Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Dr N Kamatchi vs M/O Health And Family Welfare on 24 March, 2023
i
1 O.A401 2000
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA No. 4031/2020
ttn _.
Dated 7 4+ day the #71 day oF March Two Thousand Twenty
ree
CORUM:
HON'BLE MR. T.JACOB, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
&
HON''BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
DrN.Kamatchi,
W/O PK.Dharant Shankar,
' Aged about 5S years = 4
Working as Assistant Director
{Official Language},
Hindi Section, JIPMER,
Dhanvantri Nagar,
Puducherry-605 005 . Applicant
By Advocate M/S.M.Gnanasekar
Ys.
1 Union of India,
rep. By the Secretary,
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare
Department: of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Dehi-110 001
2 The Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Lok Nayak Bhavan,
Khan. Marketi,
New Delhi-110 003
3 The Secretary,
The Second & Third Sub-Committee,
Committee of Parliament on Official Language,
No.11, Teen Murthi Marg,
New Delhi-110 00
4 The President,
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate
Medica! Education & Research (JIPMER)
No.14, Hauzhkas Enclave
5 The Director,
Jawaharial Institute of Post Graduate
Medical Education & Research (JIPMER)
Dhanvantari Nagar,
Puducherry-600 006
6 The Deputy Director,
Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate
Medical Education & Research (JIPMER}
Dhanvantari Nagar,
Puducherry-600 006
By Advocate Mr.M.T.Arunan
. Respondents
0.A.401/2020
3 O.AA0HI0
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking for the following reliefs:
"(i Direct the respondents to grant the revision of pay scale to the applicant as directed by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS}, New Delhi in their Order No.F-9-14/2009/Estt. {RCT}, dated 23.10.2009 with all consequential arrears of pay and allowances and other benefits by extending the benefits of judgements of the co-ordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Tribunal;
{ii} Pass such further orders as are necessary to: meet the ends of justice (iti) Award exemplary cost and thus under justice."
2. The brief facts of the case in nutshell are as under:
The applicant was initially appointed as Clerical Grade-II (L.T.Hindi) at All India Radio Puducherry on 21.05.1986 and further promoted as Clerical Grade-I w.e.f.25.08.1994, Afterwards, the applicant on deputation joined at JIPMER as Junior Hindi Translator w.e.f.1.8.1996 and absorbed in JIPMER w.e.f.1.8.1999. Further the applicant was promoted to the post of Senior Hindi Translator w.e.f.17.11.2004. The applicant contended that the next avenue of pramotion available to the applicant is to the post of Hindi Officer (now re-designated as Assistant Director (OL). Further contended that the Third Sub-Committee of Parliamentary Committee on Official Language has inspected JIPMER on 3.1.1995. During the inspection 27 assurance were given to the said committee, out of 27 assurance still one assurance is unfulfilled, Le, the post of one Hindi Officer and a typist will be sanctioned within 3 months and these posts will be filled urgently.
4 O.A.dA0 12020 Accordingly, by communication dated 20.4.1995, the Respondent No.1 Created one post of Hindi Officer to JIPMER and issued JIPMER (Hindi Officer) Recruitment Rules dated 10.11.1998. The applicant is fully qualified for promotion to the post of Hindi Officer as per the JIPMER (Hindi Officer) Recruitment Rules and she is the senior most eligible candidate. However, JIPMER has not taken any steps to fill up the past of Hindi Officer for more than 21 years.
It is also contended that in the meantime, the Ministry of Finance issued OM dt. 24.11.2008 directing all Ministries/Departments etc. To grant revised pay scales for Official Language posts in various subordinate offices of the Central Government on par with Official Language staff of Central Secretariat Official Language Service. As per the OM dated 24.11.2008 and 27.11.208, the post of Assistant Director (previously designated as Hindi Officer} was placed in PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.5400, By Communication dated 124.2010, the 1"
respondent directed to initiate promotion to various posts relating to Official Language. Even then JIPMER failed to promote the Applicant to the post of Assistant Director (Official Language). It is also contended that on the basis of draft Recruitment Rules, JIPMER has issued a notification dated 30.6.2016 calling for application from eligible applicants for promotion/deputation ta the post of Assistant Director (OL) Accordingly, by order dated 7.2.2017 the applicant was promoted as Assistant Director (OL) on 8.2.2017. The applicant has assumed the charges as Hindi Officer on 8.2.2017, Subsequently, by crder dt.22.8.2017 the post of Hindi Officer was re-designated as Assistant Director (OL) in the scale of Rs.15600-39100 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400. The applicant contended that Hindi Officer/Assistant Director (OL) working in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) were given revision f 5 O.AM0120 pay scales w.e.f. 0101.1996 notionally and actually w.e.f£.11.2.2003 by order dated 23.10.2009 on the basis of recommendation of the 5" cpc and in accordance with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, Department of Official Language OM no 13/6/2002 dated 2.4.2004. Therefore, for the same benefit, the applicant has submitted her various representation dt.26.3.2019, 4.6,2019. In response to her request for inclusion of Hindi Section in the left out cadres by the Cadre Restructure Fitment Committee under the Chairmanship of Medical Supdt of JIPMER and the same has been sent to to Ministry on 27.12.2017 for the approval for implementation at JIPMER. But the cadre statement of Hindi Section after restructure at JIPMER received from Admin.I Section shows that as it is existing cadre in JIPMER has restructured as with the same pay scale and same designation and it is not re-structured on par with ATIMS New Delhi. Therefore, the applicant again submitted various representations and reminders i.¢.17.8.2019, 11.12.2019, 12.12.2019 ,18.2,.2020 and 19.2.2020 and requested for implementation/sanction of upgradation of pay scales at par with AIIMS Hindi Cadre. Since the same is not being extended, being aggrieved, the applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal praying for the aforesaid relief.
3 After notice, the respondents have entered their appearance through their counsel and filed a detailed reply and raised the grounds that the applicant is not entitled for the claim of parity with the employees who are working In the other organisations as far as concerned to the judgements and orders relied by the applicants in persona and the respondents is not a party to these procedure. Hence it is not applicable in the matter of applicant. Therefore, prayed or dismissal] of OA.
6 O.A.401/20.40) 4 In support of the claim, the applicant relied upon the following orders of co-ordinate Benches of this Hon'ble Tribunal and the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India, Guidelines and instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance 1 Order dt.4.6.2007 in the matter of Shri.Asish Kumar Khare vs. Union of India by Hyderabad Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal + 2 Order dt.24.7.2009 in T:A.No.353/2009 In the matter of Mahaveer Tripathi vs. AMS by the Principal Bench, New Delhi of this Hon'ble Tribunal ;
3 Order dt.25.7.2013 in SLP (Civil) No.17419/2009 in the matter of Union of India & Ors vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India;
4 Order dt.02.01,2019 in 0.A.620/2015 in the matter of Bhanu Kumar Bharadwaj vs Union of India by Jaipur Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal;
5 Guidelines/Instructions No.F.No.A-23011/72/2018-Ad JIA dt.iSth July, 2019 issued by CBOT Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance;
6 Order dt.9,3,.2021 in O.A.No.1321/2014 in the matter of Dhananjay Singh vs. Union of India by the Kolkata Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal;
5 Heard M/S. M.Gunasekar for the applicant and Mr.M.T.Arunan for Respondents |] and perused the relevant records.
6 It is also noted that as per the notified Recruitment Rule, the mode of recruitment for the post of Hindi Officer was by prometion/deputation L.@. composite method and promotion from the post of Senior Hindi Translator, It is also not in dispute that the JIPMER became an 7 O.A.40 Tipe Autonomous Institution under the 1% Respondent. Ministry of Finance OM dt.24.11.2008 changed the Designation of Hindi Officer as Assistant Director (OL) in the pay scale of PB-III Rs, 15600-39100 with Grade Pay Rs.5400 Accordingly, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Hindi Officer was amended on the basis of 6" CPC recommendation with regard to pay scale and qualifying service and framed recruitment rules on 13,3.2013. Accordingly, the post for the Assistant Director (OL) have been advertised on 3.6.2015 on deputation basis as per the Recruitment Rules, In which the applicant was the only candidate who applied for deputation. Since there is only one application received from the application, her case was placed before the DPC and based on the recommendation of othe DPC, the applicant was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (OL) on 8.2.2017 also redesignated as Assistant Director (OL) was done by Office Order dt.22.8.2017, 7 It is to be noted that in the matter of pay scale in respect of Hindi Translators which post is redesignated are entitled for pay scales at par with the Hon'ble Tribunal in Central Secretariat Official Language Service {CSOLS} from the date of which the said benefit extended to the said Hindi Translator working in CSOLS. The Co-ordinate Bench at Hyderabad of this Hon'ble Tribunal in the matter of Ashish Kumar Khare vs. Union of India by order dt.4.6,2007 held as under
"12 It has to be seen whether the Junior Hindi Translator working. in subordinate. offices are entitled for the pay scales on par with the Junior Hindi Translators working in CSOLS. This is not for the first time such dispute arose between the Hindi Staff working in subordinate offices and the staff working in the Hindi Secretariat at New Delhi. As seen from the orders passed in OA 753/2004 in Meghnath Das and Ors. v. CPWD on the file of CAT, Calcutta bench, similar dispute was raised before the Principal Bench, CAT New Dethi as long back as in the year 1989 itself in. 0.4.1310/1989 in V.K. Sharma and Ors. v Union of tndia and Ors. The Principal Bench decided the said dispute in its Judgment dated 24.9.9! holding that the respondents therein should grant the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and Rs. 1400-2600 to the Senior and Junior Translators respectively in Armed Forces Headquarters of the Ministry of Defence with effect from 1.1.86 with all consequential benefits of pay 8 O.A.40T200 fixation, arrears plus ancillary allowances ete. relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India 1982 SC (L&S) wherein the Supreme Court observed that where all the relevant considerations are the same. persons holding identical posts must not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. The said decision of the Principal Bench was followed by the Calcutta Bench in Meghnath Das and Ors. v. CPWD in OA 157/90 dated 10.1.92 which held as follows:
9. In the result for the foregoing reasons and discussions and in view of the observations and findings of Hon'ble Apex Court and the Principal Bench, CAT the impugned Office Memorandum dated 29.3.2004 is hereby quashed and set aside and we direct the respondents to extend the benefit of the Ministry of Finance OM dated 14,7,2003 to the applicants and we further direct the respondents to remove the anomalous position and grant the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/-and Rs. 6500-10500/-t0 the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators respectively, within a period of 3 months from ihe date of receipt of this order:
Again the same Bench pronounced common orders on 9.11.2606 in the case of Dhananjay Singh v. Central Excise and Rajesh Kumar Gond v. Director of Official Language reiterating the same view taken in Meghnatha Das and Ors, v. CPWD and quashed the impugned Office Memorandum dated 29.3.2004 and directed the respondents therein to extend the benefit of the Ministry of Finance OM dated 14.7.003 to the applicant and also further directed the respondents to remove the anoinalous position and grant the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 to the Junior Hiadi Translator within a period of three months from the date of receipt of that order
13. The facts in the case of Meghnath Das and Ors. v. CPWD in OA 753/2004 on the file of Division Bench of CAT, Calcutta Bench are that the persons who are working as Junior and Senior Hindi Translators in subordinate offices contended that the <th Central Pay Commission have treated the Hindi Translators working in subordinate offices and Secretariat Office alike and the pay: seale for Junior Translators was Bs, 1400-2600 and for Senior Hindi Translators was Rs. 1640-2900 and that the Pay Commission never recommended any disparity in the pay scales in respect of Hindi Translators working in subordinate offices and the Hindi Translators working in the Secretariat and therefore, recommended equivalent pay scales and the said recommendations have been accepted by the Government arid while 50, by order dated 19.2.2003, the Hindi Directorate made out an artificial classification among the Hindi Translators working in the Secretariat are different from the Hindi Translators working in the subordinate offices and upgraded the pay scales of Junior Hindi Translators from 5000-8000 to 5500-9000 and for Senior Hindi Translators from 2500-9000 to 6500- 10500 and when the Association of Hindi Translators of CPWD took up: the mutter with the Director General of Works, the Ministry of Finance have earlier issued Office Memorandum dated 14.7.2003 extending higher pay scale to Junior and. Senior Hindi Translators of subordinate officers also conveying therein the approval of the Minister for upgradation of the pay scales and giving effect to the said extended higher pay scale with effect from 1.1.96. But the Ministry of Finance could later cancelled the said higher pay scales to Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in subordinate office and came out with the impugned order dated 29.3.2004 that the higher pey scales were made for the Hindi Translators in the Department of Official Language only and therefore they had to approach the Tribunal relying. on an earlier decision of the Principal Bench of CAT in OA 157/90 dated 10.1.92. The respondents therein. Viz. CPWD and others contested the case in OA 753/2004 before the CAT, Calcutta Bench contending that the Senior Hindi Translators and Junior Hindi Translators working in the offices of the Central Secretariat belong to the cadre of Central Secretariat Official 9 OAS: te Language Service being appointed through competitive examination on All india basis conducted by the Staff Selection Commission on fulfilling of certain criteria andl qualifications whereas the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in subordinate offices of various departments throughout the country like CPWD belong to the subordinate cadre of such service as they were initially appointed as LDC and thereafter selected through departmental examination for the post of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators and all the applicants have come from the post of LDC and they are all along been in the lower pay scale and after the 5th Central Pay Commission, the pay scales of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators in CSOLS and subordinate cadre are Rs. 5000-8000/-and Rs. 5500-9000 respectively, It is further contended by the respondents therein that the Ministry of Finance, by its order dated 29.3.2004 upgraded the posts of Junior Hindi Translators and Sentor Hindi Translators. from 5000-8000 to 5500-9000 and from 5500-9000 to 6500-10500 respectively and the said upgradation of pay scales were approved with effect from 1.1.96 notionally with the actual financial benefits with effect from 11.2.2003. It is firther contended therein that the upgraded pay scales were approved by the Government only for the specific post in CSOLS and cannot be extended to similarly designated posts elsewhere.
i4. The applicants therein who are Junior Hindi Translators in subordinate offices contended that granting higher pay scales to the Hindi Translators working in the Secretariat than the Hindi Translators working in subordinate offices amounts to violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and such classification is arbitrary and discriminatory. They further contended that the 5th Central Pay Commission took into consideration all the relevant parameters and identified the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators as classes by themselves and made appropriate recommendation for equal. pay scales for all the Hindi Translators working in Secretariat and also in subordinate offices and the Government of India accepted the same and therefore it is not open for the Government to come up with artificial classification making a class within a class and grant special treatment on the basis of their place of work, i.e. New Delhi.
15. Considering those rival contentions, the Division Bench of CAT, Calcutta Bench rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents department and accepted the contentions of the applicants therein. The facts of the cited case are exactly similar to the facts of this case. Because the pleadings in the present application-as well as the pleadings of respondents in the reply are one and same as that of the pleadings in OA 7533/2004 on the file of Division Bench of CAT, Caleutta Bench, The grievance of the applicant herein is that the benefit of upgradation of pay scale from 5000-8000 to 5500-9000 granted to Junior Hindi Translators of CSOLS have been denied to the Junior Hindi Translators working in subordinate offices. The respondents herein contested the claim of the applicant on the same ground that it is the policy of the Government and that in the orders dated 2.4.2004, it is specifically mentioned about the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in CSOLS and not the Junior and Senior Translators working in subordinate offices, and that the substituted pay scales of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators of CSOLS are not applicable: to the. Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in subordinate offices. Similar contentions were raised before the CAT, Calcutta Bench in both the OAs 753/2004 and also OAs 912/2004 and 939/2004. Thus, the dispute raised before the Division Bench of CAT. Calcutta Bench and also the dispute raised before this Bench in this regard are exactly same. The Calcutta Bench of CAT in OA 157/90 dated 10.1.92 followed the decision in OA 1310/89 between V.K, Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors, which in turn relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v, Union of India wherein the Supreme Court observed that where all the relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts must not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. In the instant case, admittedly, all the Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in subordinate offices and also in the Secretariat services are on equal pay scales prior to 11,2.2003.10 0.A.401/2020
i.€. Rs, 5000-8000 for Junior Hindi Translators and Rs. 5500-9000 for Senior Hindi Translators. It is also nat disputed that eligibility for recruitment in subordinate offices and in the CSOLS as Hindi Translators are one and the same. In fact as seen from the common notification (Annexure A-5), for Junior Hindi Translators of CSOLS is shown as 5000-8000; for Junior Hindi Translators in Armed Forces Headquarters Service is shown as same and similarly for Junior Hindi Translators in the subordinate offices is also shown as 5000-8000. This notification was issued in. the year 2002. The educational qualifications required for the Junior Hindi Trarislator in CSOLS and subordinate offices are one and the same. Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ with the opinion expressed by the Principal Bench of CAT in its order dated 10.1.92 in OA 157/90 and orders in OAs 753/2004, 912/2004 and 9392004 on the file of Division Bench of CAT, Calcutta Bench, as the said decisions are in accordance with the rationale laid down by the Apex Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India reported in 1982 SCC (L&S) wherein the Supreme Court observed that where all the relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts must not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to- different departments. We entirely agree with the view that Junior & Senior Hindi Translators working in subordinate offices are entitled for the pay scales on par with Junior and Senior Hindi Translators working in CSOLS. Thus, this point is found in favour of the applicant.
17. In the result, the OA is partly allowed declaring that the applicant who is a Hindi Translator which post is re-designated as Junior Hindi Translator is entitled for pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 on par with the Junior Hindi Translator in CSOLS from the date on which the said benefit of upgradation has been extended to the Junior Hindi Translators working in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service. Application is partly dismissed denying the other reliefs.
7 It is to be held that Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal at New Delhi in TA No.353/2009 in the matter of Mahaveer Tripathi Vs. AIIMS in its order dt.24.7.2009 has held thus in the matter of equal pay for equal work, if there is no distinct feature, nor- application would be against the law, as ruled by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Dineshan K.K., AIR 2008 SC 1026, Also held by the Division Bench of High Court in Linion of India & others v. Mohinder Singh & others, (2008) 1. SLI (HC) (31 that similarly placed employees should get similar treatment in the matter of pay. Recently the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar & others, 2008 (9) SCALE 537 ruled that equal pay for equal work is to be applied when identical duties are performed,
2. Equality in the matter of pay may not be a fundamental right but it is one of the Directive Principles enshrined under Article 309 of the Constitution of India,
4. In the above backdrop, it is no more: res integra that Ministry of Health, which is the cadre controlling authority, after comparing the duties and all other functional requirements of Hindi Translator cadre in AJIMS with others in the Department of Official Language, has sent a proposal to the Ministry of Finance for revision of pay scales of Rs.4500-7000 and Rs,5000-8000. The aforesaid proposal has been turned down by the Ministry of Finance only on the ground that as the 6th Central Pay Commission is in vogue, a decade old issue cannot be taken up. This has been communicated to the applicants by the respondents on 20.3.2006 (Annexure P-1}.9
1} O.A.401/2020
4. Learned proxy counsel appearing for AIIMS vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that in the matter of prant of benefits. which are not to be extended automatically to the employees of autonomous bodies, the same can be extended only if the post is comparable to similar posts in Ministries / Departments. in terms of Recruitment Rules.
5. It is further argued on behalf of AIIMS that the post of Junior Translator in AIIMS is not comparable to similar posts in Ministries / Departments.
6, Learned proxy counsel for respondents-AIIMS places reliance on the decisions of Apex Court in State of Orissa & others v. Balaram Sahu &. others (2003). 1 SCC 250 and Union of India & another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar, AIR 2008 SC 435 to contend that equivalence in pay demands on several factors and two unequals cannot he treated equally.
8. A shifting stand or a contradictory stand by the respondents, more particularly when Ministry of Health, after comparing the functional requirements of the post in AIIMS with other comparable posts, when arrived at a conclusion that when they performed equal work and when the rejection of the request of the applicants does not contain any observation as to the applicants being unequal to others, a presumption in law has to be drawn that the applicants are performing the same functions. insofar as the grant of pay scales recommended by 6th CPC to the employees. of autonomous bodies are concerned.
9. We found on record an order passed by the respondents dated 24.2.1998 where Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has extended to the employecs of NEFF W the pay scales, which clearly shows that there has been a discrimination for extending the pay scale recommended by 6th CPC to AIIMS to the applicants herein.
10. In Dr. Manju Vatsa v. The Director, AIMS & another (WP (C) No.3005/2008) decided on 28.8.2008, a similar controversy as to grant of pay scales when raised before the High Court, Regulation 35 of the AIIMS Regulations, [999 has been relied upon to hold that there can be.no reasons as to petitioner therein working as Principal. Nursing College. AIIMS should not get the same benefit in relation to grant of pay scale recommended by 6th CPC when it is extended to her contemporary working Principal in other colleges. As we find that on comparison it has been found that applicants are discharging the identical duties with their counterparts, this finding when not objected to by the Ministry of Finance, the only reason to deny that the grant of pay scale after 6th CPC has been constituted after a decade would not be reasonable and justified ground to reject the request of the applicants.
1. In the result, TA stands allowed. Respondents are direcied to upgrade the benefits of pay scale to the applicants in the entire Hindi Translator cadre w.e.f. 1.1.1996 along with arrears. This shall -be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a.copy of this order. No costs.
It is also to be noted that Hon'ble Supreme Court In SLP (Civil) No.17419/2009 observed thus:
6....we may profitably refer to the observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J., in paragraph 8 of the judgment in Randhir Singh (supra) which reads as follows:12
0.4.401/2020 "8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly Is a constitutional right. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women' as a Directive Principe of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for every one and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating te employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay........... a The respondent in this appeal was working as a Junior Hindi Transtator in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise- L Kolkata. He claimed parity of pay with the Junior Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat. In his case also, what we find is that there is no functional distinction as far as the work of these translators is concerned. Therefore, we do not take.a different view. The civil appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders will stand vacated, 10 It is to be noted that while dealing with the similar issue, Co- ordinate Bench at Jaipur in OA 620/2015 tn its order dt.2.1.2019 held thus
2. In reply, the respondents contend that the judgment in the case of A.K.Rai, (supra), cannot be enlarged in favour of the petitioner as it is a judgment in personam and further that this benefit has been given subject to the outcome of Writ Petition No.1262 (SB) 2010 filed by the Department which is pending before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court. As such therefore the prayer for grant of similar relief to the applicant as granted in the case cf A.K.Rat, (supra), is premature at this stage and the present OA should be dismissed on this ground alone.
4. A perusal of the record in this case confirms that Shri A.K.Rai and the applicant are similarly situated and both were working as Hindi Translator in CAT in the pay scale of Rs. 5000- 9000/-. A perusal of the CAT Lucknow Bench's judgment in Original Application No.6/2007 preferred by A.K.Rai, (Annexure A/9}, shows that the benefit given to Hindi Translators belonging to the Central Secretariat Official Language Service, (CSOLS), i.e. the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- was indeed extended to Shri A.K.Rai. The record shows that this was done vide CAT Principal Bench's letter/order dated 07.08.2012, (Annexure A/11), read (OA No.620/2015)) (5) with DoP&T letter No.P-26012/17/2007-AT dated 13.07.2012, (Annexure A/12), the relevant portion of which 13 O.A,401/2020 States as foillows:- "The matter was referred to Department of Expenditure on the implementation of CAT, Lucknow Bench's order dated 01.07.2009 in OA No.6/2007 filed by Shri A.K.Rai, The Department of Expenditure has agreed to implement CAT, Lucknow Bench order dated 01.07.2009 in OA No.6/2007 filed by Shri A.K. Rai in respect of applicant only subject to the outcome of writ Petition No.1262/2010(SB)/2010 in High Court of Lucknow on 28.08.2010 filed by the Department and also the SLP No.3380/2009 against the order dated 02.05.2008 in wWPCT No.728/2007 of High Court of Calcutta (Dhananjay Singh case) filed by Department of Revenue."
5. As regards the question of whether the judgment with reference to A.K.Rai, (supra), will also be applicable to the present case, the contention of the applicant that he is similarly situated as Shri A.K.Rai Fas not been refuted by the respondents. In this connection, the relevant portion of Para-10 of the judgment passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Tribunal in the case of A.K.Rai, (supra), reads as follows: "10. The Principal Bench 'in its judgment in OA No.928/94, fallowing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, 1975 (1) SLR 153 (SC), has held that in service matters judgments in most of the cases were judgments in rem because they affected a large numer of employees..." (OA No,620/2015)) (6)
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Lal Berry vs. Collector of Central Excise, Delhi, 1975 (1) SLR 153 (SC) has. ruled as follows:+ * When a citizen aggrieved by the action of a Government Department has approached the Court and obtained a declaration of law is (sic) his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the Department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievances to Court..."
7. Accordingly, this OA is disposed of in the same terms as were made applicable in the case of Shri A.K.Rai, (supra), vide judgment of CAT Luc<now Bench on 01.07.2009 in OA No.6/2007. Impugned order dated 03.08.2015, (Annexure A/i), is set aside and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit as extended to. Shri A.K.Rai, (supra), vide CAT Lucknow Bench order dated 01.07.2009 to the applicant subject to the outcome of writ Petition No.1262/2010(SB)/2010 pending at Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and also SLP No.3380/2009 filed against the order dated 02.05.2008 in WPCT No.727/2007 of the High Court of Caicutta in the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 11 It is also to be noted that in the matter of Dhananjay Singh v-. Union of India in OA 13210 f 2014 pending the matter before the C:, ordinate Bench at Kolkata, DOPT has issued letter dt.15.7.2019 in respect 14 0.A.401/2020 of grant of upgradation of pay scales to the Assistant Director (OL) held thus:
"S(IV) The applicant, however, has relied on the decisions I OA No.180/00656/2012 and 0.A.No.180/00953/2012 (Anexure A-5 to the OA) of the Ernakulam Bench, whose orders have reportedly been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala as well as by the Hon'ble Apex court."
12 Accordingly, the Co-ordinate Bench at Kokata in its order dt.9.3.2021 had considered all the OMs issued by Finance Ministry along with the orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches. Accordingly, liberty to the applicant to approach the respondent authority with a direction to the respondents to refer the matter to the Ministry of Finance, Department ul Expenditure for clarity and application in terms of the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Ernakulam Bench and directed tc take a decision and disposed of the OA accordingly.
13. it is to be noted as admitted by the respondents communication in para 15 of the Counter Reply the similar posts with similar pay scale are available in AIIMS New Dethi and other Central Government Departments. The proposal was sent to the 1* Respondent for cadre restructuring . This involved minor changes in the recrultrnent rules by letter datec! 27.12.2017 for the approval and same is pending with the Ministry.
14 Tt is also to be noted that the applicant's claim is based on the orders passed by Co-ordinate Benches as well as the Supreme Court as recorded above. In our considered opinion, if order has been passed and directions has been given as issued by the Coordinate Bench at Kolkata in the matter of Dhananjay vs. UOI, the purpose of filing of this OA will be fulfilled. In view of the same, the applicant has been is given with liberty 15 O.A.401/2020 to approach the respondent authorities within six weeks of receipt of i copy of this order reiterating his claim for grant of revision of pay scale in the light of OMs and cited judicial pronouncements and after receipt of said. representation, the respondent authority may consider his claiin according to the OM relied by the applicant as well as the judiciul pronouncement of coordinate bench at Ernakulam upheld by Kerala High Court and attained finality after the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to extend the benefit with consequential arrear of pay and allowances and other benefits if the applicant is otherwise eligible and entitled for the same. In view of the same the OA Is disposed accordingly No order as ta cost, it