Allowed

Jeji Mathew v. M/O Finance

CAT15 Sept 2026O.A./89/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The CAT Ernakulam Bench held that a Hindi Translator in Directorate of Census Operations, Kerala, is entitled to equal pay benefits granted to CSOLS personnel based on parity of work and superior tribunal precedents. However, due to a 20-year delay in filing the application, the Tribunal granted relief for pay scale and grade pay but restricted arrears to three years prior to filing.

What did the court decide?

Applicant entitled to pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000 from 01.01.1996 and Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- in PB-2 from 01.01.2006. Arrears restricted to three years prior to filing of OA with 8% interest.

Jeji Mathew vs M/O Finance — Pension and Retirement Benefits | CAT (2026)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH ERNAKULAM

¶3

Original Application No.180/00089/2024

¶4

Tuesday, this the 15^th day of September 2026

¶5

C O R A M :

¶6

HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE Mr.BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

¶7

Jeji Mathew, Aged 58 years, S/o.K.M.Mathew, Senior Hindi Translator, Directorate of Census Operations, Kerala, C.G.O. Complex, Poonkulam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 522. Residing at Kadavil House, Poonkulam, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 522. ...

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

(By Advocates : Mr. Shafik.M.Abdulkhadir, Ms. Girija P., Ms. Alhena Safeer and Ms. Mariam Suhana)

¶10

v e r s u s

¶11

Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶12

The Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, O/o.Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India, Janaganana Bhavan, 2/A Mansingh Road, New Delhi – 110 011.

¶13

The Director, Directorate of Census Operations, Kerala, C.G.O Complex, Poonkulam, Vellayani PO, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 522. ... Respondents

¶14

(By Advocate : Mr. M.N.Manmadan, SCGSC)

¶15

This application having been heard on 3^rd March, 2026 the Tribunal on 15^th

¶16

September, 2026 delivered the following :

¶17

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

Sebastian Antony

-2-

O R D E R

HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER -

¶22

The applicant joined as a Hindi Translator under the Geological Survey of India in Shillong on 31.05.1993. Under the V^th CPC his pay was in the scale of Rs.4,500-125-7,000/-. Later he joined the Directorate of Census Operations, Kerala on 17.11.1997 as Hindi Translator Grade-II on transfer basis on the same pay scale.

¶23

While so, considering the requests made by Hindi Translators to the Government, Department of Official Languages under the Ministry of Home Affairs issued Office Order No.13/6/2002-OL (Services) dated 19.02.2003 and Office Order No.13/6/2003 revising the pay scale of Hindi Staff. By Annexure A1 notification issued by the Department of Expenditure, the pay scale of Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS Cadre) was fixed as Rs.5,5009,000/- to Junior Hindi Translator, Rs.6,500-10,500/- to Senior Hindi Translator and Rs.7,500-12,000/- to Assistant Director, notionally with effect from 01.01.1996 and actual payments from 11.02.2003.

¶24

In the meanwhile, the applicant was granted adhoc promotion as Senior Hindi Translator in the pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,000/- on 09.11.2001. On 11.02.2003, the designation of Hindi Translator Grade II was changed as Junior

¶25

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶26

Sebastian Antony

¶27

-3-

¶28

Hindi Translator. According to the applicant, Annexure A1 O.M was implemented in various institutions in Kochi, specifically in CIFNET and NIPHATT. In the meanwhile, Junior Translators of Central Excise Department claiming that they are also entitled to the above scale of pay, approached the Calcutta Bench of the C.A.T in O.A. No. 939/2004 which was allowed by the Calcutta Bench by order dated 09.11.2006 granting the pay scale of Rs.5,5009,000/- to Junior Hindi Translators. It was challenged by the department in Writ Petition No.632/2007 before the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta which confirmed the order of the Tribunal. Several other Benches have also granted similar reliefs to Hindi Officers in various departments.

¶29

While so, by order dated 22.01.2007, the applicant was granted the 1^st financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.5,500-9,000/with effect from 31.05.2005. Annexure A3 is the order. On introduction of the VI^th CPC pay scales with effect from 01.01.2006, he was granted Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- on the replacement scale of previous Rs.5,000-8,000/-. While so, pursuant to the recommendations of the 6^th CPC, the scale of pay of Rs.5,0008,000/-, Rs.5,500-9,000/- and Rs.6,500-10,500/- were merged and was given the replacement scale in Pay Band – 2 with Rs.9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-. Annexure A4 is the said O.M dated 24.11.2008. The same has further been corrected by Corrigendum dated 27.11.2008 issued by the Department of

¶30

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶31

Sebastian Antony

¶32

-4-

¶33

Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, enhancing the scale of pay of the posts from Assistant Director to Director. Further, the CPC recommended that in case if it is not feasible to merge the scales on functional consideration, the posts in the scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- and Rs.5,500-9,000/- should be merged with the posts in the scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/- being upgraded to the next higher grade in the Pay Band – 2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/-, corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.7,450-11,500/-, the post being upgraded from the scale of Rs.6,500-10,500/should be merged with the post in the scale of Rs.7,450-11,500/- by Annexure A5 O.M dated 13.11.2009.

¶34

It was contended that though the benefits of granting Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- to Junior Hindi Translator has already been granted to similarly placed officials under the Government, it has been implemented in various institutions. However, the applicant was not granted the benefit. Though such benefits were granted to several colleagues of the applicant, he was granted only the Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/-. While so, on completion of 20 years of service he was granted the Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/- as 2^nd MACP.

¶35

Hence contending that the applicant was not being extended the benefit of the scale of pay of Rs.5,500-9,000/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- in PB-2 with effect from 01.01.2006, the applicant has approached this Tribunal. The reliefs sought in the O.A are:-

¶36

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶37

Sebastian Antony

¶38

-5-

¶39

“1. To call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-12 and to declare that the applicant is entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in PB-2 with effect from 01.01.2006 as per Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2 O.M of the Government of India.

¶40

2. To direct the respondents to refix the pay of the applicant in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and refix his pay in PB2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- from 01.07.2005 in the post of Junior Translator and refix again in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- from 01.01.2006 to 30.06.2006 and in PB-3 (ie., Rs.15600-39100) with Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- from 31.05.2013 to 30.05.2023 on 2^nd MACP and in PB-3 with Grade Pay Rs.6600/- from 31.05.2023 for 3^rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and revised ACP & MACP upgradations, with 18% penal interest.”

¶41

The respondents filed a detailed reply statement disputing the claims sought by the applicant. It was contended that the application was highly belated and the 20 years delay has not been explained. The attempt of the applicant was to resurrect a stale claim by submitting Annexure A11 representation. It was stated that by virtue of Annexure A1 Memorandum, the Government of India had conveyed grant of upgraded scale of pay to the posts in CSOLS with effect from 01.01.1996 with actual payment of higher pay scale with effect from 11.02.2003. However, such upgraded pay scales were specific to the posts in CSOLS alone and were not extended to similarly designated posts elsewhere.

¶42

A clarificatory O.M dated 29.03.2004 produced as Annexure R1(A), affirmed that the pay scales mentioned in Annexure A1 was specific to the posts of CSOLS and cannot be extended to similarly designated posts elsewhere.

¶43

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶44

Sebastian Antony

¶45

-6-

¶46

Prior to 01.01.2006 (the date of effect of VI^th CPC), the pay scale of Junior Hindi Translator outside CSOLS was Rs.5,000-8,000/- and pay scale of Junior Hindi Translator in CSOLS was Rs.5,500-9,000/. The pay scale of Senior Hindi Translator outside the CSOLS was Rs.5,500-9,000/- and in respect of CSOLS was Rs.6,500-10,500/-. Since the applicant does not belong to CSOLS, he is not entitled to the benefit of Annexure A1 pay scale.

¶47

CSOLS is exclusively a Central Secretariat Cadre and posts therein cannot be brought at par with other posts in subordinate offices. Further, the difference in pay scale was justified functionally as the work in Central Secretariat offices was more onerous, involving translation of Gazette Notifications, various Acts of Parliament etc., which was not required in subordinate offices. The applicant joined the Directorate of Census Operations office Kerala as Junior Hindi Translator Grade II on 17.11.1997. He was promoted regularly as Senior Hindi Translator by order dated 20.02.2013 produced as Annexure R1(B). On promotion as Senior Hindi Translator, his pay was fixed in the scale of Rs.5,500175-9,000/-, which was not an extension of the recommendation of the Annexure A1 order.

¶48

It was stated that the applicant has not demonstrated as to how he is similarly situated to the persons covered in Annexure A2 and not established a claim for equal pay for equal work. The contention of the applicant that he was

¶49

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶50

Sebastian Antony

¶51

-7-

¶52

granted only Rs.4,200/- as Grade Pay in PB-2 with effect from 01.01.2006 is incorrect. He was granted Pay Band-2 of Rs.9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- as per Annexure R1(E) statement of fixation of pay dated 04.03.2009. He was promoted to the post of Senior Hindi Translator on regular basis against core vacancy.

¶53

After the implementation of VI^th CPC, Government of India by O.M dated 24.11.2008 and dated 27.11.2008 issued clarification that in accordance with the recommendations of VI^th CPC similarly designated posts existing outside the CSOLS cadre in various subordinate offices of the Central Government were granted the same pay scales as those granted to CSOLS and all Ministries/Departments were directed to grant the same in their subordinate offices. The contention of the applicant that he was granted the Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- consequent to the recommendations of the VI^th CPC is incorrect as the pay of the applicant was fixed in Pay Band-2 Rs.9,300-34,800/- at Rs.12,840/with Grade Pay of Rs.4,600/- on 01.01.2006 consequent to Annexure A4 as he was holding the pay of Senior Hindi Translator under ACP Scheme on 01.01.2006.

¶54

Pursuant to the receipt of the order in O.A.No.1784/2020 of the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal, advise of the Department of Expenditure was solicited. It was clarified by the Department that the relief was granted only to those

¶55

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶56

Sebastian Antony

¶57

-8-

¶58

employees who had common Recruitment Rules and educational qualifications, as that of the posts in CSOLS. On the basis of the above pleadings, the respondents sought the dismissal of the O.A.

¶59

An additional rejoinder was filed by the applicant reiterating the contentions which was again answered by filing an additional reply statement by the respondents.

¶60

Heard both sides and examined the records.

¶61

The specific case of the applicant is that the benefit of Annexure A1 office memorandum dated 14.7.2003 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure by which higher pay scales of Rs. 5,500-9,000/-, Rs. 6,500-10,500/and Rs. 7,500-12,000/- to the post of Junior Hindi Translator, Senior Hindi Translator and Assistant Director of CSOLS with effect from 1.1.1996 and with actual payment with effect from 11.2.2003 is liable to be extended to the applicant who is a Junior Hindi Translator outside the CSOLS. It was contended that by virtue of several orders, similar benefits have been extended to several other Junior Hindi Translators who were engaged outside CSOLS. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on various orders of the Tribunal, High Courts as well as Supreme Court to support his case. It was further contended that pursuant to the VI^th Pay Commission Report, Annexure A4 order was issued

¶62

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶63

Sebastian Antony

¶64

-9-

¶65

revising the corresponding pay scales of the Junior Translator, Senior Translator and Assistant Director, OL of Rs. 6,500-10,500/-, Rs. 7,450-11,500/- and Rs. 8,000-13,500/- respectively in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200, in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600 and in PB-3 with Grade Pay of Rs. 5,400/- respectively is liable to be extended to the corresponding posts also. He claims the benefit on the basis of Annexure A2 judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶66

The contention of the applicant was specifically countered by the learned SCGSC contending that Annexure A1 was applicable only to the persons holding the said posts in CSOLS only and not to any other Hindi Officer outside CSOLS. To substantiate it, the learned SCGSC invited our attention to Annexure A1 as well as Annexure R1(A) OM dated 29.3.2004 issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. It stated that the government had considered the proposal regarding upgradation of pay scales of the posts of Junior Hindi Translators, Senior Hindi Translators and Assistant Director in CSOLS and it was held that the upgraded pay scales approved by the Government of India by Annexure A1 are specific to the post in CSOLS and cannot be extended to similarly designated posts elsewhere. Hence, all those concerned Departments who had extended those scales unilaterally and unauthorizedly to such posts were directed to withdraw those scales and place those posts in the otherwise applicable pay scales.

¶67

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶68

Sebastian Antony

¶69

-10-

¶70

To supplement it the learned SCGSC placed reliance on a decision of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in K.P. Rajagopal v. Secretary, Department of Expenditure and Ors . (OA No. 1095 of 2014). The learned SCGSC also placed reliance on the decision of the Kolkatta Bench of the CAT in Sanjay Kumar Jha & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors . (OA No. 1954 of 2021). It was contended that all the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the applicant were without noticing the crucial fact that Annexure A1 applies only to the CSOLS staff.

¶71

In K.P. Rajagopal ’s case (supra), the question that came up for consideration was whether the claim of the applicants therein for extending the provisions of Department of Expenditure order dated 14.12.2009 to those persons among them and similarly situated persons who are members of the Income Tax Employees Federation. Basically that claim was based on the benefits extended to the Assistants of Central Secretariat Service, sought to be extended to the employees outside the Central Secretariat Service. After an elaborate consideration of the issues, the Tribunal held that the order which was specifically issued to the CSS cannot be extended to the applicants therein. Based on the said decision an analogy was sought to be extended in the case of the applicant herein.

¶72

In Sanjay Kumar Jha ’s case (supra) junior Hindi Translator/Junior Translation Officer working under the Ministry of Defence claimed the benefit of

¶73

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶74

Sebastian Antony

¶75

-11-

¶76

revised Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- in PB-2 instead of Rs. 4,200/- and re-fixation of 1^st MACP in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- instead of Rs. 4,600/-. The claim was based on office memorandum issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 24.11.2008 and the subsequent corrigendum issued as 27.11.2008 and 13.11.2009. OM dated 13.11.2009 is Annexure A5 in the present OA. They placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 107 of 2011 dated 27.9.2011.

¶77

The contention of the respondents therein were that the various orders of the Tribunal, High Courts and the Apex Court relied on by the applicants were judgments in personam and not in rem. The Tribunal referred to both the OMs dated 24.11.2008 and 27.11.2008 and held that as per DOE’s letter dated 13.11.2009, Junior Hindi Translators were not entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006. On facts, the judgment in OA No. 107 of 2011 was also distinguished. Accordingly, it was held that the Junior Hindi Translators are not entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- with effect from 1.1.2006. Consequently, the applicants were not entitled to the Grade pay of Rs. 4,800/- on the 1^st financial upgradation.

¶78

The learned SCGSC also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Odisha v. Anup Kumar Senapati & Ors . [(2019) 19 SCC 626] and P. Singaravelan & Ors . v. District Collector [(2020) 3 SCC 133] to contend that wrong judgments though passed by higher benches need not be relied on.

¶79

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶80

Sebastian Antony

¶81

-12-

¶82

Another limb of the contention of the learned counsel for the SCGSC was that the claim of the applicant had become stale and he had approached this Tribunal highly belatedly setting up a stale claim. Accordingly, it was contended that the claim ought not to have been entertained. To supplement it, the learned SCGSC relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors . v.

¶83

M.K. Sarkar [(2010) 2 SCC 59].

¶84

There is no dispute that Annexure A1 OM specifically makes the revised pay scale under the V^th CPC applicable only to the Hindi Translators of CSOLS only. It was also noticed thereafter by Annexure R1(A) that several institutions have extended the benefits inadvertently and thus such Departments/Ministries/Establishment were directed to rectify it. Annexure R1(A) is in this regard. However, Annexure A4 dated 24.11.2008 makes the position clear. It states that consequent to the implementation of the recommendations of the VI^th CPC, Department of Expenditure has been receiving queries from various Ministries/Departments regarding the revised pay structure applicable in the case of official language posts existing in subordinate offices of the Central Government. It was clarified that in accordance with the recommendations of the VI^th Central Pay Commission as accepted by the Government, similarly designated posts existing outside CSOLS cadre in various subordinate offices have been granted the same pay scales as those granted to

¶85

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶86

Sebastian Antony

¶87

-13-

¶88

CSOLS. Accordingly, revised pay structure for official language cadre belonging to CSOLS was fixed at Rs. 6,500-10,500/-, Rs. 7,450-11,500/- and Rs. 8,00013,500/-. It was directed that with effect from 1.1.2006 all Ministries/Departments shall grant the revised pay scales approved for various posts in the CSOLS to similarly designated official language posts existing in their subordinate offices. Accordingly, the Grade Pay was also fixed at Rs. 4,200/and Rs. 4,600/- in PB-2 and Rs. 5,400/- in PB-3 respectively. The above was followed by Annexure A5 OM dated 13.11.2009 issued by the Department of Expenditure.

¶89

The decision of the Principal Bench in K.P. Rajagopal ’s case (supra) does not apply to the facts of the case. The specific question regarding official languages posts in CSOLS and those outside CSOLS was not the subject matter of that OA. On the other hand the Kolkatta Bench decision in Sanjay Kumar Jha ’s case (supra) did not consider the OMs referred above nor considered the various orders of the Tribunal ultimately resulting in confirmation by the Supreme Court. All those judgments were brushed aside on a premise that they were judgments in personam and not judgments in rem .

¶90

The applicant relied on a catena of decisions of various Tribunals in which reliefs sought by the applicant in this OA was directly in issue. The applicant referred to the decision in OA No. 939 of 2004 of the Calcutta Bench of the CAT.

¶91

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶92

Sebastian Antony

¶93

-14-

¶94

Original Application was filed by the Hindi Officers of the Central Excise. The OA was allowed and the Writ Petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta as WP No. 632 of 2007 was dismissed. In OA No. 363 of 2005, CAT, Hyderabad Bench granted the benefits to the Hindi Translators of FSI, Visakapatanam. In OAs Nos. 593 of 2005, 595 of 2005 and 675 of 2005, employees of CIFNET sought the benefit which was granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. This was the subject matter of challenge before the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6463 of 2008 which was dismissed by the High Court. The same issue was considered by the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal in OAs Nos. 2138 of 2005 and 2139 of 2005. In the meanwhile, the SLP preferred against the order of the Calcutta Bench was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Copy of the said judgment of the Supreme Court was produced as Annexure A2. The order was complied and the benefits were granted to the applicants therein.

¶95

The issue whether Junior Hindi Translators are entitled for Rs. 4,600/- as Grade Pay was the subject matter in OA No. 656 of 2012 and OA No. 953 of 2012 of this Tribunal. The issue was referred to a Full Bench which by Annexure A7 order answered the reference and found that the applicants are entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-. The order of this Tribunal was confirmed by the High Court and later by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Order in OA No. 656 of 2012 was

¶96

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶97

Sebastian Antony

¶98

-15-

¶99

produced as Annexure A8. Annexure A8 was challenged in OP (CAT) No. 142 of 2015 which was dismissed confirming the order. The decision of the Bangalore Bench in an identical issue was produced as Annexure A10. The order of this Tribunal in OA No. 107 of 2011 was produced as Annexure A7. Annexure A8 is the Full Bench judgment of this Tribunal wherein the question that was framed was whether the Junior Hindi Translators in subordinate offices of Central Government are entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- from 1.1.2006 on the basis of the OM dated 13.11.2009. The Full Bench answered in the affirmative. Annexures A13 and A14 are the orders of this Tribunal in identical cases.

¶100

The above catena of decisions cannot be considered as orders in rem for three specific reasons. The orders are not isolated instances, but in several cases in relation to officers of various Departments various Benches of this Tribunal has taken a uniform view. All the above orders were subjected to challenge by the respective Departments before the High Courts and in some cases before the Supreme Court. High Courts and Supreme Court have consistently declined the challenge. The consistent view taken in all the above cases categorically lead to the singular conclusion that the law laid down therein are orders in rem . Secondly, the Full Bench decision cannot be overlooked by a Bench of Division Bench. Thirdly, the law was affirmed for a different reason by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors . v. Rajesh Kumar Gond in SLP No. 17416 of 2009 and &

¶101

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶102

Sebastian Antony

¶103

-16-

¶104

connected matters. In that, in relation to the Junior Translators in the office of Director General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of any material placed by the respondents before the Tribunal to show as to how the functional requirement of the concerned job in the Commerce Ministry was different from that in the Central Secretariat, the applicants are entitled for the benefit. Both the posts required the work of translation to be done and therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no reason to deny parity in pay. Affirming the Tribunals order, the Supreme Court held that when no material was placed before the Tribunal about the functional distinction, the order of the Tribunal could not be faulted.

¶105

The above judgment clearly indicates that the Supreme Court had considered the question of parity of pay and held that in the absence of any records or materials establishing the case of the respondents the applicants who are doing the similar work are entitled for same pay for same work done. Accordingly, the benefit was extended to the applicants therein.

¶106

In this regard, it is clear that the issue was answered by the Supreme Court on a larger perspective. All the decisions equally apply to the facts of this case. Hence, the applicant is entitled for the benefit as prayed in the Original Application. Thus he is entitled for the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- in PB-2 with effect from

¶107

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

Sebastian Antony

-17-

1.1.2006.

It is pertinent to note that the applicant though claimed the benefit from 1996 and 2006, approached this Tribunal in 2024 only. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors . v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648] had considered and held that in case of huge delay the Tribunal will be justified in limiting the benefits. Accordingly, OA is allowed declaring that the applicant is entitled for the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500-9,000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 and Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/- in PB-2 with effect from 1.1.2006. However, the arrears will be restricted to three years prior to the filing of the OA. The amounts due to the applicant shall be quantified and appropriate orders issued and the arrears paid within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which it will carry 8% interest till payment.

¶112

Original Application is allowed to the above extent. No order as to costs.

¶113

(Dated this the 15^th day of September, 2026)

¶114

(BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

¶115

(JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS) JUDICIAL MEMBER

¶116

“asp&SA”

¶117

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶118

Sebastian Antony

¶119

-18-

¶120

List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00089/2024

¶121

1. Annexure A1 – A copy of the OM No. F. No. 70/11/2000-IC dated 14.7.2003 issued by Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance.

¶122

2. Annexure A2 – A copy of the judgment dated 25.7.2013 in SLP (Civil) No. 17419/2009 with CA No. 1119/2013 and SLP (Civil) No. 37255/2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶123

3. Annexure A3 – A copy of the order No. Estt.2/1370/2006 dated 5.3.2007 issued by the Deputy Director of the 3^rd respondent.

¶124

4. Annexure A4 – A copy of the OM F. No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 24.11.2008 issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance.

¶125

5. Annexure A5 – A copy of the OM F.No. 1/1/2008-IC dated 13.11.2009 issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance.

¶126

6. Annexure A6 – A copy of the order No. 35018/16/2010-Ad.IV dated 14/20.2.2013 issued by the Under Secretary of the 2^nd respondent.

¶127

7. Annexure A7 – A copy of the order dated 27.9.2011 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No. 107/2011.

¶128

8. Annexure A8 – A copy of the order dated 14.10.2013 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA No. 656/2012 and OA 953/2012.

¶129

9. Annexure A9 – A copy of order F.No. 32011/17/2013-Ad.IV dated 24.6.2013 of the Under Secretary of the 2^nd respondent.

¶130

10. Annexure A10 – A copy of the order F.No. 32011/10/2005-Adv.IV dated 6.2.2014 issued by the Under Secretary of the 2^nd respondent.

¶131

11. Annexure A11 – A copy of the representation dated 22.6.2023 submitted by the applicant.

¶132

12. Annexure A12 – A copy of the order No. A1/3670/2020 dated 20.11.2023 issued by the Deputy Director of the 3^rd respondent.

¶133

13. Annexure A13 – A copy of the order dated 21.10.2022 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA 253/2022.

¶134

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶135

Sebastian Antony

¶136

-19-

¶137

14. Annexure A14 – A copy of the order dated 7.11.2024 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA 253/2022.

¶138

15. Annexure A15 – A copy of the order dated 23.12.2022 of this Hon’ble Tribunal in OA 407/2020.

¶139

16. Annexure R1(A) – A copy of OM F.No. 70/5/2003-IC dated 29.3.2004 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

¶140

17. Annexure R1(B) – A copy of the order No. 35018/16/2010-Ad.IV dated 20.2.2013 issued by the Under Secretary, Office of the Registrar General, India.

¶141

18. Annexure R1(C) – A copy of the order No. Estt.(4)/8093/97 dated 31.5.2001 issued by the Director, DCO, Kerala.

¶142

19. Annexure R1(D) – A copy of the statement of fixation of pay under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 dated 22.9.2008.

¶143

20. Annexure R1(E) – A copy of statement of fixation of pay under CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 dated 4.3.2009.

¶144

21. Annexure R1(F) – A copy of the inter-departmental note dated 26.5.2022 along with Annexure.

¶145

2026.09.15 14:14:59+05'30'

¶146

Sebastian Antony

Jeji Mathew v. M/O Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jeji Mathew v. M/O Finance

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Arif Ramzan Parray vs General Administrative Department

Mohammad Shafi Sofi vs Health and Medical Education Department

Subhan Ali vs Department of Posts

Ravi Kant Pandey vs Department of Defence Production

Suraj Bhan vs Ordnance Factory

Firdous Ahmad Giri vs Home Department

K K Umadevi vs the General Manager Southern Railway Hq Office Park Town Chennai

Mahesh Kumar vs General Manager, N E Rly