Union Of India vs Intikhab Jafar
2021 Latest Caselaw 1206 Kant

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                        PRESENT

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                           AND

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA


           WRIT PETITION NO.35444/2019 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

1.    UNION OF INDIA
      BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF STATISTICS &
      PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION
      SARDAR PATEL BHAVAN, SANSAD MARG
      NEW DELHI-110 001

2.    THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
      NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY OFFICE
      (EARLIER KNOWN AS
      NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY ORGANISATION)
      (FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION)
      SANKHIYIKI BHAWAN, GPOA BUILDING
      NEAR KARKARDOOMA COURT
      DELHI-110 032

3.    THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL
      NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY OFFICE
      (FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION)
      E & F WING, 5TH FLOOR,
      KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA
      BENGALURU-560 034
                                               ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.MANJULADEVI R. KAMADOLLI, ADV.,)
                                 2




AND:

INTIKHAB JAFAR
S/O LATE SRI.SYED HUSAIN
AGED 58 YEARS, WORKING AS
JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR
NATIONAL SAMPLE SURVEY OFFICE
(FIELD OPERATIONS DIVISION),
E & F WING, 5TH FLOOR,
KENDRIYA SADAN, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU-560 034
R/A NO.246, BLOCK NO.23,
C.P.W.D QUARTERS,
KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU 560034.
                                                 ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.RAVINDRA P., ADV., FOR
    SRI.A.R.HOLLA, ADV.)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN O.A. NO.170/00180/2018 DTD:
22.01.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J.,
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                             ORDER

Learned counsel for the respondent at the outset has drawn

the attention of this Court towards order dated 04.03.2020

passed in WP.No.43017/2019 (Union of India and Others -vs-

Bhamidipati Naresh). He has stated that the controversy involved

in the present case stands covered by the judgment rendered by

the Division Bench of this Court. The aforesaid aspect has not

been disputed by the learned Counsel for Union of India.

2. The order dated 04.03.2020 reads as under:

"This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore ("Tribunal" for short) in O.A.No.170/00200/2018 dated 22.01.2019 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the respondent in terms of the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.107/2011 dated 27.09.2011.

2. The respondent approached the Tribunal seeking pay revision in terms of Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009 issued by the Government of India. The Full Bench of the CAT, Ernakulam in O.A.No.653/2012 has held that the Junior Hindi Translators are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- from 01.01.2006 on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009. Considering the same, the Tribunal has held that respondent is entitled to the scale of Rs.5500-9000 with effect from 01.01.1996 notionally and on actual basis from 17.03.2015. In the proceedings before the Tribunal the petitioners had filed statement of objections. After considering the arguments of both the sides and the material available on record, the Tribunal being convinced that the issue involved being no more res-integra in view of the Full Bench decision of CAT Ernakulam in O.A.No.107/2011 allowed the original application filed by the respondent herein observing that the benefits which had been granted to the others has to

be extended to the petitioner herein also on the rule of parity. Being aggrieved, the petitioners/Union of India is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners though made an endeavour to distinguish the decision of CAT, Ernakulam in O.A.No.107/2011 contending that Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009 has not been properly interpreted in arriving at a decision extending the benefits to the applicants therein, fairly submitted that the SLP No.28536/2012 preferred against the judgment in O.P.(CAT) No.467/2012 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 15.10.2012. In view of the disposal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Apex Court and the benefits extended to the similarly situated persons, the respondent herein cannot be deprived of the said benefit.

4. Article 14 of the Constitution of India demands equality of law to all the persons and to maintain such equality and not to discriminate amongst the similarly situated persons, Tribunal has followed the decision of the CAT, Ernakulam Bench in extending the benefits of Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009. No exception can be found with the order impugned.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed."

3. In the light of aforesaid order, no further orders are

required to be passed in the present case. The judgment

delivered in WP.No.43017/2019 shall be applicable mutatis

mutandis to the present case.

Resultantly, the petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

nd