Union Of India & Ors. vs Ram Autar

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Reserved on: 03 September 2026
Pronounced on: 15 October 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010174932026
+ W.P.(C) 5589/2026 and CM APPLs.27305-306/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Balendu Shekhar CGSC
Mr.Krishna Chaitanya,
Mr.Rajkumar Maurya and
Mr.Divyansh Singh Dev, Advs.
versus
RAM AUTAR .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Krishna Chandra Dubey.
Ms.Uma Tarafdar and Ms.Lenyin
Taggu, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
JUDGMENT
% 15.10.2026
VINOD KUMAR , J.
1. Petitioners have filed the present writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India laying a challenge to the
order dated 20.01.2025 rendered by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench (“the Tribunal” hereinafter) in OA No.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 1
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

789/2024 whereby the said OA filed by the respondent herein
was allowed.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The respondent was working as Assistant Director
(Official Language) in the Income Tax Department, Ministry of
Finance and retired from service on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.12.2008. Nearly 14 years thereafter, the
respondent vide application dated 05.04.2023 and representation
dated 16.06.2023, sought grant of the upgraded Pay Scale
prescribed under the Office Memorandum No. F.70/11/2000-I/C
dated 14.07.2003 issued by the Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance (“DoE” hereinafter).
3. Vide the aforesaid OM, the Pay Scales of Junior Hindi
Translator, Senior Hindi Translator and Assistant Director
(Official Language) belonging to Central Secretariat Official
Language Service (CSOLS) cadre were revised to Rupees 5500-
9000, Rupees 6500-10500 and Rupees 7500-12000 respectively,
with notional effect from 01.01.1996 and with actual financial
benefit accruing from 11.02.2003.
4. Subsequently, the DoE, vide OM dated 29.03.2004,
clarified that the upgraded Pay Scales under the OM dated
14.07.2003 were applicable only to employees belonging to
CSOLS cadre and could not be extended to similarly designated
posts elsewhere. The said OM further directed withdrawal of the
upgraded Pay Scales wherever the same had been extended to
such posts.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 2
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

5. The validity and applicability of the aforesaid OMs came
to be considered in subsequent judicial proceedings. In one such
matter, titled as Union of India v. Dhananjay Singh, (2014) 13
SCC 588 , the Supreme Court vide order dated 25.07.2013,
upheld the grant of parity in pay to an employee who was
working as a Junior Hindi Translator in the office of
Commissioner of Central Excise I, Kolkata with Junior Hindi
Translators working in the Central Secretariat, observing that
there was no functional distinction in the work performed by the
concerned translators.
6. Consequently, similarly placed employees belonging to
non-CSOLS cadres, who were litigants in the matters pending
before CATs and other High Courts pursuant to judicial orders,
were granted parity in Pay Scales at par with their counterparts in
the CSOLS cadre. In this background, DoE vide its order U.O.
No. 15 (U.O.E.III(V)/2015) dated 29.07.2015, made the
following observations: -
“This Department agrees to implement the live
orders of CAT/Court, which are due for
implementation, in the case of
applications/petitioners to avoid contempt.”
7. Relying upon the aforesaid developments, the respondent
vide application dated 05.04.2023 and representation dated
16.06.2023, sought grant of the upgraded Pay Scale by virtue of
the OM dated 14.07.2003.
8. Respondent’s application was rejected by his Department
vide order dated 01.09.2023 principally on the ground that the
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 3
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

benefit of the upgraded Pay Scale could not be extended to him
suo motu , as he was not a party to the proceedings in which such
benefit had been granted to his other counterparts. The said order
is reproduced as under:
“Please refer your application dated 05/04/2023,
requested to this office implementation of up-graded
Pay Scales as per Deptt. of Expenditure. Vide OM
No. F.70/11/2000-I/C dated 14/07/2003 has issued
orders for extension of higher Pay Scales of Rs.
5500-9000, 6500-10500 and 7500-12000 to the post
of Jr. Hindi Translator, Sr.Hindi Translator and
Asstt. Director w.e.f. 01/01/1996 notionally and
actual benefit from11/02/2003.
2. Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance
vide O.M. dated 10/07/2003, clarified that the up of
Pay Scales to the post of Central Secretariat official
language Services (CSOLS) and could not be
extended to similarly designated post elsewhere and
directed all Central Deptt. to withdraw all up-
graded Pay Scales, if allowed to them, in the case of
the post of Jr. Hindi Translator, Sr. Hindi Translator
and Asstt. Director.
3. In view of above, it is clear that benefit of up-
graded Pay Scale of Rs 5500-9000, 6500-10500 &
7500-12000 could not be extended in your case
Suo-Moto on the basis of the order of the CAT vide
OA No. 100/139/2016 which was allowed in case of
Smt Satish Sikka & Ms. Kaushal Taneja because
you were not party in this CAT case or any other
case which are mentioned in your application dated
05.04.2023 .”
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection order, the respondent
approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 789/2024. The
Tribunal after considering the submissions of the parties, vide
impugned order dated 20.01.2025, allowed the Original
Application in the following terms:
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 4
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

“6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and perused the materials available on record, it is
a well settled law that a similarly situated person
ought not to be denied the benefit. Onus lies upon
the respondents to accord the benefits to the
similarly situated person. A decision has already
been taken by the respondents in terms of para 3 of
the Office Order dated 14/16.08.2023, which reads
as under:
"3. It is also mentioned that the revised Pay Scale
similar to Central Secretariat Official Language
Service (CSOLS) was introduced on notional basis
from 01.01.1996 and on actual basis from
11.02.2003. In the matter of giving, their opinion
was also taken from the Law Ministry which is
presented as follows:-
"We have examined the reference it is noted that the
Hon'ble High Court has categorically observed in
Dhanjay Singh's case that the benefit given to the
Hindi Translators of CSOLS should also be given to
the similarly placed persons of the same cadre in
any part of country. After dismissal of SLP,
judgement of Hon'ble High Court has attained
finality, rendering the same to be applicable to
similarly placed persons it also covers parameters
laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and Arvind Kumar
Srivastava (Supra)."
7. Therefore, we cannot take divergent view in the
present matter since the applicant is similarly
situated. Further, vide order dated 21.08.2017, the
Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) 11862/2006 in the
matter of Anand Kishor & Ors vs. Union of India &
Ors. held as under:
"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.
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 5
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

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."
8. In view of the above, the present Original
Application is allowed. The applicant shall be
entitled to parity in Pay Scale withtheir
counterparts as has been granted to other similarly
placed employees in terms of para 3 of the orders
dated 14/16.08.2023. The said exercise shall be
carried out within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
No costs.”
10. Petitioners-Union of India etc. have now approached this
Court by way of the present writ petition assailing the aforesaid
order of the Tribunal.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED CGSC
11. Mr. Balendu Shekhar, learned CGSC, vehemently
opposes the grant of relief by the Tribunal to the respondent,
adverting to the issue of limitation with regard to respondent’s
application and representation which were submitted after 14
years of his retirement. He further submits that the OM in
controversy was issued in respect of CSOLS cadre and the same
benefit could not be extended to the respondent being a fence-
sitter for so many years.
12. Mr. Shekhar, learned CGSC, further submits that even if
respondent is held to be entitled to the up-graded Pay Scales’
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 6
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

benefits as granted by the Tribunal to the respondent, the same
could, at the most, relate back to three years prior to the
institution of the OA.
13. Learned CGSC strongly relied upon Union of India v.
Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 of the Supreme Court which
was followed by the Supreme Court in Rushibhai Jagdishbhai
Pathak v. Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation, (2022) 18 SCC
144 , in which the court has granted arrears of pre-revised Pay
Scale to appellants for three years prior to date of filing of writ
petitions.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT
14. Mr. Krishna Chandra Dubey, learned counsel for the
respondent argues that it was incumbent upon petitioners to grant
up-graded Pay Scales to the respondent in accordance with the
concerned OM followed by the Supreme Court’s order in
Dhananjay Singh (supra) whereby, the Supreme Court found no
reason to deny similarly situated Hindi Translator of other
Departments the pay-parity with CSOLS employees.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that
petitioners cannot withhold payment or re-fixation of pay or
pension and pensionary benefits of the respondent merely on the
ground of delay and laches, whether in filing the OA or in
seeking relief via a representation to the concerned authority. He
added that the cause of action in the respondent’s case is
recurring as the present matter pertains to re-fixation of pay,
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 7
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

pension and pensionary benefits. Hence, constraints of delay,
laches or limitation could not apply to such matters.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent in support of his
contentions relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in
S.K. Mastan Bee v. GM, South Central Rly., (2003) 1 SCC 184
and S.R. Bhanrale v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SCC 172.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that granting
respondent only three years of arrears would be in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India as respondent’s
counterparts were granted revised Pay Scales.
ISSUES
18. In view of the aforesaid contentions, the limited issues for
consideration by this Court in the present writ petition are as
follows:-
(i)Whether the relief prayed by the respondent before
the Tribunal was barred by limitation/delay and
laches?
(ii) Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding
that the respondent is entitled parity in pay in
terms of para 3 of the Office Order dated
14/16.08.2023 reproduced in para 6 of the
impugned order?
(iii) Whether the arrears in the present case, would
be restricted to three years prior to the institution
of the OA as held by the Supreme Court in
Tarsem Singh (supra)?
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 8
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

ANALYSIS
19. First issue is of huge delay and laches in filing of the OA
before the Tribunal. In Tarsem Singh (supra), it was held that
highly delayed claims may be rejected on the ground of
limitation or laches, however, there is an exception to this
principle, which is, cases of continuing wrong which can be
entertained despite delay. This exception however, would not
apply where the interest of a third party is involved like in case of
seniority and promotion, which is not the case here. Therefore,
even if there are long delays, the Court would not deprive an
employee who is suffering from recurring wrong on the part of
the department. Therefore, the claim of the respondent rejected
on the ground of delays and laches.
20. We would like to note that there are some employees who
remain active and alert about various developments through
Court judgments, new circulars/OMs or change in rule position.
However, it is also a ground reality that a retired man becomes
disconnected from his department and sometime even from his
colleagues. In such a situation, it would not be appropriate to
deprive a retired employee from benefits which his equally
placed colleagues had received or are receiving. Rejecting the
claim of such retired employee on the basis of limitation, delay or
laches would be in violation of Right to Equality under Article 14
of the Constitution of India. Issue no. (i) is decided accordingly.
21. Now, we take up issue no. (ii). The Tribunal in the
impugned judgment has simply granted the respondent – Ram
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 9
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

Autar the parity in Pay Scale with his counter parts in terms of
para 3 of the office order dated 14/16.08.2023. There is no
substance in the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner –
Union of India, that parity cannot be granted because Department
of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance vide OM dated 29.03.2004
withdrew all upgraded Pay Scales to the similar placed
employees in the departments other than CSOLS. This OM lost
its relevance in view of the batch of SLPs, namely, Union of
India and Others vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond (2014) 13 SCC 588
( Dhananjay Singh is the part of this batch). Admittedly the other
counter parts of respondent have already got benefit of OM No.
F.70/11/2000-I/C dated 14.07.2003.
22. In our view, the department cannot discriminate between
its own employees i.e. the employees who went to the Court to
get higher Pay Scale and the employees who did not.
23. Third is the issue as to whether the arrears in the present
case would be restricted to three years prior to institution of OA
as held by the Supreme Court in Tarsem Singh (supra) as argued
by learned Counsel for the petitioner.
24. Learned Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,
placed reliance upon S.K. Mastan Bee v. GM, South Central
Rly. , (2003) 1 SCC 184 . It is argued that in this judgment
Division Bench of the Supreme Court held that it was an
obligation of the Railway to have computed the family pension
and offer the same to the widow of its employee as soon as it
becomes due to her. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 10
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

the judgment of Division Bench of High Court of Judicature:
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad which had restricted the claim of
arrears of her pension from a date subsequent to 01.04.1992, on
which the widow of the employee had sent a legal notice to
department.
25. The conflict in the Coordinate Benches of the Supreme
Court of India in S.K. Mastan Bee (supra) and Tarsem Singh
(supra) was noticed by the Supreme Court of India in a very
recent judgment (dated 20.08.2026) of Maya Banarjee v. Union
of India and Others, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1928 . The Supreme
Court held that S.K. Mastan Bee (supra) has dealt with the
specific issue of restricting past arrears of pension in more
appropriate manner and that the same having not been considered
by latter bench of equal strength in Tarsem Singh (supra), the
only choice is to rely on S.K. Mastan Bee (supra). It was held
that the legal position as laid down by the Supreme Court in S.K.
Mastan Bee (supra) is of binding value.
26. After perusal of S.K. Masthan Bee and Maya Banerjee
(supra), we are of the opinion that where it is the duty of the
Department itself to provide parity in revised Pay Scales and
consequent pension, the claim of employee cannot be restricted
for a certain period as done in Tarsem Singh (supra). When
through the judicial pronouncements, revised Pay Scales were
granted to similarly placed employees of the same very
department, it was the duty of the department to suo motu grant
the same Pay Scales and pensions to the respondent also. As
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 11
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19

already stated that a retired employee normally becomes lonely,
isolated and ignorant of the developments in service law and
rules. In such a situation it would be highly discriminatory to
deprive him of all the benefits which similarly placed employees
of his own department have received.
27. Therefore, we find no substance in the argument of learned
Counsel for petitioners that his arrears should be restricted for a
period of three years prior to the filing of the original application.
Consequently, it is directed that upgraded Pay Scales by virtue of
Office Memorandum No. F.70/11/2000-I/C dated 14.07.2003
issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance for
extension of higher Pay Scales of Rupees 5500-9000, 6500-
10500 and 7500-12000 to the post of Junior Hindi Translator,
Senior Hindi Translator and Additional Director respectively be
extended to the respondent w.e.f. 01.01.1996 notionally and
actual benefit from 11.02.2003. The pension be also fixed
accordingly. All the arrears of pay and pension be released to the
respondent within a period of three months from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order.
28. Pending applications are also disposed of.
VINOD KUMAR, J
C. HARI SHANKAR, J
OCTOBER 15, 2026
VB
Signature Not Verified
W.P. (C) 5589/2026 Page 12
Signed By:PRAMOD
KUMAR VATS
Signing Date:16.10.2026
17:23:19