Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
N B Nazeer Basha vs M/O Women And Child Development on 17 March, 2026
1 OA No. 23/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/00023/2020
Dated this, the 17th day of March Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
N.B.Nazeer Basha, S/o Noor Basha,
39/19, School Road,
CIT Nagar, Nandanam PO,
Chennai 600035. .....Applicant
By Advocate M/s. P. Ulaganathan
Vs.
1.Union of India, rep by,
The Secretary,
Ministry of Women and Child Development,
Shastri Bhavan,
New Delhi 110001.
2.Deputy Technical Adviser,
O/o the Food and Nutrition Board,
Southern Region, Shastri Bhavan,
3rd Floor, 6th Block,
26, Haddows Road, Chennai 600006. ....Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC
2 OA No. 23/2020
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Sisir Kumar Ratho, Member(A)) This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:-
"1) To call for the records on the file Office Order No. PF/185/FN dated 29.06.2018 passed by R2 and his order in letter No. PF/185/FN dated 31.12.2018 of R2 and quash the same as illegal; and
2) To direct the respondents to grant to the applicant the benefit of pay structure in PB 2 (Rs.9300-34,800) + G.P Rs.4600/-w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and the consequential first financial up-gradations under MACP Scheme, in PB
2 (Rs.9300-34,800) + G.P Rs.4800/- w.e.f. 01.01.2008 the second financial up-gradation in PB 3 (Rs. 9300-34,800) + G.P Rs.5400/- w.e.f. 14.09.2015; and/ Or
3) To pass any other order or direction or grant any other relief, in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice."
2. The brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicant, are as follows :-
2.1. The applicant was working as Junior Hindi Translator (JHT), under 2nd respondent department w.e.f. 14.09.1995 and he retired voluntarily on 21.08.2017. He is aggrieved by the denial of pay structure in PB 2 (Rs.
9300-34,600) + G.P Rs.4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in terms of OM dt. 13.11.2009 and the consequential first financial upgradation under MACP Scheme, in PB 2 (Rs.9300-34,800) + G.P Rs.4800/- w.e.f 01.09.2008 and the second financial upgradation in PB 2 (Rs. 9300-34,800) + G.P Rs. 5400/- w.e.f. 14.09.2015.
2.2. The applicant submits that he is a similarly placed employee like T.P Leena, who was granted the above benefit by CAT-Ernakulam Bench in the 3 OA No. 23/2020 T.P Leena's case vide order dt. 27.09.2011, which has been confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide order dt. 21.06.2012 and also by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dt. 15.10.2012. The same benefit was extended to similarly placed JHTs by this Bench, in OA No. 856/2014 vide order dt. 22.08.2016, which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court vide order dt. 14.12.2017 in WP No. 15943/2017 and in OA No. 1459/2015 vide order dt. 23.11.2016 which was also confirmed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in W.P No. 28491 of 2017 and W.P No.5050 of 2018 vide order dt. 24.07.2019.
2.3. The applicant's representation seeking the similar benefit was rejected by the impugned order dt. 31.12.2018. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA seeking the aforesaid relief.
3.1. The respondents have filed their reply opposing the relief prayed by the applicant. It is contended that that as per the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell, Office Memorandum dt. 24.11.2008, the pay scale of Junior Hindi Translator of Rs.6500-10500/- with corresponding Grade Pay of Rs 4200/- (PB-2) has already been granted with effect from 01.01.2006 after the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission. The pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500/- with corresponding Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- (PB-2) is recommended for Senior Hindi Translator only. As per the ΟΜ dt. 13.11.2009 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell, which has been 4 OA No. 23/2020 misinterpreted by the applicant, clearly states that the pay scales of Rs.5000- 8000/-, Rs. 5500-9000/- and Rs. 6500-10500/- had been merged and replaced by the revised pay structure of Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in PB-2. Vide para 2.2.21(v) of its Report, the Commission recommended that on account of the merger of these 3 scales, some posts which constituted feeder and promotion grades would come to lie in an identical grade. The Commission gave specific recommendations in its Report granting higher grade pay of Rs. 4600/- to some categories of these posts. 3.2. The respondents have contended that with regard to the applicant's case, the post is purely an isolated post and in the absence of promotional grade in the respondent department, the question of merging of feeder and promotion grade does not arise. Hence the said OM cannot be implemented in the applicant's case. The applicant was granted 1st ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500/- (pre-revised) PB-2, Rs.9300-34800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- with effect from 14.09.2007 vide Office Order dt. 14.06.2012. The applicant has submitted his representation for grant of higher grade pay Rs. 4600/- based on the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell, OM dt. 24.11.2008 and 13.11.2009 which was forwarded to the Ministry vide office letter dt. 27.11.2012. The said request was rejected vide letter dt. 30.11.2012. The then Deputy Technical Advisor (DTA) had once again requested the Ministry for reconsideration of the 5 OA No. 23/2020 grant of the higher grade pay of Rs. 4600/- from 01.01.2006 vide office letter dt. 18.12.2012 which was again rejected and returned. 3.3. It is contended that the 2nd respondent, Regional Deputy Technical Adviser (DTA) has no authority to implement the order of Ministry of Finance in this particular case without the approval of the Ministry. However, the then DTA had issued Office Order for upgradation of applicant's Grade Pay from Rs. 4200/- to Rs. 4600/- ignoring the remarks given by the Under Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi on the applicant's representation. Hence, the Office Orders dt. 03.07.2013 and 15.09.2015 are null and void based on the Ministry's denial. The applicant has already been granted the ACP on completion of regular 12 years' service in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- (pre-revised) and as per the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission and on subsequent merger of pay scales, the higher grade in PB-2 (Rs.9300-34800/- with GP of Rs.4600/-) was granted with effect from 14.09.2007 by the Ministry vide Office Order dt. 14.06.2012. In the instant application, there is a delay of about 4 years in approaching Tribunal, as original cause of arose against the proceedings dt. 15.09.2015. Hence, the applicant being a fence sitter is not entitled to have the similar relief as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P Vs A.K.Srivatsava.
3.4. It is further contended that the applicant had opted for voluntary retirement on personal grounds and retired as on 21.08.2017 (F/N). He had 6 OA No. 23/2020 already been granted 1st financial upgradation in PB-2 Rs.9300-34800/- with GP Rs. 4600/- as on 14.09.2007 vide Ministry's letter dt. 14.06.2012 and grant of 2nd MACP in PB-2 Rs.9300-34800/- with GP Rs. 4800/- is under consideration alongwith all other MACP eligible cases. As such, there is no merit in the applicant's claim. Accordingly, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the OA as devoid of merits.
4. The respondents have filed additional reply. It is contended that in respect of Official Language posts like Junior Hindi Translators, Senior Hindi Translators etc., existing in Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) and various Subordinate Offices of Central Government, upgradation / revision of Pay Scales would be granted as per the Office orders of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell. In this regard, it is contended that no such order was issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Implementation Cell, for grant of Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- to Junior Hindi Translators, after grant of 6th Central Pay Commission. But vide OM dt. 24.11.2008 read with Corrigendum dt. 27.11.2008, the proposed and approved Scales of Pay and Grade Pay for the Official Language posts like Junior Hindi Translator was Grade Pay Rs.4200/-, Senior Hindi Translator was Grade Pay Rs.4600/- which were clearly mentioned by Ministry of Finance, in their aforesaid orders.
7 OA No. 23/2020
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. P. Ulaganathan and learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC. Perused the records as well as the written submissions and citations submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
i. Order dt. 27.09.2011 of the CAT-Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 107/2011 in the case of T.P.Leena Vs. UoI & ors;
ii. Order dt. 21.06.2012 of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in OP (CAT) No. 467 of 2012 (Z) in the case of UoI & ors Vs. T.P.Leena;
iii Order dt. 15.10.2012 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. 25836/2012 in the case of UoI & ors Vs. T.P.Leena;
iv. Order dt. 14.10.2013 of the CAT-Ernakulam Bench in OA Nos.
656/2012 & 953/2012 in the case of P.R.Anandavally Amma & T.M.Thomas Vs. UoI & ors;
v. Judgment dt. 01.04.2015 of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in OP (CAT) No. 142 of 2014 (Z) in the case of UoI & ors Vs. T.M.Thomas;
vi. Order dt. 22.08.2016 of this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 866/2014 in the case of Ashish Kumar Khare Vs. UoI & ors; vii. Order dt. 23.11.2016 of this Bench of the Tribunal in OA Nos. 1419 & 1459/2015 in the case of R. Thenmozhi and ors Vs. UoI & ors; 8 OA No. 23/2020 viii. Order dt. 14.12.2017 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 15943 of 2017 in the case of UoI & ors Vs. Ashish Kumar Khare & anr; ix. Order dt. 22.01.2019 of the CAT-Bangalore Bench in OA Nos. 223- 225/2018 in the case of D.Selvaraj & ors Vs. Union of India & ors; x. Order dt. 24.07.2019 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP Nos. 28491 of 2017 & 5050 of 2018 in the case of UoI & ors Vs. N. Valli & ors; xi. Order dt. 26.07.2019 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No. CC No. 23053/2016 in the case of UoI & ors Vs. T.M.Thomas ; xii. Judgment dt. 05.03.2020 of the CAT-Kolkata Bench in OA No. 564/2014 in the case of Manohar Kumar Vs. UoI & ors;
xiii. Order dt. 12.02.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Dy. No. 1662/2021 confirming the judgment dt. 24.07.2019 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP Nos. 28491 of 2017 and batch in the case of UoI & ors Vs. N. Valli & ors;
xiv. Order dt. 15.11.2021 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Dy. No. 23397/2021 confirming the judgment dt. 24.07.2019 of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in WP No. 5050/2018 in the case of UoI & ors Vs. R. Thenmozhi;
xv. Order dt. 10.01.2022 of the CAT-Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 668/2016 in the case of Sri. N.V.Krishnan & ors Vs. UoI & ors; xvi. Order dt. 21.06.2024 of this Bench of the Tribunal in OA 878/2016 in the case of Smt. Shyamala Bhaskar Vs. UoI and anr.
9 OA No. 23/2020
7. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
i. Judgment dt. 17.10.2014 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 in the case of State of U.P Vs A.K.Srivatsava;
ii. Order dt. 03.04.2019 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP(C) No. 7611/2017 in the case of UoI & anr Vs. Anjani;
iii. Judgment dt. 08.03.2022 in Civil Appeal Nos. 517-518 of 2017 in the case of UoI & anr Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam etc (2022 LiveLaw (SC)
254).
8. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this issue has been dealt in detail by the coordinate bench of this Tribunal at Ernakulam in OA No. 107/2011 (T.P.Leena Vs. UoI) and in its order dt. 27.09.2011 has categorically held that Junior Hindi Translators are entitled for Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. This has been confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in OP (CAT) No. 467/2012 vide order dt. 21.06.2012 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dt. 15.10.2012 has dismissed the SLP stating that, "We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order." Similarly, in OA No. 866/2014, this Bench of the Tribunal has issued an order directing for grant of GP of Rs. 4600/- to Junior Hindi Translator on 01.01.2006 based on the order in the T.P.Leena case. Subsequently, this Tribunal also passed similar order in OA Nos. 1419 & 1459/2015. The order of this Tribunal in OA 866/2014 was also challenged before the Hon'ble 10 OA No. 23/2020 High Court of Madras in WP No. 15943/2017 and vide its order dt. 14.12.2017, the Hon'ble High Court has dismissed the WPs filed by the respondents. Thereafter, various other Benches of this Tribunal have passed similar order which have been upheld by the respective High Courts and subsequently confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLPs.
9. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant in the present case has opted for voluntary retirement from service on 21.08.2017 and therefore, he is not eligible for any relief as such. In this regard, they have cited the judgment dt. 08.03.2022 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 517-518 of 2017 in the case of UoI & anr Vs. Manpreet Singh Poonam etc wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once an officer retires voluntarily, there is cessation of jural relationship resorting to a "golden handshake" between the employer and employee. Such a former employee cannot seek to agitate his part, as well as future rights, if any, sans the prescription of rules and this would include the enhanced pay scale also. Further, they have cited the order dt. 03.04.2019 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No. 7611/2017 in the case of UoI & anr Vs. Anjani wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has set aside the direction of this Tribunal to grant Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in a similar situation. Learned counsel for the respondents further argues there is a delay of about 4 years on the part of the applicant in approaching Tribunal and hence, the 11 OA No. 23/2020 applicant being a fence sitter is not entitled to have the similar relief as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P Vs A.K.Srivatsava.
10. With reference to citations relied upon by the applicant, it can be seen that the lead case in their series of citations is OA No. 107/2011 (T.P.Leena Vs. UoI & ors) filed before the Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal which was allowed vide order dt. 27.09.2011. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble Kerala High Court and further confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. A similar case in OA 866/2014 was filed before this Tribunal which was also allowed vide order dt. 22.08.2016. The said order was also upheld by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. It is therefore appropriate that the prayer and the operative part of the order dt. 27.09.2011 of this Tribunal in the T.P.Leena case is extracted below :-
"1. The applicant is aggrieved by the alleged wrong fixation of pay on the grant of first/second financial upgradation to hie under the Modified Assured Career Progression scheme which came into existence w.e.f. 01-09- 2008.
XXXXX
12. When the question of applicability of MACP came, it is the case of the applicant that since the pay scales of Rs 5.000-8,000/-, Rs 5.500-9.000/-, 6,500-10,500/- have been merged, the financial upgradation granted from Rs 5,000-8,000/- to Rs 5,500-9,000 in 2003 has to be ignored by virtue of clause No. 5 of the Scheme (extracted above). Thus, the applicant has to be treated to be in the very initial grade without any financial upgradation and thus, she is entitled to two financial upgradations, one as on 01-09-2008 (from the date the MACP became operative) and another on completion of 20 years i.e. 30-03-2010. And since, the grade pay the applicant was drawing was Rs 4,600/-, the first Financial Upgradation should carry Grade pay of Rs 4,800/- while the second one Rs 5,400/-. This is objected to 12 OA No. 23/2020 by the respondents as according to them, the higher pay scale claimed by the applicant relates to Hindi Translators of the Central Secretariat Services and not to the subordinate offices in which the applicant is functioning.
13. Now, a close look again at para 5 of the Scheme is essential. The wordings are "Promotions earned/upgradations granted under the ACP Scheme in the past to those grades which now carry the same grade pay due to merger of pay scales/upgradations of posts recommended by the Sixth Pay Commission shall be ignored for the purpose of granting upgradations under Modified ACPs." It is pertinent to mention that after the sixth Pay Commission Recommendations, in respect of grant of MACP, it is not the pay scale that undergoes any upward revision but only the Grade Pay, as is evident from para 2 of the scheme itself. Thus, for invoking the provision of Rule 5 of MACP, what is to be seen is as to whether the grant of financial upgradation resulted in a higher grade pay in the upgraded pay scale. The first Schedule vide Rules 3 and 4 (section 1, Part A) annexed to the Revised Pay Commission Rules 2008 provides for the the scale, revised pay structure and corresponding grade pay for the erstwhile pay scale of Rs 5000-8000 and 5.500-9000 as under:-
Present Scale Revised Pay Structure
Sl Post/Gr Present Name of Corresponding Corresponding
No. scale Pay pay Grade Pay
Band/ Bands/scales
Scale
10 S-9 5000-150- PB-2 9,300 - 4200
8000 34,800/-
11 S-10 5500-150- PB-2 9,300 - 4200
9000 34,800/-
14. The illustration appended to para 5 would clarify the point. When the scales of pay of Rs 5,000-8000 and Rs 5,500-9,000/-get merged, the grade pay in these two grades remained the same i.e Rs 4,200/-. It is only under such a circumstance, (i.e. The two pay scales should have the same grade pay) that the promotion or upgradation should be ignored. In the instant case, admittedly, the financial upgradation resulted in the pay scale of the applicant substituted the earlier Rs 5,000-8000/- Rs 5,500-9000 and thus, the Pay Band remained the same, as also the grade pay. Under such circumstances, when there is a merger of the two, into a single pay scale, the earlier upgradation granted under the ACP scheme has to be ignored..
Thus, clause 5 of the scheme does apply to the case of the applicant. Hence, though the applicant had earned one Financial upgradation in 2002, the same has to be ignored. It is at a very late stage i.e. w.e.f. 01-01-2006 that the pay scale of Junior Hindi Translator was revised to Rs 7,450-11,500/- and the grade pay attached to the same is Rs 4,600/- as per the aforesaid First Schedule. This is the admitted position, as could be seen from Annexures A-6 Pay fixation as well as the statement annexed thereto, 13 OA No. 23/2020 Annexure A- 8 proforma (vide entry against para 3(1) and (iv) thereof, Annexure R-6 and para 7 of Annexure MA1. Thus, though the pay scale of Junior Hindi Translator underwent upward revisions (from the initial scale of Rs 4,500-7000 to ultimate pay scale of Rs 7,450-11,500/-), practically the applicant remained in the same post without any promotion for twenty years. This makes her eligible to two financial upgradations one on completion of ten years of service or 01-09-2008 whichever is later and the other on completion of 20 years. The upgradation shall be in respect of the grade pay i.e. Rs 4,800/- and Rs 5,400/- respectively. Thus, w.e.f. 01-09- 2008 the pay scale the applicant shall be 9,300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs 4,800/- and w.e.f. 30-03-2010 the pay scale and grade pay of the applicant should be Rs 9,300-34,800 and Rs. 5,400 respectively. It is the same which has been claimed by the applicant and this is the same which has been observed by the internal audit as well, vide MA 1 (para 7). The claim of the applicant is not based on the pay scale applicable to the Central Secretariat Services but one purely within the ambit and scope of the provisions of the MACP including para 5 of the scheme, which is applicable to the facts a circumstance of this case.
15. In view of the discussion as in the preceding paragraphs the OA succeeds. The impugned order at Annexure A-1 and A-2 are hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to pass suitable orders, revising the pay of the applicant as hereunder:-
(a) w.e.f. 01-09-2008: admissible pay in the scale of Rs 9,300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs. 4,800/-.
(b) w.e.f 30-03-2010: Admissible pay in the scale of Rs 9,300-34,800 with grade pay of Rs 5,400/-.
16. Arrears arising from the above fixation of pay shall also be made available to the applicant.
17. It is made clear that the upgradation in the case of Junior Hindi Translator under MACP is peculiar to this post in view of merger as well as revision of pay scale of Jr. Hindi Translators. Other cases where such a merger coupled with revision of pay scale as in the case of Jr. Hindi Translators does not exist, cannot claim parity with the case of Jr. Hindi Translator.
18. This order shall be complied with, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order."
11. Undoubtedly, through various legal pronouncements cited by the learned counsel for applicant, the issue has become settled until a lone voice of dissent by the Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No. 7611/2017 in the case of UoI & anr Vs. Anjani and the Hon'ble High 14 OA No. 23/2020 Court of Delhi in its order dt. 03.04.2019 held that the direction of the Tribunal to fix the pay of the respondent therein by placing her in PB - 2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 was not sustainable and therefore, set aside. The operative portion of the abovesaid order is extracted below :-
"11. A perusal of the aforesaid OM shows that for being granted grade pay of Rs.4600/-, the necessary pre-condition was that the employee must be in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- as on 01.01.2006. In the present case, the respondent's post of Junior Translator, admittedly was not in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/- as on 01.01.2006 and, therefore, it is evident that she did not fulfil the pre-condition prescribed in the OM dated 13.11.2009 for grant of grade pay of Rs.4600/- in PB 2. The direction of the Tribunal to fix the pay of the respondent by placing her in PB 2 with grade pay of Rs.4600/- w.e.f 01.01.2006 is, therefore, not sustainable and is set aside.
12. Resultantly, while upholding the direction to fix the pay of the respondent in the scale of Rs.5500-9000/-, the impugned order is modified by setting aside the direction to grant grade pay of Rs.4600/-in PB 2 to the respondent. The writ petition is, accordingly, partly allowed in the aforesaid terms."
In view of this dissenting order by Hon'ble Delhi High Court, we feel constrained to look afresh the issue of grant of Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- to Junior Hindi Translators w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
12. As can be seen in the T.P.Leena case, the prayer was for first/second financial upgradation under MACP and not grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006. It is only in a passing remark at para - 14 of the judgment. The Ernakulam Bench of CAT has concluded that w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the pay scale of Junior Hindi Translator was revised to Rs. 7450
- 11500 and the grade pay attached to the same is Rs. 4600/- as per the First 15 OA No. 23/2020 Schedule. However, we find that the First Schedule is a tabular statement of revised pay bands and grade pay for all posts following 6th CPC in general and not related to any particular post. In fact as per 6 th CPC recommendations only the Sr. Translators were granted pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and not the Junior Hindi Translators.
13. It is to be noted that pay scales are recommended by Pay Commissions and in pursuant to recommendations of 6th CPC, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure on 29.08.2008 notified the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 in Gazette of India which provided that the revised rules shall come into force from 01.01.2006. In pursuance to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the Ministry of Home Affairs, which is the cadre controlling authority for the Hindi Translators issued OM dt. 24.11.2008 granting revised pay scales for Official Language posts in various subordinate offices of the Central Government which categorically states that the pay structure indicated below are consequent upon the implementation of recommendations of 6th CPC. The OM dt. 24.11.2008 is extracted below :-
"Subject: Revised pay scales for Official Language posts in various subordinate offices of the Central Government.
Consequent upon the implementation of the recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, this Department has received queries from many Ministries/Departments regarding the revised pay structure applicable in the case of Official Language posts existing in subordinate offices of the Central Government. In this connection, it is clarified that in accordance 16 OA No. 23/2020 with the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission as accepted by the Government, similarly designated posts existing outside the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) cadre in various subordinate offices of the Central Government have been granted the same pay scales as those granted to CSOLS. The Government has notified the following revised pay structure for the Official language cadre belonging to CSOLS :-
(in Rs.) Designation Recommended Corresponding Pay pay scale Band & Grade Pay Pay Grade Band Pay Jr. Translator 6500-10500 PB-2 4200 Sr. Translator 7450-11500 PB-2 4600 Asstt. Director (OL) 8000-13500 PB-3 5400 Dy. Director (OL.) 10000-13500 PB-3 6100 Jt. Director (OL) 12000-16500 PB-3 6600 Director (OL) 14300-18300 PB-3 7600
2. Accordingly, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, all Ministries/Departments etc. required to grant the revised pay scales approved for various posts in the CSOLS to similarly designated Official Language posts existing in their subordinate offices.
-sd-
(ALOK SAXENA) DIRECTOR (IC)"
(emphasis supplied)
14. In view of this, it is difficult to agree that the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-
has been provided to the Jr. Hindi Translators under CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. Contrary to this, the Part - C of the same Rule provides the revised pay structure for certain posts in Ministries, Departments and Union Territories in Section II under Ministry of Home Affairs at Sl. No. 16 which shows that Sr. Translators in CSOLS who were in scale of pay of Rs. 6500- 10500 have been granted revised pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in pursuance of recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission recorded in para 7.19.68.17 OA No. 23/2020
15. In this regard, it is important to refer to the 6 th CPC recommendations for the Jr./Sr. Translator in MHA. The Chapter 7.19 relates to recommendations of 6th CPC in respect of the posts borne under Ministry of Home Affairs containing six departments including Department of Official Language which is the cadre controlling authority of the post of Junior as well as Senior Hindi Translators. The para 7.19.68 of 6th CPC recommendations relates to the posts of CSOLS and the same is extracted below :-
"Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) 7.19.68 Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) was established in 1981 as a service in the secretariat of Department of Official Language. The Fifth CPC had recommended higher pay scales for certain posts in CHTI and CTB. subsequently were extended to analogous posts in CSOLS also and the posts of Junior Hindi Translator, Senior Hindi Translator and Assistant Director (Official Languages) were placed in the higher pay scales of Rs. 5500-9000; Rs. 6500-10500 and Rs. 7500-12000 respectively. In the revised scheme of running pay bands, scales of Rs. 5000-8000, Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 are being merged. This will place posts of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators in an identical scale even though these are feeder and promotion posts. Further, the scale of Rs.8000- 13500 does not exist in their hierarchy at present. The following structure is, therefore, recommended for CSOLS:-
(in Rs.)
Designation Recommended Corresponding Pay
pay scale Band & Grade Pay
Pay Grade
Band Pay
Jr. Translator 6500-10500 PB-2 4200
Sr. Translator 7450-11500 PB-2 4600
Asstt. Director (OL) 8000-13500 PB-3 5400
Dy. Director (OL.) 10000-13500 PB-3 6100
Jt. Director (OL) 12000-16500 PB-3 6600
Director (OL) 14300-18300 PB-3 7600
18 OA No. 23/2020
A demand seeking identical pay scales has been made by similarly designated posts existing outside the CSOLS cadre in various subordinate offices. This demand will be automatically addressed once parity is given between field and secretariat offices. No separate recommendation is, therefore, necessary on this account."
16. Therefore, it is clear from the above that neither the 6 th CPC recommendations nor the Finance Ministry's Office Memorandum dt. 24.11.2008 granted the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to Junior Hindi Translators/Junior Translators. The Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- has been categorically granted to Senior Translators consequent upon 6 th CPC recommendations.
17. In both the judgments of CAT-Ernakulam Bench in the T.P.Leena case and the T.M.Thomas case, the conclusion is drawn that the Junior Hindi Translators are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 by virtue of the Office Memorandum dt. 13.11.2009 and the same is extracted below :-
"Subject: Grant of the revised pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 to posts that existed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500- 10500 as on 1.1.2006 and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2.
Sixth Pay Commission recommended merger of the three pre-revised scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500 and replaced them by the revised pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2. Vide para 2.2.21 (v) of its Report, the Comunission recommended that on account of the merger of these 3 scales, some posts which constituted feeder and promotion grades would come to lie in an identical grade. The Commission gave specific recommendations in its Report granting higher grade pay of Rs.4600 to some categories of these posts. As regards the other posts, the Commission recommended that it should first be seen if the posts in these 3 scales can be merged without any functional disturbance and if possible, the same should be done. Further, the Commission recommended that in case it is not feasible to merge the posts in these pay scales on functional consideration, the posts in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 should be merged with the posts in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 being upgraded to the next higher grade in the pay band PB-2 with grade pay of Rs.4600 corresponding to the pre-revised scale 19 OA No. 23/2020 of Rs.7450-11500. In case a post already exists in the scale of Rs.7450- 11500, the post being upgraded from the scale of Rs.6500-10500 should be merged with the post in the scale of Rs.7450-11500.
2. The above recommendation of the Sixth Pay Commission were notified vide para (ii), Section 1 in Parts B and C of the First Schedule to the CCS (RP) Rules, 2008. While Part B of the First Schedule to the CCS (RP) Rules relates to revised pay scales for common categories of staff, Part C notifies revised pay structure for certain posts in Ministries, Departments and Union Territories. The above provisions of the Rules specifically mentioned that upgradations in terms of para (ii) Section I may be done in consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance.
3. Consequent upon the Notification of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, Department of Expenditure has received a large number of references from administrative ministries/departments proposing upgradation of the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 by granting them grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2. The matter has been considered and it has now been decided that the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 as on 1.1.2006 and which were granted the normal replacement pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4200 in the pay band PB-2, will be granted grade pay of Rs.4600 in the pay band PB-2 corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006. Further, in terms of the aforementioned provisions of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, in case a post already existed in the pre-revised scale of Rs.7450- 11500, the posts being upgraded from the scale of Rs.6500-10500 should be merged with the post in the scale of Rs.7450-11500.
4. Accordingly, in terms of Rule 6 of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, revised pay of Government servants in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 who were earlier granted grade pay of Rs.4200 and who have already exercised their option for drawal of pay in the revised pay structure in the format prescribed in the Second Schedule to the Rules, will be fixed again in accordance with illustration 4A annexed to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.
5. In case of all such Government servants in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 who were earlier granted grade pay of Rs.4200 and who had opted to have their pay fixed under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008, action as prescribed in this Department's O.M. of even number dated 30th August, 2008 will be taken. In case a Government servant desires to revise his earlier option for coming over to the revised pay structure, he may be permitted to do so without making any reference to this Department.
6. On account of pay fixation in the revised pay structure of grade pay of Rs. 4600 in the pay band PB-2, arrears of pay will be recalculated and difference of arrears in respect of the entire amount will be paid immediately. The manner of drawal of arrears has already been indicated in this Department's O.M. of even number dated 30.8.2008.
7. Hindi version will follow.20 OA No. 23/2020
-sd-
(ALOK SAXENA) DIRECTOR"
(emphasis supplied)
18. It is to be mentioned that the OM dt. 13.11.2009 of Department of Expenditure is only a reiteration of the rule position as per of the Part - B of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 on the subject "Revised Pay Scales for Certain Common Categories of Staff". The relevant portion in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 is extracted below :-
"(i) The revised pay structure mentioned in Column (5) and (6) of this part of the Notification for the posts mentioned in Column (2) have been approved by the Government. The initial fixation as on 1.1.2006 will be done in accordance with Note 2 below Rule 7 of this Notification.
(ii) On account of merger of pre-revised pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-10500, some posts which presently constitute feeder and promotion grades will come to lie in an identical grade. The specific recommendations about some categories of these posts made by the Pay Commission are included Section II of Part B. As regards other posts, the posts in these three scales should be merged. In case it is not feasible to merge the posts in these pay scales on functional considerations, the posts in the scale of Rs.5000-8000 and Rs.5500-9000 should be merged, with the post in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 being upgraded to the next higher grade in pay band PB-2 i.e. to the grade pay of Rs. 4600 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.7450-11500. In case a post already exists in the scale of Rs.7450-11500, the post being upgraded from the scale of Rs.6500-10500 should be merged with the post in the scale of Rs.7450-11500.
(iii) Posts in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 carrying minimum qualification of either Degree in Engineering or a Degree in Law should also be upgraded and placed in the scale of Rs.7450-11500 corresponding to the revised pay band PB-2 of Rs.9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4600.
(iv) Posts of scientific staff in the scale of Rs.6500-10500 carrying minimum qualification of engineering degree or a post-graduate degree should also be upgraded and placed in the scale of Rs.7450-11500 corresponding to the revised pay band PB-2 of Rs.9300-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4600.
(v) Upgradation as in (ii) above may be done in consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. Regarding (iii) and (iv) 21 OA No. 23/2020 above, upgradation may be done by the Ministries concerned in consultation with their Integrated Finance."
(emphasis supplied)
19. The para (iv) of the rule as well as the OM dt. 13.11.2009 in para 3 clearly states that the posts which were in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500- 10500 as on 01.01.2006 will be granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-. However, it is clear that the post of Junior Hindi Translator / Junior Translator were granted the scale of pay of Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f. 29.04.2003. Therefore, the Junior Hindi Translators were not in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500-10500 before implementation of the 6th CPC.
20. From the above, it is clear that neither the 6th CPC recommendations nor the MHA OM dt. 29.11.2008 provided a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 to Junior Hindi Translators. In germane, the OM dt. 13.11.2009 cannot grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600 which will be contrary to the recommendations of the 6th CPC.
21. As per para 2 of Finance Ministry's OM dt. 13.11.2009, upgradation in terms of para (ii) Section I was to be done in consultation with Department of Expenditure. The respondents submit that the applicant's case was forwarded to the administrative ministry on 27.11.2012 which was returned back on 30.11.2012 stating that, "The Govt. has notified the revised pay structure (PB.2 with GP of Rs. 4200/-) for Jr. Translator w.e.f. 01.01.2006. The pre-revised scale ceases to exist on 01.01.2006, or the date an employee opts for the revised pay structure as per extant provisions. The 22 OA No. 23/2020 official appears to have misinterpreted the provisions/instructions issued from time to time in this regard." Subsequent referral on 18.12.2012 was also turned down by the administrative ministry. It is clear that grant of grade pay of Rs. 4600/- has not been agreed to even by the administrative ministry. Therefore, the question of approval by Department of Expenditure as per para-2 of OM dt. 13.11.2009 does not arise.
22. In this regard it is pertinent to mention that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 8329 of 2011 (UoI Vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and anr.) in the matter of grant of pay scale to the Junior Design Officers has held that the Courts should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies such as the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. The relevant paras of the judgment are extracted below :-
"14. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into 23 OA No. 23/2020 consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc......
xxxxxx
16. Much emphasis was placed by the learned senior advocate Mr. Khurshid on the noting made by the Officer of the Naval Department in the file recommending pay scale of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, however, it may be noted that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a 14 particular officer, and by no-stretch of imagination such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government.
17. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.
18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs.
19. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The appeal stands allowed accordingly."
(emphasis supplied)
23. To sum up, it is to be emphasized that discipline in public finance requires strict adherence to the rules and in the absence of explicit sanction by the competent authority, no financial benefit can be granted to a government employee or group of employees. The grant of pay scales to a particular post is carried out after a rigorous exercise of the pay commissions and with the approval of the Cabinet in the Government of India. It will not be appropriate for the Tribunal to interfere with the set precedents of grant of 24 OA No. 23/2020 a Grade Pay to a particular group of employees which is neither provided in the 6th CPC recommendations nor allowed by the cadre controlling ministry based on the argument of similarly placed employees. Even the para 2 of the OM dt. 13.11.2009 relied upon by the applicant provides that the upgradations in terms of para 2 Section (I) may be done in consultation with the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. We do not find any consultation/concurrence of Finance Ministry for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- to Jr. Hindi Translators.
24. To conclude, we are of the considered view that since the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- is neither recommended by the 6th CPC nor allowed by the cadre controlling authority and also it lacks concurrence of the Department of Expenditure as specifically provided in para 2 of the OM dt. 13.11.2009, the same cannot be allowed by this Tribunal. Hence, the OA is dismissed as being devoid of merit. No costs.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
17.03.2026
SKSI
Digitally signed
by HP
S.S. IYER, PS Date:
2026.03.25
17:26:10
+05'30'