Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
D Mohan Rao vs Central Silk Board on 12 March, 2025
1
O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00062/2024
Order Reserved on: 6.3.2025
Date of Order: 12.3.2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.K SHRIVASTAVA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Shri. D. MOHAN RAO, 62 years
S/o Late D. Prakasham,
Sr. Technical Assistant (Retd)
Central Silk Board, Ministry of Textiles.
Govt. of India, Bangalore
Presently residing at
III-161-28/1, SBI Colony,
NLF School Road, MADANAPALLE-517 326
Annamiah Dist A.P. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Shri.Sampangi Ramaiah)
Vs.
1. The Joint Secretary (Silk)
Ministry of Textiles, Government of India,
New Delhi-110 011
2. The Member Secretary, Central Silk Board,
Ministry of Textiles, GOI, Madiwala, Hosur Road,
BANGALORE-560068
3. The Director [Finance].
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.14
14:58:53+05'30'
2
O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
Central Silk Board.
Government of India, Ministry of Textiles,
Madiwala, Hosur Road, BENGALURU - 560 068.
4. The Director,NSSO
Central Silk Board, BTM Layout,
Hosur Road, Madiwala,
BANGALORE-560068. ......Respondents
(By Advocate Shri.N.Amaresh for R 1 to 4)
ORDER
PER: DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 claiming the following reliefs:
"(i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI or any other order quashing the Impugned Office Orders vide letter No. CSB-
6(3630)/2022/PEN dated 26.04.2022 along with PPO No. 3544 Dated 26.04.2022 (both signed on 06.05.2022) and Revised Pay Fixation Sheet dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Respondent Board which have been produced as ANNEXURE-A5 & A4 as the said orders are illegal, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, irrational and violate of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from being contrary to the principles of rules of natural justice.
(ii) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing the Respondents to consider the Applicant's plea for re-fixing the pay in accordance with Rule 7(1) of CCS (RP) Rules, SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 3 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE 1997 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 in the revised higher scale, and subsequent revision of pension and to draw and disburse the arrears of salary and allowances along with pensionary benefits.
(iii) Pass any such other orders or issue such other directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts & circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."
2. The reliefs are claimed on the grounds as mentioned in paragraphs 5(a) to (d) of the Original Application. The brief facts as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant is aggrieved by the impugned orders No.CSB-6(3630)/2022/PEN dated 26.04.2022 along with PPO No. 3544 Dated 26.04.2022 (both signed on 06.05.2022) and Revised Pay Fixation Sheet dated 28.04.2022 of Respondents (Central Silk Board) who have wrongly fixed pay and pension to the lesser side of basic pay and pension, consequent upon implementation of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Order dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No. 31831-64/2019 (S-CAT). The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 04.02.2021 have extended the grant of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- to the Technical Assistants who were in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- with effect from 01.01.1996 not only the present employees, but all the other employees who are holding the post of Technical Assistant in the Central Silk Board. Though the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 4 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Respondent Board implemented the Hon'ble Court Orders and extended the higher pay scale, in absence of proper pay-fixation resulting in loss of pay & allowances w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and subsequent loss in pensionary benefits also. Despite repeated requests made by the applicant by enclosing pay fixation calculation sheet, and even after a lapse of more than 1½ year, the respondent Board did not consider his request to rectify the pay fixation and to re-fix the pay in accordance with Rule 7(1) of CCS (RP) Rules, 1997 as well as re-
fixation of pension subsequently.
3. It is further also submitted, that despite applicant's repeated requests made to the Respondents vide his representation dated 12/13.05.2022, enclosing therewith a detailed pay fixation statement, despite having attended online web-meeting conducted by Grievance Cell of Central Office, wherein requested for pay revision, but no action has been taken to rectify his pay fixation.
4. Further, it is also seen from the pay slip for the month of April 2022 which is the last month of his service, that basic pay of Rs 74,300/- was drawn and accordingly salary was paid to that extent.
However, while fixing pension the basic pay was reduced to Rs SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 5 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE 72,100/- as last pay drawn and basic pension fixed to Rs 36,050/- vide PPO No. 3544 Dated 26.04.2022, which is not in order Accordingly the alleged excess amount stated to be paid to the applicant to the extent of Rs.3,04,082/- was recovered from the Retirement Gratuity vide letter No. CSB/NSSO/3(867)/WB/85-ES/3736 Dated 07.09.2022 While recovering the alleged excess amount, neither the applicant was heard nor given any intimation, which is bad in law and contrary to natural justice. In fact, the applicant was drawing less pay by an increment, still recovery was made and pension was also reduced without rectification of pay fixation, not even bothered to respond to the correspondence made by the applicant.
5. The respondents have not passed any order to the representation made by the applicant. On the other hand, the respondents have reduced the basic pay abruptly, fixed less pension and made forceful recovery from the Retirement Gratuity of the applicant without passing any order, which is void and unsustainable under law. Hence, aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Respondents, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for afore mentioned reliefs.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 6 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
6. On notice, the respondents have filed their reply statement and a rejoinder has been filed by the applicant. Further an additional reply statement has also been filed by the respondents.
7. M.A 56/2024 has been filed for condonation of 8 months and 5 days delay and vide our order dated 10.01.2025, the delay in filing the O.A was condoned.
8. The case came up for final hearing on 6.3.2025. Shri Sampangi Ramaiah for the applicant and Shri.N.Amaresh for the respondents were present and heard.
9. We have carefully gone through the entire records and considered the contentions of both parties.
10. The applicant submitted that this case is fully covered by the order of this Tribunal in O.A Nos.170/475/2023, 523/2023 & 161/2023 wherein the Tribunal, on 14.2.2025, had allowed the Original Applications as follows:
"5. The brief facts of the applicants in O.A 475/2023 are that they are aggrieved by the impugned orders No.CSB-6(3120)/2020- Pen. Dated 01.05.2023 & 18.07.2023 of Respondent Central Silk Board who have not SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 7 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE considered rectification in Pay-fixation and to re-fixation of pension consequent upon implementation of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Order dated 04.02.2021 in W.P.No.31831-64/2019 (S-CAT). The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka vide its order dated 04.02.2021 have extended the grant of pay scale to the Technical Assistants who were in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- and they were granted a higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with effect from 01.01.1996 not only to the present employees before the Court, but all the other employees who were holding the post of Technical Assistant in the Central Silk Board. Though the Respondent Board implemented the Hon'ble Court Orders and extended the higher pay scale, in the absence of proper pay-fixation resulting in loss of pay & allowances w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and subsequent loss in pensionary benefits also for the applicants.
6. Despite repeated requests made by the applicants by enclosing pay fixation calculation sheet, and even after a lapse of more than two years the respondent Board did not consider their request to rectify the pay fixation and to re-fix the pay in accordance with Rule 7(1) of CCS (RP) Rules,1997 as well as re-fixation of pension subsequently. Finally, the applicants got issued separate legal notices dated 12.07 2023, through their counsel, for which respondent Board and Joint Secretary (Silk), Ministry of Textiles, did not bother even to reply. Hence the applicants filed this Original Application on the grounds claiming the aforementioned reliefs.
7. On notice, the respondents have filed their detailed reply statement and thereafter a rejoinder has been filed by the applicants.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 8 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Further, additional reply statement has also been filed by the respondents.
8. The case came up for final hearing on 5.2.2025. Shri.A Vishwanath Bhat for the applicant and Shri.N.Amaresh for the respondents in O.A 161/2023 and Shri.Sampangi Ramaiah for the applicants and Shri.N.Amaresh for the respondents in O.A 475/2023 and Shri.Sampangi Ramaiah for the applicant and Shri.Vishnu Bhat for the respondents in O.A 523/2023 were present and heard.
9. We have carefully gone through the records and considered the rival contentions.
10. From the statements of the parties, it is evident that this case is on a narrow compass with the main issue to be decided by us being following:
'(i) When the applicants who were in the post of Technical Assistant in the pre- revised 4th CPC pay scale of Rs.1400-40- 1800-EB-50-2300 and as per the 5th CPC recommendations, they were given initially the new pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 with effect from 1.1.1996. Thereafter, on the grant of rationalisation, the said cadre was given the pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000. So the question to be decided before us is as to whether after rationalisation, it required a second step of pay fixation for the applicants from their 5th CPC earlier granted pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 to Rs.5000-150-8000 as rationalised scale granted subsequently under Rule FR-22(1)(a)(2) and FR 23 (as contended by the respondents) or their rationalised scale of pay of Rs.5000-150- 8000 has to be considered as their new substituted pay scale provided for the post of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 9 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Technical Assistant within the framework of 5th CPC and consequently whether it has to be fixed as per the rules governing the Central Pay Commission fixation rules as on 1.1.1996 under Rule 7(1) of CCS Revised Pay Rules, 1997 (as contended by the applicants)?'
(ii) If so what orders ?
11. To understand the case of the applicants, it is pertinent to refer to the earlier round of litigations on the related subject which happened before various judicial forums on the specific contention: "Whether the rationalised pay scale given subsequently to the applicants of Rs.5000-150-8000 would be implemented from the date of the notification of such rationalisation which was issued on 15.11.2021 vide Memo No.CSB/80(1)/2001/ES.I or from the 1.1.1996 the date designated for the implementation of Vth Pay Commission?" As the contention of the Technical Assistants who had gone to the Court was that, as originally they were given under the 5th CPC the revised pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 with effect from 1.1.1996 but subsequently the said scale was changed through the process of rationalisation vide memo dated 15.11.2001 to the rationalised pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000, their pay should have been fixed in the revised scale effective from 1.1.1996 the designated date for the implementation of Pay Commission, whereas the Department was of the view that, as the upgraded rationalised pay scale was notified on 15.11.2001, it could be implemented prospectively only from that date. The same was contested before various judicial forums and finally the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.31831/2019 (S-CAT) between the SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 10 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Central Silk Board and Anr v. C.H.Ramanna and Others and vide judgement dated 4.2.2021, decided the issue in the following manner:
"6. It is needless to mention that the petitioner (Central Silk Board) preferred a Special Leave Petition i.e., in SLP No.36133/2013 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 16.12.2013 dismissed the Special Leave Petition. The petitioners not being satisfied with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition also preferred a Review Petition No.428/2014 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed the Review Petition also by an order dated 26th February, 2014.
7. Meaning thereby, the issue of grant of higher pay scale of Rs.5,000 to 8,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 in respect of the post of Technical Assistants has attained finality.
8. The petitioners who are before this court are Central Silk Board and its functionaries under the Ministry of Textiles did not extend the benefit of the order passed by the High Court affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to all the Technical Assistants and forced the Technical Assistants posted in the State of Karnataka to prefer Original Application. The Original Application has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 28th February, 2018 in OA Nos. 170/00243-00275/2018.
9. Another important aspect of the case is that the employees have also requested the department by submitting representations and the representations were rejected by the petitioners on 28.11.2014.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 11 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
10. It is pertinent to note that in spite of the fact that the matter has attained finality, as the Special Leave Petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the employees were forced to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming similar relief. However they withdrew the petition with a liberty and thereafter they also preferred Writ petition before the Delhi High Court and as the Delhi High Court was not having the territorial jurisdiction in the matter, an Original Application has been filed before the Tribunal and the same has been allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is not a judgment in rem but it was a judgment in personam. The second argument put forth by him is that the claim of the Technical Assistants is hopelessly barred by limitation.
11. This court has carefully gone through the Writ Petition filed by the Central Silk Board and fails to understand as to how the judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is the judgment in personam. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has granted an higher pay scale to a particular class of persons i.e., Technical Assistants with effect from 1.1.1996 i.e., pay scale from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.8,000/- and in all fairness the employer should have granted the same pay scale to all the employees working in the Central Silk Board Organization on the post of Technical Assistants.
12. In case the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted, there would be two class of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 12 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE employees working in one organization i.e., Central Silk Board which is certainly violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India. All the employees in the class Technical Assistants are to be treated as equal and are to be given a uniform pay scale in the entire organization and therefore, the argument canvassed by the learned counsel is repelled. Another ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the claim of the respondents is hopelessly barred by limitation.
13. It is a settled preposition of law, the claim relating to salary, claim relating to grant of annual increment are having recurring cause of action and the respondents cannot be denied the reliefs only because they were not party to the judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. In the considered opinion of this court, the pleas raised by the present petitioners organization are hyper technical and the Tribunal was justified in extending the benefit of higher pay scale with effect from 1.1.1996 i.e., from Rs.5,000 - 8,000/-to the applicants before the Tribunal. Resultantly, this court does not have any reason to interfere with the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal [See: M.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India reported in (1995)
5 SCC 628]. "
12. Simple reading of the above order along with the preceding Andhra Pradesh High Court order relied in the said judgement (discussed more elaborately subsequently) shows that the Hon'ble High Court was very clear and emphatic in telling that grant of higher pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 was very much part of the 5th CPC which came with effect from 1.1.1996 in respect of the post SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 13 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE of Technical Assistant. As it is a part of the 5th CPC implementation only, it cannot be said that it is any 2nd step which is independent of Pay Commission and it should be implemented prospectively from the date of its notification of the decision by memo dated 15.11.2001. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relied on the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh while deciding Writ Petition No.4769 of 2023 which was in respect of the same Organisation and which was in respect of the identically placed employees serving on the post of Technical Assistants. After considering the matter in detail where the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh had passed the following order:
""Heard the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that they are working under the control of the 2nd respondent, Central Silk Board. The scale that has been recommended by the pay commission constituted by the Government of India were revising pay scales are applicable to its employees on par with the Central Government employees. Once either the department or the Board, which adopts the recommendations of the pay commission cannot discriminate the same for application of pay scales from different dates. He also submits that once the pay scales have been revised, based on the recommendations of the pay commission, even the proceedings have been issued at a later stage revising pay scales, retrospective effect i.e. from date on which the pay scales come into effect can be given. In the instant case the pay scales came into effect by virtue of the V Pay Commission SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 14 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE 01.01.1996 and whereas the respondents have issued impugned proceedings stating that the rationalization of the pay scale comes into effect from 15.11.2001 instead of 01.01.1996, which is illegal and arbitrary.
From perusal of the material on record, it reveals that revision of pay scale implemented to the various categories of the respondent's employee i.e. librarians, Junior Translator (Hindi) and Scientists frorn 01.01.1996 and the same benefit has not been given to the petitioners. The respondents in its counter stated that the Board has conducted a detailed review and based on the recommendations of the Cadre Review Committee and with the approval of the Board implemented certain recommendations along with implementation of revised scales from Rs.4500-7000 to Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 15.11.2001, which is purely departmental action, is not sustainable. The department or the Board cannot discriminate in extending the pay scales from a particular date, the day on which the proceedings have been issued.
Invariably pay scales come into effect from the date of pay revision and it is nothing to do with the department or their action. In the instant case, as could be seen that in respect of various categories referred to above it is clear that the anomaly that took place was rectified and consequently the benefits have been provided with effect from 01.01.1996 and the case of the petitioners was also rectified by giving revising pay scales as claimed by the petitioners but restricted with effect from 15.11.2001, the date on which the proceedings have been issued instead of rectifying the same by giving the benefit from 01.01.1996. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings to the extent of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 15 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE extending benefit to the petitioners with effect from 15.11.2001 is illegal and arbitrary.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, the impugned proceedings to the extent of giving effect of the benefits under the impugned order with effect from 15.11.2001 is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for giving effect to the revised pay scales, including the arrears of pay, which the petitioners are entitled to, with effect from 01.01.1996 and pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs."
13. Further the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore observed that:
" Meaning thereby, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has allowed the claim of the identically placed employees directing payment of pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 in the same organisation."
14. The petitioners therein i.e., the Central Silk Board being aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh preferred a Writ Appeal No.504/2010 and the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh had passed the following order in Writ Appeal No.504/2010:
"We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge and the material available on record. The learned single judge, after going into the merits of the case found that other cadre employees were granted benefit of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 16 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE revised pay scales from 1.1.96, whereas the writ petitioners were granted the benefit from
15.11.2001 and that there is no reason for denying the same benefit to the writ petitioners. The learned single Judge also found that the Government of India vide their OM dated 8.11.2000 conveyed approval for revision of pay scales in respect of Junior Translators (Hindi) from Rs.4500-7000 to Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.96. The learned Single Judge also found that non extending the benefit of revised pay scales from 1.1.96 to the writ petitioners is illegal and arbitrary. We are of the view that there is no justification for the appellants in not extending the benefit of revised pay scales to the writ petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.96 while the other cadre employees of the 2nd appellant- Board were extended the same benefit w.e.f. 1.1.96. Therefore, we do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this respect.
As far as the jurisdiction aspect is concerned, the writ petition was filed in the year 2003 and though counter was filed, objection regarding jurisdiction was not taken in the counter and no objection was also taken even at the time of disposal of the writ petition and only for the first time in the writ appeal such objection was taken. Even otherwise, the Supreme Court in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti case (1 supra) held in paras 4 and 5 as under:
"The short question that arises in this case is whether pending appeals were liable to be transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal on issue of notification under sub- section (2) of Section 14 of the Act. Section 29(2) of the Act reads as thus:
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 17 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE "29. Transfer of pending cases
1........
2. Every suit or other proceeding pending before a Court or other authority immediately before the date with effect from which the jurisdiction is conferred on a Tribunal in relation to any local or other authority or Corporation or Society being a suit or proceeding, because of action where on it is based, is such that it would have been if it had arisen after the said date, within the jurisdiction shall stand transferred on that date to such Tribunal, Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before the High Court."
5. We are of the opinion that in view of proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 29 of the Act, the appeal was required to be decided on merits by the High Court. Unger such circumstances, we set aside the order under challenge and send the case back to the High Court to be decided on merits."
In Central Salt Mazdoor Union case (2 supra), the Apex Court held in para 22 as follows:
"We would assume that the Industrial Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide such a question after enactment of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. But such a contention had never been raised. The matter remained pending before the Labour Court for a long time. We, therefore, should not permit the appellant to raise such a contention before us for the first time."
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 18 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Section 29(2) of the Act clearly shows that nothing in the proviso to sub-section 2 shall apply to any appeal pending as aforesaid before a High Court. In view of above position of law, the question of transfer of the present writ appeal to the A.P. Administrative Tribunal as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants does not arise.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
Accordingly, the Writ appeal is dismissed while confirming the impugned order. As a sequel, interim order granted earlier i.e., on 07.07.2010 is vacated and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the writ appeal shall stand disposed of. "
15. Based on which the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore observed that meaning thereby the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has upheld the order passed by the learned single Judge granting higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- to all the Technical Assistants who were parties in the Writ Petition No.4769/2003 with effect from 1.1.1996.
16. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka further observed that it is needless to mention that the Central Silk Board preferred a Special Leave Petition No.36133/2013 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 16.12.2013 dismissed the Special Leave Petitions. And the petitioners not being satisfied with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition also preferred a Review Petition 428/2014 and the Hon'ble Supreme SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 19 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Court had dismissed the Review Petition also by order dated 26th February 2014.
17. Hence the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore Bench concluded that meaning thereby, the issue of grant of higher pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996 in respect of the post of Technical Assistants has attained finality. Based on these, the Hon'ble High Court in that case observed that, "This Court was witnessing shocking state of affairs going on in the Central Silk Board. The Central Silk Board wants each and every employee to be dragged to the Central Administrative Tribunal even if there is a judgment delivered in respect of a class of employees. The Central Silk Board cannot be permitted to act in the manner and matter in which it has acted in the present case, once the judgment has attained finality in respect of a particular post, all the employees are certainly entitled for higher pay scale of Rs.5000/- to Rs.8000/- with effect from 1.1.1996."
18. Resultantly, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore not only dismissed the Writ Petition but it dismissed the same with cost of Rs.one lakh to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of that order.
19. Further, the Hon'ble High Court mentions that it is needless to mention not only the present employees, but all the other employees who are holding the post of Technical Assistants in the Central Silk Board will be entitled for the same higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 20 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE The Central Silk Board is directed to ensure that the aforesaid pay scale is paid to all the concerned within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. In case, if the amount is not paid along with arrears, each and every employee holding the post of Technical Assistant shall also be entitled for interest and the same shall carry interest at the rate of 8.5% p.a., from the date of entitlement till the amount is actually paid to them.
20. The said order was very clear and emphatic that as the rationalised pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 from the earlier th recommended 5 CPC pay scale of Technical Assistant of Rs.4500-125-7000 was very much part of the 5th CPC implementation, hence it should be implemented from 1.1.1996 and not from the date (15.11.2001) when notifications were issued for rationalisation of higher pay scales of Rs.5000-150-8000 from the earlier recommended 5th CPC Rs.4500-125-7000.
21. From the above discussion and decisions of the Hon'ble Courts, it should have been very clear to the official respondents that the Court had clearly decided the issue in favour of the applicants. Although in the said writ petition 31831/2019 (S-CAT), wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore had passed the judgment on 4.2.2021, the specific issues were related to the date of implementation of the so called rationalisation which was essentially a substitution of the higher scale of Rs.5000-10- 8000 in place of Vth Pay Commission recommended scale of Rs.4500-125-7000; but from the said decision it should have been clear to the respondents that the date of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 21 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE implementation (1.1.1996) and the nature of implementation (in terms of substituting rationalised scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 in place of original Vth Pay Commission recommended scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 required newly substituted re-fixation effective from 1.1.1996 as per Vth Pay Commission pay fixation rules, i.e., Rule 7(1)(d) of the CCS Revised Pay Rules, 1997), as the said process of pay fixation cannot be divorced from the date of its implementation. It should have been clear to the respondents that it very much meant that the new rationalised pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 was merely a substituted scale of the original Vth CPC recommendations in place of the earlier recommended pay scale of Rs.4500- 125-7000. Once it is merely a substituted new pay applicable to all the employees in the cadre of Technical Assistants, there is no 2 steps or a second distinct step divorced from the Vth Pay Commission, and there is no new step which can be visualized there with any other rule of fixation like FR 22/23.
22. It is from the 4th CPC pay scale of the applicants as on 1.1.1996 in the Technical Assistant scale of Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50- 2300, the pay had to be fixed in the substituted rationalised scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 directly and it was wrong to assume that it required a two step process that on 1.1.1996 after coming of the 5th CPC, the 4th CPC scale of Technical Assistant with the scale of pay of Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300, their pay was first fixed as per 5th CPC under Rule 7(1) of CCS Revised Pay Rules 1997 with effect from 1.1.1996 in the grade of Rs.4500-125-7000; and then having a second independent step, independent of Vth CPC implementation process of fixing it in the rationalised scale of SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 22 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Rs.5000-150-8000 under FR 23 and FR 22(1)(a)(2) with effect from 15.11.2001 (or 1.1.1996 as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court).
23. Undisputedly as the post rationalisation the substituted scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 for the Technical Assistants post was the part of the 5th CPC revision in place of the initially recommended scale of Rs.4500-125-7000, it should have been clear to the respondents that the fixation of the pay had to be in one step from their existing 4th CPC scale of Rs.1400-40-1800- EB-50-2300 to Rs.5000-150-8000 as part of the Vth CPC. And as it was part of the 5th CPC revision only, hence it has to be effected under Rule 7(1)(d) of CCS Revised Pay Rules 1997 and not under the Rule FR 23 and FR 22(1)(a)(2) as contended by the respondents. We are of the considered opinion that the respondents have erred in considering the rationalisation process and its actual implementation as an independent process. Considering it not to be part of the Vth Pay Commission implementation, and first insisting that it should be implemented from the date of the notification of the said rationalisation (15.11.2001) and not the effective date of the Vth Pay Commission, i.e., 1.1.1996. And then even after the two Hon'ble High Court Order which found finality before the Hon'ble Apex Court to insist as if rationalisation was a process independent of Vth Pay Commission, and on that premise effecting pay fixation under FR 22/23, instead of the rightful use of Rule 7(1)(d) of CCS Revised Pay Rules, 1997.
24. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 23 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE Petition No.4769/2003, the issue had attained finality as it was taken before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No.36133/2013 and in Review Petition No.428/2014, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the Review Petition vide its order dated 26.2.2014. Hence the issue had attained finality on that day itself and the same was again emphatically reiterated by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore vide its order dated 4.2.2021 in the case of Central Silk Board and others v. C.H Ramanna and Others, wherein not only emphatically the court decided that the substituted rationalised scale of Rs.5000-150- 8000 has to be given effect from 1.1.1996, but the Hon'ble Court also imposed a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- and made it very clear that the order will be implemented in rem in the case of everyone who are similarly situated and the applicants herein who are similarly placed are also be entitled for interest and the same shall carry interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum, from the date of entitlement till the amount is actually paid to them.
25. In terms of the said judgments as we have no doubt in our mind that the applicants have a strong case and they are right in emphatically asserting that their rationalised revised scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 which was notified in 2001 essentially was substituting the earlier recommended 5th CPC scale of Rs.4500-125-7000, was part of the 5th CPC implementation and hence it had to be implemented from 1.1.1996 and the pay fixation under the Pay Commission pay revision has to be invariably under Rule 7(1) of CCS Revised Pay Rules, 1997 with effect from 1.1.1996.
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 24 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE
26. With the above observation, we pass the following orders:-
All the three Original Applications are allowed.
In O.A 475 of 2023, we quash and set aside letter No. CSB-6(3120)/2020-Pen Dated 01.05.2023 & 18.07.2023 (ANNEXURE-A6 & A7) passed by the 2nd Respondent.
In O.A 523/2023, we quash and set aside letter No. CSB/NSSO/2/RPS/TA/2020-21- ES/808 & 3448 dated 17.7.2021 & dated 17.1.2022passed by the 2nd respondent which have been produced as ANNEXURE-A3. In O.A 161/2023, we quash and set aside order bearing CSB-6(3120)/2020/PEN dated 17.12.2022 passed by the 2nd Respondent which has been produced as Annexure-A6.
Pursuant to the impugned orders, as in the case of O.A 161/2023, if any recovery is made from the applicant, same shall be returned back to the applicant.
The applicants' pay in the new rationalised scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 has to be fixed in one step from the original pre- revised scale they were holding as on 1.1.1996 in the grade of Technical Assistant as Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 in one step under Rule 7(1) of CCS Revised Pay Rules, 1997 with all consequential benefits as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 4.2.2021 in Writ petition No.31831/2019 (S-CAT) which mentions the following:
"16. More so,, it is needless to mention not only the present employees, but all the other employees who are holding the post of Technical Assistants in the Central Silk Board will be entitled for the same higher pay scale of Rs.5,000 8,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996. The Central Silk Board is directed to ensure SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 25 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE that the aforesaid pay scale is paid to all the concerned within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. In case, if the amount is not paid along with arrears, each and every employee holding the post of Technical Assistant shall also be entitled for interest and the same shall carry interest at the rate of 8.5% p.a., from the date of entitlement till the amount is actually paid to them."
The respondents shall implement this Order expeditiously, and in no case later than 12 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the applicant shall be entitled for an interest of 12% subsequently.
All associated M.As, if any pending, are disposed of accordingly. No costs."
11. The respondents also agreed that the subject matter is one and the same.
12. We have carefully perused the entire record. From the record, it is evident that the facts of this case are identical to the facts of the case as mentioned in O.A Nos.475/23, 523/23 and 161/23 where the order was passed 14.2.2025. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the applicant herein is also entitled to the same relief as was granted in the above-mentioned O.As.
13. With the above observations, we pass the following orders:
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 26 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE The Original Application is allowed the impugned Office Orders vide letter No. CSB-
6(3630)/2022/PEN dated 26.04.2022 along with PPO No. 3544 Dated 26.04.2022 (both signed on 06.05.2022) and Revised Pay Fixation Sheet dated 28.04.2022 passed by the Respondent Board which have been produced as ANNEXURE-A5 & A4 are set aside.
The authority competent among the respondents is directed to consider the applicant's pay re-fixation in accordance with Rule 7(1) of Revised Pay Rules, 1997 with effect from 1.1.1996 in the revised higher scale and subsequent revision of pension and arrears of salary and allowances along with pensionary benefits.
Pursuant to the re-fixation of pay of the applicant, any recovery is made, such amount may be returned to the applicant.
The applicant's pay in the new rationalised higher scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 has to be fixed in one step from the original pre-revised scale he was SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 27 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE holding as on 1.1.1996 in the grade of Technical Assistant as Rs.1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 in one step under Rule 7(1) of CCS Revised Pay Rules, 1997 with all consequential benefits as mentioned in paragraph 16 of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 4.2.2021 in Writ petition No.31831/2019 (S-CAT) which mentions the following:
"16. More so,, it is needless to mention not only the present employees, but all the other employees who are holding the post of Technical Assistants in the Central Silk Board will be entitled for the same higher pay scale of Rs.5,000 8,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996. The Central Silk Board is directed to ensure that the aforesaid pay scale is paid to all the concerned within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of this order. In case, if the amount is not paid along with arrears, each and every employee holding the post of Technical Assistant shall also be entitled for interest and the same shall carry interest at the rate of 8.5% p.a., from the date SHAINESHAINEY VIJU CAT Bangalore Y VIJU 2025.03.14 14:58:53+05'30' 28 O.A.Nos.170/62/ 2024/CAT/BANGALORE of entitlement till the amount is actually paid to them."
The respondents shall implement this Order expeditiously, and in no case later than 12 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the applicant shall be entitled for an interest of 12% subsequently.
All associated M.As, if any pending, are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Sd/- sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE B.K.SHRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/SV/
SHAINESHAINEY VIJU
CAT Bangalore
Y VIJU 2025.03.14
14:58:53+05'30'