Between: vs Controller Of Defence Accounts on 4 July, 2008

Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad

Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Between: vs Controller Of Defence Accounts on 4 July, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH AT HYDERABAD
O.A. No. 796 OF 2007
DATE OF ORDER: THE 4TH JULY, 2008
Between:
Dr. Shree Gyanmote
W/o G. Dinesh Kumar
Senior Hindi Translator
O/o Controller of Defence
Accounts, No.1, Staff Road
Secunderabad

9. ... Applicant

And
1. Controller of Defence Accounts
No.1, Staff Road
Secunderabad

9.

2. Controller General of Defence

Accounts, West Block-5
Post Box No.1, R.K. Puram
New Delhi

66.

3. Ministry of Defence (Finance)

rep. by its Secretary
South Block, New Delhi-11.
4. Union of India, rep. by its
Secretary, Ministry of Finance
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/101359429/

Between: vs Controller Of Defence Accounts on 4 July, 2008

New Delhi. ... Respondent

Counsel for Applicant : Mr. M. Venkanna, Advocate
Counsel for Respondents : Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, Sr.CGSC
Coram :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman
The Hon'ble Mr. R. Santhanam, Member (Admn.)
(Order per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, VC)
This application is filed seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 29.3.2004 and the rejection order of the
first respondent dated 14.6.2007 and consequently order to restore the OM dated 14.7.2003 under which the
applicant was given enhanced pay scale of Rs.5500 175 9000 from the date of its discontinuance and
consequential benefits reckoning from 8.7.2004.
2
2. The facts as set out in the application in brief are as follows:
The applicant was appointed as Junior Hindi Translator on 18.1.99 in the pay scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 in
the office of Controller of Defence Accounts, Secunderabad (R-1). The respondents revised the pay scale of
the applicant, viz. the pay scale of the Junior Hindi Translator from Rs.5000-150-8000 to Rs.5500-175-9000
vide proceedings of the first respondent Memo. No. 430 dated 23.10.2003. The applicant was accordingly
drawing pay in the revised pay scale till 8.7.2004 when the revised enhanced scale has been withdrawn by the
impugned order dated 8.7.2004. The applicant pleaded that similarly situated Junior Hindi Translators by
name, Dhananjay Singh and Rajesh Kumar Goud moved the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench
by way of filing OA Nos.912/2004 and 939/2004 and the Calcutta Bench allowed the said OAs setting aside
the office memorandum dated 29.3.2004 and directed the respondents to extend the benefits of Ministry of
Finance OM No. F.70/11/2000-IC dated 14.7.2003. The Calcutta Bench further directed the respondents to
remove the anomalous position and to grant the revised scale to all the Junior Hindi Translators. Subsequent
to the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, the applicant herein submitted a
representation to the second respondent by her representation dated 20.2.2007, the copy of which is enclosed
as Annexure A-V. But the respondents rejected her representation on the ground that the Headquarters
informed them that the upgraded pay scales of Central Secretariat Official Language Services (CSOLS) are
specific to the posts in CSOLS and cannot be extended to similarly designated posts elsewhere and the
decision of the Tribunals in any particular case should not be made applicable to any individual other than the
applicants of particular OAs. The applicant contended that the rejection of her representation is arbitrary and
illegal. The
3
applicant contended that she was appointed through Staff Selection Commission and was posted as Hindi
Translator in the subordinate office, such as the Central Defence Accounts, other than a Central Secretariat
Office, she cannot be denied the enhanced pay scale while retaining the enhanced scale for those Hindi
Translators working in the Secretariat, i.e. CSOLS and that amounts to hostile discrimination violating the
principle of equality. The persons working in the Central Secretariat cannot be treated as separate class in
distinction to the very same translators working elsewhere inasmuch as the classification has no nexus and no
object was sought to be derived out of this unjustified classification and there was no preferential object
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/101359429/

Between: vs Controller Of Defence Accounts on 4 July, 2008

prescribed for such discrimination by way of any statute more in the nature of a subordinate legislation made
under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. There cannot be a class within the class and the discrimination
between the Hindi Translators in CSOLS and the Hindi Translators working elsewhere. So, it is unjust to
deprive the Hindi Translators working elsewhere, the benefit of enhanced pay scales prescribed for Hindi
Translators of CSOLS.
3. The respondents contested the application and filed reply stating that the Govt. of India approved the grant
of higher scales of pay to Junior Hindi Translators and Senior Hindi Translators with effect from 11.2.2003 by
OM No.13/6/2002/OL dated 19.2.2003 in pursuance of those orders of Headquarters office (R-2) issued vide
letter dated 7.7.2003 to revise the pay scales of Junior Hindi Translators including the applicant.
Subsequently, R-2 issued another letter dated 19.4.2004, circulated Government of India OM dated 29.3.2004
which clarified that the upgraded pay scales are specific to posts in CSOLS and cannot be extended to
similarly designated post elsewhere and the said OM also directed to withdraw these scales in respect of all
the Hindi Translators other than those
4
working in CSOLS. As per the said letter of R-2, the enhanced scales were withdrawn. Therefore, it is pleaded
that there is no irregularity or illegality and the respondents have followed the Govt. of India instructions.
Regarding the decision of the Calcutta Bench, the respondents pleaded that the decision of the Tribunals in
any particular case should not be made applicable to any individual other than the applicants of the particular
OAs. The respondents pleaded that the applicant is not entitled for any relief and the OA is liable to be
dismissed.
4. The points that arise for consideration in this application are:
(i) Whether the Hindi Translators working elsewhere, viz. other than
in the CSOLS are entitled to the enhanced pay scales granted under
OM dated 14.7.2003 on par with Hindi Translators working in CSOLS?
(ii) Whether the impugned orders are sustainable in law?
5. Points (i) & (ii):
The counsel for the applicant submitted that the very same points fell for consideration before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in OAs No. 912/ 2004 and 939/ 2004 and the Calcutta Bench
disposed of the said OAs by a common order on 9.11.2006 allowing both the OAs holding that the impugned
office memorandum dated 29.3.2004 issued by the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and against the Articles of
14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and that the applicants therein are entitled for the benefit of Ministry of
Finance OM dated 14.7.2003 since the applicants therein are similarly circumstanced and doing identical
duties and responsibilities like the Hindi Translators working in CSOLS. He further submitted that the present
applicant stands on the same footing as that of the applicants in OAs 912/2004 and 939/ 2004 as those two
applicants are also Hindi Translators working elsewhere other than in CSOLS. Learned counsel submitted that
it is a covered case and a similar order as that of the orders passed by the Calcutta Bench are required to be
passed in this case also.
5
6. The learned Senior Standing Counsel did not dispute that the applicant herein stand on the same footing as
that of the applicants in OAs 912/2004 and 939/2004.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/101359429/

Between: vs Controller Of Defence Accounts on 4 July, 2008

7. The applicant furnished a copy of the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench
as Annexure A-VI. We have perused the said orders and found that similar contentions were raised by the
respondents in the said OAs contending that the upgraded scales approved by the Govt. of India under OM
dated 14.7.2003 are specific to the posts of CSOLS and cannot be extended to similarly designated posts
elsewhere. The Calcutta Bench after elaborate discussion rejected the said contention, after referring to the
observations made by the Apex Court in Randhir Singh Vs. 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. The Calcutta Bench further followed the Judgement of Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal dated 10.1.92 in OA 157/ 1990, and quashed the impugned office memorandum
dated 29.3.2004 and directed the respondents to remove the anomolous position and grant the enhanced pay
scales prescribed under OM dated 14.7.2003 to all the Hindi Translators. The fact that the Calcutta Bench
passed such orders is not disputed by the respondents' counsel. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that
the point in issue in this OA has already been decided by a Coordinate Division Bench, viz. Calcutta Bench in
favour of the applicants. We do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the Calcutta Bench.
Hence, in our considered view, the present applicant is also entitled for enhanced pay scales and the
withdrawal of the enhanced pay scales are illegal and arbitrary and are liable to be set aside.
6
8. In the result, the OA is allowed setting aside the impugned orders and directing the respondents to pay the
salary as per the enhanced pay scales from the date of enhancement. The arrears shall be paid within three
months from the date of receipt of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R. Santhanam) (P. Lakshmana Reddy)
Member (A) Vice-Chairman
Dated: 4th July, 2008

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/101359429/