Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Kanwal Deep Singh vs Revenue on 18 February, 2026
1- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Pronounced on: 18.02.2026
Reserved on: 28.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Original Application No.060/889/2023
Kanwal Deep Singh, aged about 54 years, son of Shri S. Surinder Singh
Kwatra, Resident of H.No.98, Gali No. 3, Dev Nagar, Hambran Road,
Ludhiana presently posted as Assessing Officer (Income Tax Officer)
(Group-B) at Ludhiana (Punjab).
.... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Hitesh Pandit
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of
India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi-110001.
3. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North West Region, Aayakar
Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh.
4. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessment Unit-1), Aayakar
Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Mr. Pankaj
Khurana
2. Original Application No. 060/1282/2023
Akash Deep Chhatwal, aged about 56 years, son of Parkash Chand
Digitally signed Chhatwal, 6, Opposite 90 Charan Bhag, Lehal Colony, Patiala, District
by MAMTA Patiala, Punjab-147001, presently posted as Administrative Officer
WADHWA (Group B) o/o Principle Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan,
Patiala
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Hitesh Pandit
2- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of
India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, Department of Revenue, New Delhi-110001.
3. Pr. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North West Region, Aayakar
Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh. 160017
4. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Patiala.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with mr. Pankaj
Khurana
3. Original Application No.060/561/2024
Tarvinder Kaur, W/o Sh. Jai Inder Singh, age 60 years, presently
working as Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Sarhali Road, Tarn Taran-
143401, Punjab.
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Rishav Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary to Government of India, Ministry
of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi 110001.
2. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Aayakar Bhawan, Rishi
Nagar, Amritsar 143001.
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Aayakar
Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh- 160017.
4. Income Tax Officer (HQ) (Admn), 0/0 the Pr. Commissioner of
Digitally signed
Income Tax-I, Amritsar, Punjab.
by MAMTA
WADHWA
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC along with Mr. Pankaj
Khurana
3- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The above captioned 03 Original Applications are being disposed of by this common order, with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, as the question of law involved, the material facts, the reliefs sought and the grounds urged therein are identical in all three cases. For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition, the facts are being extracted from Original Application No. 889/2023, which shall be treated as the lead case for the purpose of adjudication. The relief claimed (in OA No. 889/2023) is as under:-
(i) To quash and set aside the letter 01.05.2019 (Annexure A-5) whereby the respondents no. 1 and 2 communicated that letter dated 31.03.2011 has become infructuous and therefore stands withdrawn ab-initio and directed all Cadre Controlling authorities to implement the judgment dated 09.12.2024 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and re-fix the pay accordingly and compliance report be communicated.
(ii) To quash the order dated 12/21.07.2023 issued vide F. No. Pr. CIT (AU1)Ldh/Misc./2022-23/450 (Annexure A-10) whereby the pay of applicant was re-fixed.
(iii) To restrain the respondents from effecting any recovery of Digitally signed by MAMTA pay and allowances due on account of above letter/order dated WADHWA 12/21-07.2023 (Annexure A-10) in terms of decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014 on 4- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters 18.12.2012 in case titled State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer).
2. The facts of the case, as emerging from the pleadings, are that the Directorate of Systems (Income Tax), New Delhi invited applications in July, 1988 for appointment to the post of Data Entry Operator (DEO) in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040/-. The applicant, on being selected, was offered appointment vide letter dated 17.05.1989 (Annexure A/1) and joined in the office of the Chief Commissioner (Admn.), Computer Section, Patiala. On 15.06.2009 (Annexure A/2), the Ministry of Finance accepted recommendations to grant revised pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/- to those DEOs, who were graduates at the time of initial appointment. Subsequently, vide letter dated 31.03.2011 (Annexure A/3), the applicant was placed in the revised scale of Rs.1350-2200/- from Rs.1200-2040.
3. In the meantime, litigation arose regarding DEO Grade-A and Grade-B pay scales, which was finally decided by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeals No.10862-67 of 2014, Secretary, DoPT v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, decided on 09.12.2014, holding that DEO Grade-A and Grade-B could not be equated and that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was not applicable. In view of the above judgment, the CBDT issued clarification dated 01.05.2019 (Annexure A/5), withdrawing its earlier letter dated 31.03.2011 as infructuous and directing re-fixation of pay and seniority in accordance with the Hon‟ble Digitally signed by MAMTA Supreme Court judgment. In compliance thereof, respondent No.3 issued WADHWA directions on 24.09.2020 (Annexure A/6) to its subordinate officers to take appropriate action in view of the instructions issued by the board and sent an action taken report to this office so that the same can be 5- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters forwarded to the CBDT, New Delhi, by stating that, if the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court is not applicable to any of the DEOs Grade „A‟ and „B‟ working under your charge whether included in order dated 15.06.2009 or not, a detailed report may be sent.
4. The applicant was served with a show cause notice on 14.09.2022 (Annexure A/7) calling upon to submit reply regarding consequential benefits and re-fixation of pay with regard to implementation of judgment passed in case of TVNL Mallikarjuna Rao (supra). The applicant submitted his reply on 27.10.2022 and 13.12.2022 (Annexures A/8 & A/9), contending that the Supreme Court judgment was not applicable to his case. However, respondent No.4 passed the impugned order dated 12/21-07-2023 (Annexure A/10), re- fixing the pay from the date of initial appointment and ordering recovery of excess payment.
5. The applicant contended that the impugned orders are non- speaking and have been passed without application of judicious mind. With regard to recovery, the applicant has placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Rafiq Masih (Civil Appeal No. 11527/2024 decided on 18.12.2012). It has been contended that the applicant was offered appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040, without any Grade i.e. „A‟ „B‟ or C‟. It is the plea of the Digitally signed by MAMTA applicant that since he was a graduate at the time of appointment, he WADHWA was appointed as DEO in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 whereas for Grade „A‟ it is Rs.1150-1500. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the applicant would be deemed to be in Grade ‟B‟ and that the judgment in 6- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters the case of T.V.N.L. Mallikarjuna Rao (supra) is not applicable in his case.
6. The respondents have contested the claim of the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant was not a graduate at the time of his recruitment and since he possessed the qualification of higher secondary, therefore rightly placed in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. The letter dated 31.03.2011 was only applicable to those DEOs, who were graduates at the time of entry in service and had been recruited against rules prescribing matriculation as minimum qualification. After the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 09.12.2014 in T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao's case, the said letter became void ab initio. It is further submitted that the CBDT rightly withdrew the OM dated 31.03.2011 vide letter dated 01.05.2019 and directed all Cadre Controlling Authorities to implement the Supreme Court judgment. The impugned order has been passed strictly in compliance with the directions of the Apex Court and the Board.
7. The respondents also rely upon the judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.10862-67 of 2014, wherein it has been categorically held that DEO Grade-A cannot claim parity with DEO Grade-B merely on the basis of qualification or length of service, and that any contrary decisions of Tribunals/High Courts stand set aside. It is submitted that the OA is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
Digitally signedby MAMTA WADHWA 8. The applicant has filed rejoinder and submitted that the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 was granted in favour of the applicant in compliance of the decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 748/PB/2007 decided on 24.08.2009. The aforesaid decision of the Tribunal has 7- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters attained finality as there was no challenge to same by the department and cannot be reopened.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
10. The core issue in the present OA is whether the applicant is entitled to retain the revised pay scale of Rs.1350-2200/- and consequential benefits in spite of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao's case and the subsequent withdrawal of OM dated 31.03.2011 by the CBDT.
11. It is not in dispute that the applicant was initially appointed as DEO in the scale of Rs.1200-2040. The benefit of Rs.1350-2200 was extended to him only on the basis of OM dated 31.03.2011. That OM has since been withdrawn by the CBDT vide letter dated 01.05.2019 after the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 09.12.2014. Once the very foundation of the applicants‟ claims i.e. OM dated 31.03.2011 has been declared infructuous, the applicant cannot insist on continuance of the benefits flowing from it.
12. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clearly held that DEO Grade-A and Grade-B form distinct classes and the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply. It has also been held that any contrary orders passed by Tribunals and High Courts stand set aside. Digitally signed by MAMTA WADHWA 13. We also find that the very same issue has already been considered and decided against the applicant therein by this Tribunal in O.A. titled Sanjeev Paul Laroria v. Union of India & Ors. (O.A. No. 060/217/2024). The Tribunal held that after the judgment in T.V.L.N. 8- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters Mallikarjuna Rao‟s case, no DEO can claim the revised scale merely on the basis of qualification or earlier erroneous grant. The operative part of the decision aforementioned is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-
"6. I have gone through the pleadings, perused the judicial pronouncements on the issue, and considered the facts of the present case and the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties with regard to the claim of the applicant.
7. Undisputedly, the applicant has been appointed as Data Entry Operator in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-30-1560-EB-40- 2040, vide appointment order dated 09.05.1989 (Annexure A-2) and he joined on 12.05.1989. He was granted, the upgraded pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with effect from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 12.05.1989 in pursuance of letter dated 15.01.2009 issued by respondent no. 2, vide order dated 10/15.06.2009. The upgraded pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 granted to the applicant has been withdrawn vide impugned order dated 01.02.2024 issued by the respondent no. 3 thereby reducing the pay scale of the applicant retrospectively from the scale of Rs.1350-2200 to Rs. 1200-2020.. The applicant filed representation dated 13.02.2024.
8. The applicant pleaded that he was never appointed as Data Entry Operator Grade ‟A‟, as is evident from appointment letter dated 09.05.1989. No doubt, there is no dispute that the initial appointment of the applicant was without any grade i.e „A‟ „B‟ or „C‟. However, after perusal of the documents placed on record, it is noticed that the respondent no. 2 vide Annexure R-3 dated 22.12.1993 restructured the cadre of Data Entry Operator in the Income Tax Department, in the light of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure O.M. dated 11.09.1989, whereby the existing 568 posts of Data Entry Operator have been restructured as (i) Data Entry Operator Gr. ‟A‟ (340 posts) in the pay scale of Rs.1150-1500 and (ii) Data Entry Operator Gr. „B‟ in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200. This restructuring was carried out after joining of the applicants in pursuance to the recommendations made by the Committee to introduce pay structures for electronic Punch Process posts vide O.M. dated 11.09.1989. The pay scale of Rs.1200-2400 for the existing Data Entry Operator was allowed to continue to draw as personal pay. After rationalisation of pay scales of Electronic Data Processing posts as DEO vide OM Digitally signed dated 11.09.1989, a number of persons, who were working by MAMTA against lower posts of Key Punch Operator in the scale of Rs.950- WADHWA 1500 and re-designated as Data Entry Operator Grade „A‟ claimed that they are entitled for scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200. The various Benches of this Tribunal situated in different states passed contradictory orders, wherein many of the cases, the relief was granted by allowing the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 to those, who are re-designated as DEO Grade „A‟, whereas some claims were rejected as well. The respondent no. 3 vide order 9- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters dated 10/15.06.2009 (Annexure A-7), on the basis of graduate degree of applicant at the time of initial appointment, revised the pay scale of applicant from Rs. 1200-2020 to 1350-2200 from the date of his initial appointment. The contention of the applicant that he was not appointed as DEO Gr. ‟A‟ is contrary to the material available in the service book of the applicant, wherein an entry has been made that "consequent upon promotion from DEO Gr. „A‟ to DEO Gr. „B‟ vide order dated 20.06.2021, he was granted revised pay scale of DEO Gr. „B‟ (4000-100-6000) to 4500-125-7000". From the perusal of material on service record, it is evident that the applicant was treated as DEO Gr. ‟A‟ at the time of restructuring of cadre vide order dated 22.12.1993.
9. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, DOPT Vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao and Others (Civil Appeal No.10862/2014 decided on 09.12.2014), while allowing the appeal of the Union of India has held as under:-
"32. In view of the findings recorded above we hold that Data Entry Operators Grade-A are not entitled for Scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or thereafter merely on the basis of their qualifications or for the fact that they have completed their period of requisite service. We further hold that any decision rendered by any Tribunal or any High Court contrary to our decision is wrong. Further in view of the reasons and findings recorded above while we hold that the respondents are not entitled to the benefit as they sought for before the Tribunal or the High Court, all the impugned orders passed by the CAT Benches and the High Courts in favour of the respondents being illegal are set aside.
33. The appeals are allowed. No costs."
(Emphasis supplied)
10. The applicants have heavily relied upon the decision of the Patna Bench of the Tribunal in Narender Kumar Sinha (supra). The said Narender Kumar has been granted the relief on the strength of an earlier decision of the Tribunal in OA No. 961/2004 in his favour with regard to his pay-fixation, affirmed up to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and moreover, the decision in Narendra Kumar Sinha's case (surpa) was in personam, whereas the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao (supra) is in rem and is applicable to the entire cadre of Data Entry Operators. Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to any benefit of the dictum of C.A.T. Patna Bench in the Narinder Kumar Sinha's case (supra). Further, the claim of the applicants for pay scale of Rs.1350-2200, is not in consonance with the relevant Recruitment Rules of 1987 which Digitally signed provides the scale of Rs.1200-2400 to the DEO cadre at entry by MAMTA level. I also find force in the argument of the respondents that WADHWA since the re-fixation order has been passed in terms of the dictum of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment, therefore, there is no need to issue any notice to the applicant before re-fixation.
11. With regard to recovery of payment of higher pay scale, the respondents have admitted that keeping in view the financial hardship and examination of issue with consultation of department of Legal Affairs, DoP&T and Department of 10- O.A. No. 889/2023 and 02 connected matters expenditure, an administrative decision has been taken to not effect recovery from the DEOs arisen due to re-fixation of their pay on the basis of implementation of order of respondent no. 2 dated 01.05.2019.
12. In view of the discussion hereinabove, I am of the view that there is no illegality in the action of the respondents in reducing the pay scale of applicants from Rs.1350-2200 to Rs.1200-2400 w.e.f. 12.05.1989 pursuant to dictum of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of T.V.L.M. Mallikarjuna Rao's case (supra). No interference is called for. Both the Original Applications are dismissed being devoid of any merit. No costs."
14. Since the facts of the cases, in hand, are squarely covered by the aforementioned decision, we hold that the applicants have no legal right to continue in the revised scale of Rs.1350-2200/- after withdrawal of OM dated 31.03.2011 and implementation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court judgment. However, as regards recovery, it is held that the action of the respondents in effecting recovery pursuant to the said re-fixation of pay is impermissible in view of law settled in the case of Rafiq Masih (supra),and para 11 of the order in O.A. No. 217/2024 titled Sanjeev Paul Laroia's case (supra) therefore, the impugned orders dated 12/21.07.2023 (Annexure A-10 in OA No.889/2023), dated 06.11.2023 (Annexure A-7 in OA No. 1282/2023) and dated 20.02.2024 (Annexure A-1 colly in O.A. No. 561/2024) are quashed to the extent of recovery part.
15. In view of the above discussion, all the three Original Applications are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Digitally signed by MAMTA
WADHWA (ANJALI BHAWRA) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 18.02.2026
„mw‟