Union of India and 5 Ors. Vs Sri Gojen Taye and Anr.

JUNIOR TRANSLATOR (HINDI) (RETIRED), S/O LATE DIGHAL TAYE, R/O HOUSE NO. 18, L.K. PATH, HABICHUCK, CHUCKFANAGAR, P.O. AND P.S.-JORHAT, DIST-JORHAT (ASSAM)-785001

¶17

2:SHRI SHAIK RAMTHU BASHA ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (O.L.) (RETIRED) S/O LATE SHAIK. KHASIM VALI R/O HOUSE NO. 21 RESHAMNAGAR GUWAHATI-78102

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B CHAKRAVARTY,

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : MR M CHANDA (FOR CAVEATOR), MR S CHOUDHURY (FOR CAVEATOR)

¶20

Linked Case : WP(C)/225/2024

¶21

UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. REPRESENTED THROUGH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF TEXTILES UDYOG BHAVAN NEW DELHI-110107.

¶22

2: THE CHAIRMAN CENTRAL SILK BOARD 6TH FLOOR BTM LAYOUT MADIWALA POST BENGALURU-560068.

¶23

3: THE MEMBER SECRETARY CENTRAL SILK BOARD 6TH FLOOR BTM LAYOUT MADIWALA POST BENGALURU-500068.

¶24

Page No.# 3/8

¶25

4: ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (A AND A) CENTRAL SILK BOARD 6TH FLOOR

¶26

BTM LAYOUT MADIWALA POST BENGALURU-560068.

¶27

5: THE DIRECTOR MUGA AND ERI RESEARCH AND TRAINING CENTRE JORHAT ASSAM.

¶28

6: THE SCIENTIST D REGIONAL SERICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION IMPHAL MANIPUR. VERSUS SMT. WAHENGBAM MANGLEM DEVI SENIOR TRANSLATOR (HINDI) W/O- L. IBOYAIMA SINGH R/O- CHINGMEIRONG NONGPOK POUMAI COLONY NEARBY TASAR WALL IMPHAL EAST MANIPUR- 798010.

¶29

-----------Advocate for : MR. B CHAKRAVARTY Advocate for : appearing for SMT. WAHENGBAM MANGLEM DEVI

¶30

BEFORE

¶31

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

¶32

For the Petitioners

¶33

:Mr. B Chakravarty, Advocate.

¶34

For the Respondents :Mrs. U Dutta, Advocate.

¶35

Page No.# 4/8

¶36

Mr. M Chanda, Advocate

¶37

Date on which judgment is reserved: 12.05.2026

¶38

Date of pronouncement of judgment: 12.05.2026

¶39

Whether the pronouncement is of the operative part of the judgment : NA

¶40

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced : Yes

¶41

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶42

(A.D.Choudhury, J)

¶43

Heard Mr. B Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioners. We have also heard Mrs. U Dutta, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶44

We have also perused the materials available on record, including the Common Judgment and Order dated 06.06.2023 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No. 286/2019 and OA No. 238/2020.

¶45

The core issue arising for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the petitioners belonging to the official language cadre under the Central Silk Board (CSB) are entitled to placement in the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and the consequential financial upgradations under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS).

¶46

The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the relevant office memoranda issued by the Government of India and the precedents governing the field,

¶47

Page No.# 5/8

¶48

answered the issue in favour of the petitioners and directed extension of consequential benefits.

¶49

The correctness of the said determination is under challenge before us.

¶50

The factual foundation on which the claims are raised is substantially undisputed.

¶51

Pursuant to the recommendations of the 6^th Central Pay Commission, the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, issued Office Memorandum dated 24.11.2008, followed by a Corrigendum dated 27.11.2008, revising the pay structure of the Official Language Cadre belonging to the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) with effect from 01.01.2006.

¶52

Under the revised structure, Junior Translator carried a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, Senior Translator a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-, Assistant Director (Official Language) a Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/- and Deputy Director (Official Language) a Grade Pay of Rs. 6600/-.

¶53

The learned Tribunal noticed that the aforesaid revised structure was thereafter extended to similarly designated Official Language posts in subordinate offices by Communication dated 20.09.2010 and 13.10.2010, whereby Senior Translator (Hindi) was placed in Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in Pay Band 2 of Rs. 9300-34800/- and Junior Translator (Hindi) in Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- with effect from 01.01.2006.

¶54

10.Equally relevant is the Office Memorandum dated 19.05.2009 introducing the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS), which grants financial upgradation on completion of 10, 20, and 30 years of continuous service.

¶55

11.The petitioners contended that once the feeder post itself was revised with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- with effect from 01-01-2006, the consequential MACPS benefits were also liable to be re-fixed accordingly.

¶56

Page No.# 6/8

¶57

12.What assumes significance is that the controversy was not res integra before the learned Tribunal.

¶58

13.The precise issue had earlier fallen for consideration before the Full Bench of the Ernakulum Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 953/2012 and the connected O.A. No. 656/2012, decided on 14.10.2013. The issue framed therein was whether Junior Hindi Translators in subordinate offices of the Central Government were entitled to Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- from 01.01.2006 on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 13.11.2009.

¶59

14.The Full Bench answered the issue affirmatively and held that such employees were entitled to the revised Grade Pay from 01.01.2006. The said Full Bench decision was carried in challenge before the High Court of Kerala in O.P. (CAT) No. 142/2014.

¶60

15.The Kerala High Court, by a Judgment dated 01.04.2015, dismissed the challenge and affirmed the Tribunal's reasoning. The High Court specifically noted that the issue had already attained finality and that the entitlement of Junior Hindi Translators in subordinate offices to grade pay of Rs. 4600/- had been concluded in view of the applicable office memorandum.

¶61

16.The matter did not rest there. The said Special Leave Petition preferred against the aforesaid Judgment, being SLP (C) No. 23053/2016, also came to be dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court on 26.07.2019.

¶62

17.The legal position, therefore, stood settled and attained finality.

¶63

18.Before the learned Tribunal, as well as before us, an attempt was made on behalf of the petitioners to rely upon the Office Memorandum dated 23.03.2020 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, referring to the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors vs. M. V. Mohanan Nair, SLP (C) No. 21803/2014 , to contend that

¶64

Page No.# 7/8

¶65

MACPS benefits are to be granted in the standard hierarchy of Grade Pay levels.

¶66

19.The learned Tribunal, however, rightly noticed that the said principle does not dilute the binding effect of earlier decisions directly governing the entitlement of Junior Hindi Translators to the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- with effect from 01.01.2006.

¶67

20.Having examined the matter in its entirety, we find ourselves in agreement with the approach adopted by the learned Tribunal.

¶68

21.The Tribunal has neither travelled beyond the pleadings nor ignored any relevant material placed before it. On the contrary, the determination rests upon binding precedence operating in respect of identically situated employees and contemporaneous executive instructions issued by the Government of India itself.

¶69

22.Once the issue had already been authoritatively settled by the Full Bench of the Tribunal, affirmed by the High Court of Kerala and thereafter, allowed to attain finality by the Honourable Supreme Court, judicial discipline requires a consistent application of the same principle to the present respondents, who are admittedly similarly situated.

¶70

23.In matters concerning service jurisprudence, particularly those involving pay parity and the implementation of uniform governmental policy, consistency in judicial approach itself is an essential facet of equality.

¶71

24 .We also find no infirmity in the direction issued by the learned Tribunal requiring verification of the individual service particulars of the applicants before the actual release of monetary benefits and arrears. The said direction adequately safeguards the employer's administrative interests while simultaneously ensuring the lawful entitlement flowing from the settled legal position.

¶72

25.For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion

¶73

Page No.# 8/8

¶74

that the impugned common Judgment and Order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dtd.06.06.2023 passed in OA No. 286/2019 and OA No.283/2020 does not suffer from any legal infirmity warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction.

¶75

26.Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed. The directions issued by the learned Tribunal shall be complied with within the time stipulated therein.

¶76

27.No order as to cost.

¶77

JUDGE

¶78

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶79

Comparing Assistant

Union of India and 5 Ors. v. Sri Gojen Taye and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India and 5 Ors. v. Sri Gojen Taye and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salam Uddin Khan Vs 2) Jagadish Baishya

Shyamal Bezboruah Vs the Gauhati High Court and Anr.

Bodoland Territorail Council Vs Ajit Chandra Mardi

Union of India and 5 Ors. Vs Smt. Wahengbam Manglem Devi

Shankar Mandir Pratibekhi Samaj and 2 Ors. Vs Bhabesh Rajbongshi and Anr.

Sri Hrishav Dhawaj Purkayastha Vs the State Information Commission Assam and 3 Ors.