your Ministry/Dept about the implementation of similar designations and pay scales at par with Central Secretariat Official Language Service and Official Language Dept. may be intimated about the action taken in this regard."18 OA No. 101/2024
6. In view of the above, since the issue involved in this case is identical one, therefore, we are of the opinion that these applicants are entitled to get the extension of benefit of aforesaid order. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to interfere with the impugned Speaking Orders dated 29.03.2004, 16.09.2019 and 23.10.2019. Accordingly, same are hereby set aside and quashed. Applicants are entitled to the upgraded pay scales. Respondents are directed to pass necessary orders after verifying individual cases and make payments from the respective dates of entitlement, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
7. Accordingly, O.A. stands disposed of with the above observations and directions with no order as to costs."
Upon reference, the same was found to order for implementation of the revised Pay scales for ensuring the parity between C.S.O.L.S. and non-C.S.O.L.S. officers - in the context of O.M. dated 27.11.2008 ; followed up by O.M. dated 02.04.2009 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Official Language to adopt the same for non-C.S.O.L.S. officers under all Ministries/Departmentsand to also revise the Recruitment Rules accordingly ; and Letter dated 02.05.2013 to Secretaries of all Ministries/Departments referring to another O.M. No1/1/2018-IC dated 24.02.2008 of M.O.F., D.O.E. that the decision - to have designations and Pay scales of non-C.S.O.L.S.officers similar to C.S.O.L.S. officers- be complied with, ifnot implemented in their sub-ordinate offices.It was thus found that the said Order dated 26.11.2024 of the Hon'ble Kolkata Bench pertained to the specific issue of disparity between non-C.S.O.L.S. and C.S.O.L.S. officers previously, since addressed ; and not in the context of the present dispute regarding grant of G.P. of Rs.4600/- to non- C.S.O.L.S. JHTs.
15. In the conspectus of the foregoing, it is found that at the stage of acceptance of recommendations of the C.P.C.-VI, revised Pay structure consisting of Pay Bands and G.P. had been introduced w.e.f. 01.01.2006 to replace of pre-revised C.P.C. Pay Scales. While the revised Pay structure for any post had been 19 OA No. 101/2024 determined with reference to its existing pre-revised Pay Scales - it had been considered vide O.M. dated 24.11.2008 that the pay structure for the post of JHT be revised with reference to the higher C.P.C.-V pre-revised Pay Scale of Rs.(6500-10500)/- instead of the actual Pay Scale in which these posts had existed actually before 01.01.2006, which was Rs.(5500-9000)/- for C.S.O.L.S. JHT posts and Rs.(5000-8000) for non-C.S.O.L.S. JHT posts. This had on one hand upgraded the posts of both C.S.O.L.S. and non-C.S.O.L.S.JHTs ; on the other, it had ensured parity between them. Further, it had been found that vide O.M. dated 13.11.2009, the posts that had existed in the pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay Scale of Rs.(6500-10000)/- had been provided the G.P. of Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 instead of Rs.4200/- which had been retained for posts that had existed in the pre-revised C.P.C.-V Pay Scales of Rs.(5500-9000)/- and Rs.(5000-8000), so as to avoid potential functional disturbances resulting from feeder and promotion posts in the same functional hierarchy being allowed the same pay structure. In the context of the present dispute, it implied that the G.P. of 4600/- was allowed in place of 4200/- for the post of SHT ; whereas the G.P. of Rs.4200/- was allowed for the post of JHT post - both C.S.O.L.S. and non- C.S.O.L.S. The claim of G.P. of Rs.4600/- by the Applicantnon- C.S.O.L.S. JHTs, would be violative/in disturbance of both policy decisions that had been implemented pursuant to revision of pre- revised C.P.C.-V pay scales to revised C.P.C.-VI Pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006 -in that the grant of G.P. of Rs.4600/- would be higher than that for C.S.O.L.S.JHTs and cause disparity this time in favour of non-C.S.O.L.S. JHTs ; and that the feeder post of JHT and the promotion post of SHT in the same functional hierarchy would be in the same Pay Structure of Pay Band PB-2 with same G.P. of Rs.4600/-.
20OA No. 101/2024 It is also the settled position that matters related to pay etc. for employees were within the domain of executive/administrative authorities and judicial Courts/Tribunals do not interfere with those lightly ; nonetheless they had a limited scope to intervene, which could arise in situation of deviation from the statutory provisions or of any patent arbitrariness/illegality. In the present case, not only was the grant of G.P. of Rs. 4200/- to JHTs of C.S.O.L.S. and non-C.S.O.L.S. both, was in accordance with the provisions vide the CCS(RP) Rules-2008 brought in after consideration/acceptance of recommendations of the expert body as the C.P.C.-VI reached after a deliberative process ; and the related O.M.s dated 24.11.2008 and 13.11.2009. Moreover, the same claim of the Applicants had been specifically presented to and considered by the executive authorities later ; as well as by the related expert body, the C.P.C.-VII - but were not found tenable. Hence, we find that the decision to allow the G.P. of Rs. 4200/- inter alia for non-C.S.O.L.S. JHTs and not allowing the G.P. of Rs.4600/- to them did not suffer from any deviation from statutory provisions or any patent arbitrariness/illegality. Thus, the same did not require anyinterference.
Therefore, we also find that the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 10323/2015 & CM No. 25733/2015 (supra) had squarely covered the controversy at present at length,in terms of its substantive merit vis-a-visthe policy decisions and implementation guidelinesfor maintaining pay parity between C.S.O.L.S. and non-C.S.O.L.S. JHTs and for separation of pay structure for feeder and promotion posts in the functional hierarchy ; while also considering its wider ramifications - viz. the likely deleterious and domino effect by demands for restoration of pay parity by refixing the Pay structure of C.S.O.L.S. JHTs at the higher G.P. Rs.4600/- ; the demands for segregation of pay structure for feeder and 21 OA No. 101/2024 promotion posts, which would be across various similar posts of all Ministries/Departments and consequentially involve significantly high financial implications ; and its likely impact even on the later C.P.C.-VII already implemented. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2017 (supra) had also provided instructions/directions on how to handle various other related issues such as consideration of financial upgradations under A.C.P./ M.A.C.P. Scheme and recovery etc. in case the G.P. of Rs.4600/- had been granted in certain cases to individual non-C.S.O.L.S. JHTs. Accordingly, we decide that the G.P. of Rs.4600/- is not admissible to the Applicants in the present O.A., in line with and terms of the Judgment and Order dated 10.03.2017 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) 10323/2015 & CM No. 25733/2015 (supra).
16. Hence, the present O.A. is disposed of along with pending MAs, if any, accordingly. No order as to costs.
(Lok Ranjan) (Ranjana Shahi) Member (A) Member (J) !Vv