Delhi High Court
Anand Kishor & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors. on 21 August, 2017
$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11862/2006
ANAND KISHOR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr. S.C. Kaushik and Mr. C.S. Panda,
Advocates.
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra and
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocates with
Mr. Ravi Verma, Under Secretary (V&L), CBDT.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
ORDER
% 21.08.2017
C.M. No. 31188/2016 (by the petitioner No.1)
1. The present application has been filed by the petitioners for
expeditious disposal of the writ petition, pending since the year 2006, in
view of subsequent favourable developments.
2. The petitioners herein pray that the impugned judgment dated
26.5.2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT')
be set aside and the respondents be directed to give them the same pay scale
as has been given to their counterparts and as a consequence thereto, release
the arrears payable to them.
3. Very briefly, the facts of the present case are that the 10 petitioners
herein were working on the post of Assistant Director (OL), Income Tax
Department, attached to the Ministry of Finance, Union of India and had
claimed parity in the pay scale with their counterparts working in the Central
Secretariat Official Language Service (in short 'CSOLS'). By the impugned
judgment dated 26.5.2006, the CAT had dismissed the claim of the
petitioners by observing that the there was not only a difference in their
mode of recruitment, even the quality and nature of work that was being
performed by the petitioners was different, vis-à-vis the work being
performed by their counterparts working in CSOLS. Aggrieved by the said
decision, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that much water has
flown under the bridge during the pendency of the present petition inasmuch
as by a common judgment dated 25.7.2013, the Supreme Court has decided
three connected appeals, where a similar issue was raised by the Union of
India. In one of the appeals, being Civil Appeal No. 1119/2013, the
respondent employees therein who were working as Junior Hindi Translators
in the office of Commissioner of Central Excise-I, Kolkata had claimed
parity of pay with Junior Translators, who were working in the CSOLS.
Holding that there was no functional distinction as far as the said translators
were concerned, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the
Union of India.
5. Following the aforesaid judgment, in the case of Rajendra Singh
Khatwal vs. Union of India & Anr. (Original Application No.
211/00124/2015), decided by CAT, Mumbai Bench on 29.7.2015, an
application filed by the petitioner therein, working as an Assistant Director
(OL), the Income Tax Department had granted him the pay scale of
Rs.7,500-12,000/-, which had already been granted to other similarly placed
employees. Complying with the said judgment passed by the CAT, Mumbai
Bench, the office of the Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax, Nagpur
had revised the order dated 10.6.2016 [Annexure D (colly)] thereby re-
fixing the pay scale of Mr. R.S. Khatwal with effect from 1.1.1996. This was
followed by another order dated 30.7.2015 (Annexure-E) issued by the
office of Principal Chief Commissioner, Income Tax Department, New
Delhi granting the same benefit to similarly placed persons as the petitioners
herein and holding that they are entitled to the pay scale at par with
translators working in the CSOLS.
6. It is in this background that the petitioners have filed the present
application stating inter alia that they are also entitled to the same relief as
granted to the petitioners in the captioned case.
7. Pursuant to our dated 10.7.2017, Mr. Ravi Verma, Under Secretary,
(V&L), CBDT appears along with the counsel. Learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/UOI concedes that a belated reply has been filed to the
present application only on 18.8.2017. The same is not on record. He
however does not dispute the factual averments made by the petitioners in
the present application and states on instructions that appropriate orders may
be passed by the Court in respect of the petitioners herein who are similarly
placed as the appellant in the case of Dhananjay Singh (supra).
8. On enquiring, learned counsel for the respondents states on
instructions that the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance has
already implemented the orders passed by the CAT and other High Courts
by granting parity in pay scale to Assistant Director (OL) at par with the
counterpart translators in the CSOLS. In support of the said submission, he
refers to the order dated 29.7.2015 issued by the Under Secretary,
Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, a copy whereof is handed
over and taken on record. The petitioners have also placed on record, an
office order dated 03.08.2015 issued by the Additional Director General,
CBDT showing that various orders of the CAT and the Supreme Court have
been duly implemented.
9. In view of the subsequent developments and decisions cited by the
counsel for the petitioners which are not disputed by the respondents, the
impugned judgment dated 26.5.2006 passed by the CAT in O.A. 914/2005,
is quashed and set aside and it is directed that the petitioners shall be entitled
to parity in pay scale with their counterparts working in the CSOLS, with
effect from 1.1.1996, as has been granted to other similarly placed
employees in terms of the orders dated 30.7.2015 and 03.08.2015. Necessary
steps in this regard shall be taken within three months from today and the
arrears due to the petitioners shall be released contemporaneously, failing
which, the same shall carry simple interest payable @ 9% p.a. at the end of
three months.
10. The petition stands disposed on the above terms along with pending
application with no order as to costs.
HIMA KOHLI, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J
AUGUST 21, 2017
ap/rkb
