High Court of KeralaSingle Judge2022-10-28Writ petition allowed

K.S.JEEJIMOL v EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL OF INDIA and others

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: Anu Sivaraman
Judgment Date: 2022-10-28
Court Decision / Holding: The writ petition is allowed. There will be a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grade pay at Rs.5400/- on 2nd MACP from 1.1.2006 in light of the implementation of the Official Languages Policy, including designation and pay scales for all autonomous institutions under the Central Government. Appropriate orders shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The monetary benefits shall be calculated and released within two months thereafter.
Final Disposition: Writ petition allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

K.S.JEEJIMOL

Respondents

Export Inspection Council of India
Export Inspection Agency
Union of India (Department of Commerce)
The Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Official Language, Ministry of Home Affairs

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. V. Saleem Shafik M.A.

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri K.S. Prenjith Kumar, CGC
• Sri S. Manu

Case Synopsis & Summary

K.S. Jeejimol, a Junior Hindi Translator posted in Kochi, challenges the denial of a revised pay scale and MACP grade pay under the Official Languages policy. The petitioner, who entered service in 1989 on daily wages and was regularised in 1991, contends that the Government upgraded the JHT pay scale to 5500-9000 and provided a Rs. 5400 grade pay under MACP, a benefit extended to similarly placed staff in autonomous bodies as per the Official Language policy. She points to the 5th Pay Commission reforms and the 6th CPC replacement scales, along with Office Memoranda including the 24.11.2008 OM (and corrigendum), arguing that autonomous bodies must align their designation and pay scales with the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). Exts P11-P15 and P21 indicate such alignment. The petitioner asserts the Official Language Policy applies to all central government autonomous bodies and, following Ext P20 (this Court’s decision in WPC 33925/2015), that benefits are enforceable; thus, from 1.1.2006, she should be granted Rs 5400 grade pay on the 2nd MACP with arrears. The respondents counter that, as an autonomous body, Central Government pay scales cannot be automatically transplanted without an express order from the first respondent; policy language cannot override the employer’s discretion. The court ultimately holds that the Official Language Policy is applicable to autonomous bodies and grants relief, directing processing within two months and release of monetary benefits thereafter.

Provisions of Law Cited

Official Languages Policy of the Government of India (applicable to autonomous bodies)Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) pay scales and designationsOffice Memorandum dated 24.11.2008 (F.No.1/1/2008-IC) upgrading Junior Hindi Translator pay scale to 5500-9000Corrigendum dated 27.11.2008MACP scheme (2nd MACP) and grade pay Rs. 5400Policy guidance from Department of Official Language / Home Affairs regarding Official Language posts in autonomous bodies

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioner contends that the Official Languages Policy extends to autonomous bodies under the Central Government and requires alignment of designation and pay scales with CSOLS. Citing Exts P11-P15, P19-P21, she argues that the 5th and 6th Pay Commission recommendations and the OM of 24.11.2008 upgraded JHT pay scales to 5500-9000 and provided grade pay (5400) on MACP, which has been applied in other autonomous bodies such as MPEDA, as shown in Ext P20. The policy as implemented through Ext P11-P15 and P21 should be applied to the petitioner, with 2nd MACP grade pay from 1.1.2006 and arrears as due; the monetary benefits should be released within a short period.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents submit that, although the Official Languages Policy directs attention to autonomous bodies, there is no express order by the first respondent applying CSOLS pay scales to the petitioner’s post. They rely on decisions of higher courts (e.g., SAIL Bhattacharya, Dey, Thana Singh) to argue parity of scales is an employer’s prerogative; policy language alone cannot automatically impose CSOLS pay scales on autonomous bodies without an explicit order. Absence of such order and lack of direct prescription linking the petitioner to CSOLS scales mean the claim for grade pay cannot be granted automatically; the court should not substitute the employer’s decision without proper authority.

Cited Precedents (4)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya	(2011) 11 SCC 122	Mentioned Only	Cited by respondents to urge parity remains a management prerogative; not relied upon by the court for relief in this case.
Union of India and others v. Pradip Kumar Dey	2000 KHC 1751	Mentioned Only	Cited as precedent showing employer’s discretion on parity; not adopted by the court.
Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Thana Singh and others	2019 KHC 6025	Mentioned Only	Referenced to illustrate related parity considerations; not controlling here.
WPC NO.33925/2015 (Ext P20)	Judgment dated 8.2.2021	Positive	This Court held that CSOLS pay scales are applicable to autonomous bodies like MPEDA; relied upon by the present Court to grant relief.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against K.S.JEEJIMOL v EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL OF INDIA and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN FRIDAY, THE 28[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1944 WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022** ## **- PETITIONER :** K.S.JEEJIMOL, AGED 57 YEARS D/O.K.A.SREEDHARAN, JUNIOR HINDI TRANSLATOR, EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY, KOCHI-682 011, RESIDING AT 'ARYA NIVAS', VADUTHALA P.O., KOCHI-682 023. BY ADVS. P.V.SALEEM SHAFIK M.A. ## **- RESPONDENTS :** 1 EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR, (INSPECTOR & QUALITY CONTROL), 2ND FLOOR, BLOCK I, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, EAST KIDWAI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 023. 2 EXPORT INSPECTION AGENCY, REPRESENTED BY ITS JOINT DIRECTOR, SHIPYARD QUARTERS ROAD, PANAMPILLY NAGAR SOUTH, KOCHI-682 036. 3 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 4 THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, LOK NAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DELHI - 110 002. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.PRENJITH KUMAR, CGC SRI.S.MANU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.10.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 2 :- ## JUDGMENT ## Dated this the 28th day of October, 2022 This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs :- - “(i) To call for the records leading to Exhibit P1 to P21 and to declare that the petitioner is entitled for the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 on her appointment as Hindi Translator and for corresponding revision of pay and grant of financial upgradation including the grade pay of Rs.5400 on granting 2[nd] MACP. - (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents in conformity with Exhibits P15 and P16, to grant the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 on her appointment as Hindi Translator and for corresponding revision of pay and grant of financial upgradation including the grade pay of Rs.5400 on granting 2[nd] MACP. - (iii) To declare that the petitioner is eligible to be granted the grade pay of Rs.5400/- on her MACP with effect from 1.9.2016 as has been granted by the Government of India as per P3 & P4 and as directed by P11.” 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is presently aggrieved by the refusal to grant her the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 on the scale of Junior Hindi WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 3 :- Translator fixed by the Government of India and to the higher grade pay of Rs.5,400/- on being granted the 2[nd] MACP. It is submitted that the petitioner is working as Junior Hindi Translator in the office of the 2[nd] respondent at Kochi. She had entered service on 27.4.1989 on daily wages. Her services were thereafter regularised on 17.5.1991 and she was sent on deputation to the Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA) in the post of Senior Hindi Translator for a period of three years. 4. The first appointment of the petitioner was in the basic pay of Rs.1200-2040/-. It is submitted that the post of Junior Hindi Translator as per the 4[th] Central Pay Commission was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300/-. In the 1996 pay revision, the petitioner was granted the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000/-. It is contended that her pay scale ought to have been enhanced as Rs.5000-8000/-, but, the said benefit was not granted to her. It is submitted that in all Government departments and autonomous bodies, the scale of pay of Junior Hindi Translator was revised and was placed in the scale of Rs.1400-2300/-. But, in the respondent Organisation alone, the said revision was not effected. It is submitted that the petitioner had submitted representations seeking grant of the revised scale of pay of Rs.5000-8000/- before WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 4 :- the respondents, but no action was taken thereon. It is submitted that an Assured Career Progression (ACP) was carried out and the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000/-. Her request for placing her in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000/- was rejected by Ext.P6 communication. 5. It is contended that the Department of Official Languages on implementation of the recommendations of the 5[th] pay commission, issued an OM upgrading the pay scale of Junior Hindi Translators to Rs.5500-9000/-. This OM was implemented in all departments of the Central Government as also its subordinate offices and certain autonomous bodies as well. It is submitted that the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000/- was extended to all similarly designated Official Language staff working outside the Central Secretariat as per an OM of the Department of Expenditure dated 24.11.2008. It is contended that on the recommendations of the 6[th] pay commission, the scales of pay of Rs.5000-8000/-, Rs.5500-9000/and Rs.6500-10500/- were merged and a replacement scale in pay band-2 with a scale of Rs.9300-34800/- with a grade pay of Rs.4200/- was brought into effect. The pre-revised pay of the post of Junior Hindi Translators was placed in the scale of Rs.650010500/-. WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 5 :- 6. The petitioner has produced the OMs dated 24.11.2008 along with a Corrigendum dated 27.11.2008 as Exts.P8 and P9. It is submitted that in the meanwhile, an Office Order was passed on 31.5.2013 withdrawing the enhanced pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-, which was granted to the petitioner on 27.7.2005 and the subsequent revisions thereto. The same was challenged before this Court and Ext.P10 judgment was passed by this Court quashing the order recalling the benefits already granted to the petitioner. 7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Government of India, in the meanwhile, had clarified that the Official Language Policy is applicable to all autonomous bodies under the Central Government as well and had directed that it should be ensured that the Official Language Policy of the Government is not ignored and the Language Policy of the autonomous bodies is brought in consonance with such policy. The communication in this regard is produced as Ext.P11. It is further contended that the Government had also directed all departments to make the designations and pay scales of Official Language posts in subordinate offices of the Government in consonance with the Official Language Policy and at par with the posts under the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). It is submitted that WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 6 :- by Ext.P15 OM, the 4[th] respondent had clarified that the earlier OMs applies to all attached to subordinate offices of the Government as well as autonomous bodies and Ministries, Departments of the Government. 8. It is submitted that since the entire body of the Official Languages Policy including the designation of the posts as well as the fixation of the pay scales was made applicable to autonomous bodies under the Central Government as well, the respondents ought to have granted the petitioner all the benefits including the grade pay attached to the posts of Junior Hindi Translator under the Official Languages Policy which is Rs.5,400/- per month to the petitioner as well. However, it is submitted that the said benefits were still denied to the petitioner, though the petitioner was placed in the scale of pay applicable to the post of Junior Hindi Translator under the Policy. 9. It is submitted that in all similarly situated autonomous bodies under the Central Government in the State of Kerala, the benefits have been extended as is evident from Ext.P19 series of documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner also places reliance on Ext.P20 judgment of this Court rendered in the case of an employee of the MPEDA to contend that this Court had WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 7 :- specifically considered the issue and held that the pay scales as formulated as part of the Official Language Policy of the Central Government are applicable to autonomous bodies under the said Government as well. It is submitted that the benefit of Ext.P20 has been granted to the incumbent by Ext.P21 order and that all other autonomous bodies have also made the benefit available to their employees. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks the grant of grade pay at the rate of Rs.5400/- to her as part of the 2[nd] MACP. 10. A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by respondents 1, 2 and 3, wherein it is contended that the 1[st] respondent, being an autonomous body under the Central Government, the pay structure applicable to posts specifically coming under the Central Government cannot be automatically made applicable to the employees of the respondents. Relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya [(2011) 11 SCC 122] as also the decisions in Union of India and others v. Pradip Kumar Dey [2000 KHC 1751], Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Thana Singh and others [2019 KHC 6025], the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the question with regard to parity of scales of pay or the equality of the scales is a matter to be WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 8 :- decided by the competent authority in the employer and that this Court may not be justified in entering into any finding on the parity of the work carried out by the petitioner with the work carried out by employees in comparably designated posts in the Central Government and that in the absence of any specific order by the 1[st] respondent accepting the pay scales given to posts under the CSOLS, the petitioner would not be entitled to the scales of pay. It is further contended that the orders produced by the petitioner would only relate to a direction for acceptance of the Official Language Policy by autonomous bodies and that does not mean that the pay scales which have been granted to employees in Central Government Offices have to be automatically made applicable to employees of the 1[st] respondent. 11. A reply affidavit has also been placed on record by the petitioner. 12. Having considered the contentions advanced, I am of the opinion that the question with regard to equality of the work or parity in pay is not the question that this Court is called upon to answer in this writ petition. It may be true that the issue with regard to parity in pay or the nature of the duties carried out by employees and different organisations are matters for the employer WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 9 :- to consider. However, the short point which arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the Official Language Policy along with the directions with regard to the pay scales and the pay structure which forms a part of such policy has been made applicable to employees of autonomous bodies under the Central Government. From Exts.P11 to P15 documents produced by the petitioner, it is clear that the Official Language Policy of the Central Government has definitely been directed to be made applicable to autonomous bodies under the Central Government as well. Exts.P14 and P15 produced by the petitioner would further make it clear that the norms which were revised and circulated with regard to implementation of the Policy has been made applicable to all autonomous bodies as well and that the norms have been appropriately amended by adding the words, 'autonomous bodies', in the relevant places as well. It is clear from the documents produced by the petitioner that the Official Language Policy of the Government included specific provisions with regard to designation and conditions of service of officers engaged in the posts of Hindi Translators and other relevant posts in all government departments, subordinate offices as well as autonomous bodies as well. This Court in Ext.P20 judgment has also considered the said issue and it WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 10 :- was held that the benefits of the pay scales of various categories of posts as has been revised under the CSOLS have been made applicable to autonomous bodies under the Central Government including the employer therein, that is, the MPEDA. 13. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side and in view of the specific documents produced by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the contention raised by the respondents that all that has been made applicable is the general policy on Official Languages and not the pay scales or the designations cannot be accepted. From a reading of the documents it is amply clear that the specific issue of parity of pay scales has also been addressed by the Central Government and has been made applicable to the employees of the autonomous bodies under the Central Government as well. This Court, in Ext.P20 judgment had considered the issue and found that the scales of pay had been made available to all Central Government autonomous bodies like the Rubber Board, Coir Board, etc. and that the policies are liable to be made applicable, in letter and in spirit. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the contention that the petitioner would not be entitled to grade pay in the post of Junior Hindi Translator because the grade pay has not WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 11 :- been specifically accepted by the 1[st] respondent is untenable. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be allowed. I do so. There will be a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for grade pay at Rs.5400/- on 2[nd] MACP from 1.1.2006 in the light of the implementation of the Policy on Official Languages including the designations and pay scales to all autonomous institutions under the Central Government. Appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The monetary benefits shall also be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter. Sd/ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Jvt/1.11.2022 WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 ## -: 12 :- ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9590/2022** PETITIONER EXHIBITS |Exhibit P1|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.7.1998 ISSUED BY| |---|---| ||CHIEF LABOUR COMMISSIONER (CENTRAL) NEW DELHI,| ||TO REGIONAL LABOUR COMMISSIONER CHENNAI| |Exhibit P2|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.8.1997 ISSUED BY| ||THE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD.| |Exhibit P3|TRUE COPY OF THE CLARIFICATION DATED 13.8.1998| ||ISSUED BY THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER , CHENNAI| |Exhibit P4|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17.1.2000| ||BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT| |Exhibit P5|TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED| ||8.11.2000 OF THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS| |Exhibit P6|TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 9.7.2004| ||RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER| |Exhibit P7|TRUE COPY OF THE O.M.F.NO.70/11/2008-IC DATED| ||14.7.2003 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE| |Exhibit P8|TRUE COPY OF THE O.M.F.NO.1/1/2008-IC DATED| ||24.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF| ||EXPENDITURE , MINISTRY OF FINANCE| |Exhibit P9|TRUE COPY OF THE CORRIGENDUM F.NO.1/1/2008-IC| ||DATED 27.11.2008 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF| ||EXPENDITURE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE WITH TYPES COPY| |Exhibit P10|TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.1.2017 OF| ||THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO17363/2005| |Exhibit P11|TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE| ||COMPILATION OF ORDERS PUBLISHED BY THE| ||DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, MINISTRY OF| ||HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA| |Exhibit P12|TRUE COPY OF THE D.O. LETTER NO.15/42/2013-| WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 ## -: 13 :- OL(SERVICE) DATED 2.5.2013 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGE, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, AND ITS TRUE ENGLISH TRANSLATION |Exhibit P13|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 5.3.2009 ISSUED BY| |---|---| ||THE MEMBER, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION| |Exhibit P14|TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.EIC/D (Q/C) DATED| ||27.7.2005 BY THE EXPORT INSPECTION COUNCIL| |Exhibit P15|TRUE COPY OF THE O.M.F.NO.13035/01/2013-O.L| ||(POLICY) DATED 16.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE| ||DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES , MINISTRY OF| ||HOME AFFAIRS| |Exhibit P16|TRUE COPY OF THE D.O.LETTER NO.15/42/2013-| ||OL(SERVICES) DATED 28.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE| ||SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES,| ||MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH| ||TRANSLATION| |Exhibit P17|TRUE COPY OF THE D.O.LETTER NO.15/42/2013-| ||OL(SERVICES) DATED 15.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE| ||SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF OFFICIAL LANGUAGES,| ||MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS ALONG WITH ITS ENGLISH| ||TRANSLATION| |Exhibit P18|TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.10.2012| ||SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER| |Exhibit P19|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF COCONUT DEVELOPMENT| ||BOARD 09.02.2010 BER BOARD AND THE KHADI &| ||VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION| |Exhibit P19A|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF DATED 19/3/2013 ISSUED| ||BY THE COCONUT DEVELOPMENT BOARD| |Exhibit P19B|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RUBBER BORD| ||DATED 19.06.2013| |Exhibit P19C|TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2016 ISSUED| ||BY THE KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION| WP(C) NO.9590 OF 2022 -: 14 :- Exhibit P19D TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7.11.2016 ISSUED BY THE KHADI & VILLAGE INDUSTRIES COMMISSION Exhibit P20 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 8.2.2021 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.33925/2015 Exhibit P21 TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER PART II NO.103 DATED 31.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, MPEDA RESPONDENT EXHIBITS Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the offer of appointment dated 16.05.1991 issued to the petitioner Exhibit R1(b) True copy of the offer of appointment dated 16.05.1991 issued to the petitioner Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the Office Memorandum F.No.70/05/2003-IC dated 29.03.2004 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department Expenditure, Government of India Exhibit R1(c) True copy of the Office Memorandum F.No.70/05/2003-IC dated 29.03.2004 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department Expenditure, Government of India Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the relevant provisions of Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the letter FNo1 34 13 2004 OM dated 28.04.2020 issued by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India Exhibit R1(d) True copy of the letter FNo1 34 13 2004 OM dated 28.04.2020 issued by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India Exhibit R1(a) True copy of the relevant provisions of Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980