Meghalaya High Court
The Union Of India Represented By The … vs Shri Vinod Kumar Nautiyal on 15 April, 2026
Author: W. Diengdoh
Bench: W. Diengdoh
2026:MLHC:341-DB
Serial No. 01
Daily List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 346 of 2023
Reserved on: 18.03.2026
Pronounced on: 15.04.2026
1. The Union of India represented by the Secretary to the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
New Dehli-110001.
2. The Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong-793011.
....Petitioners
- versus -
1. Shri Vinod Kumar Nautiyal.
2. Shri B.K. Pandey
3. Shri Vijay Kumar.
4. Shri Nripen Chandra Bhowmik.
5. Shri N.S. Rathore.
6. Shri Ravi Mohan Dwivedi.
7. Shri Anand Kumar Gupta.
8. Shri Sanjeev Paul.
9. Shri Asit Kamal
10. Shri Devendra Singh.
11. Miss Parbati Pyngrope.
12. Shri Sunil Kumar Singh.
13. Shri Mahendra Singh.
14. Shri Pramod Kumar Singh Rathore.
Page 1 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
15. Shri Praveen Kumar.
16. Shri Sashi Kumar Barman.
17. Shri Rashmi Rekha Das.
18. Shri Nabrun Dev.
....Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Revati Mohite Dere, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Petitioners : Mr R. Debnath, CGC
For the Respondents : Mr M. Chanda, Adv, with
Mr M.L. Nongpiur, Adv.
Mr K. Abhinav, Adv.
i) Whether approved for Yes/No
reporting in Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No
in press:
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order
dated 21st March, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 043/00215/2017, by
which the Tribunal set aside the fresh speaking order dated 19th
December, 2016 passed by the Directorate General Assam
Rifles, Shillong. The Administrative Tribunal vide the impugned
order dated 21st March, 2023, held that the respondents were
Page 2 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
entitled to the upgraded pay scales and as such, directed the
petitioners herein, to pass necessary order after verifying
individual cases, as the respondents were on different posts and
had joined service on different dates, and to make payments
from the respective dates of entitlement, within six months from
the date of receipt of the order.
2. The factual matrix of the case in brief is as under:
The core issue in the petition is a service dispute between
the Directorate General of Assam Rifles and a group of its Hindi
Translators and officers. According to the respondents, they are
entitled to pay parity with their counterparts serving in the
Central Secretariat Official Language Service (hereinafter
referred to, for the sake of brevity as ‘CSOLS’).
The dispute dates back to 2010, when the respondent filed
O.A. No. 295 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal
(hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’), Guwahati Bench alleging that
although their duties were similar to those performed by CSOLS
Translators, their pay scale was significantly lower. Relying on
the Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum (OM) dated 27th
Page 3 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DBNovember, 2008, the respondents herein, sought revised and
upgraded pay scale. In 2011, the Tribunal i.e., CAT allowed the
respondents’ claim, however, this triggered multiple rounds of
litigation, including review petitions, fresh speaking orders and
writ petitions before the Gauhati and the Meghalaya High
Courts. The Writ Petition, being WP(C) No. 226 of 2012 filed by
the respondents before the Gauhati High Court was disposed of
vide judgment and order dated 1st April, 2014, directing the
Ministry of Home Affairs to take appropriate decision in the
matter in consultation with the Government of India (Finance
Department). Pursuant thereto, the Ministry of Home Affairs and
Ministry of Finance examined the matter and laid down their
observations vide U.O. Note No. 19(7) E.III(B)/2014 dated 30th
June, 2014. Accordingly, The Directorate General of Assam
Rifles issued speaking orders dated 17th July, 2014 refusing pay
parity, based on the said note. The speaking order emphasised
that the cadre structure, recruitment rules, promotional
hierarchy, and pre-revised pay scales of Assam Rifles were
significantly different from those of CSOLS.
Page 4 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
The respondents however, continued to pursue their claim
by filing successive original applications (O.A. No. 379 of 2014
and O.A. No. 215 of 2017). The Tribunal i.e., CAT, Guwahati
Bench quashed the speaking order dated 17th April, 2014 vide
judgment and order dated 30th May, 2016 and held that the
respondents were entitled to upgraded pay scales. The Tribunal
accordingly directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to issue a fresh
speaking order in the matter. Pursuant thereto, a fresh speaking
order dated 19th December, 2016 was issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs. The respondents challenged the said speaking
order before the CAT, Guwahati Bench. The Tribunal again vide
judgment and order dated 15th March, 2019 directed that the
respondents be granted pay parity as sought by them and as
ordered by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 295 of 2010 and O.A. No.
379 of 2014. The said Tribunal’s 2019 decision was challenged
by the Assam Rifles in this Court. This Court remitted the matter
back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after holding that
the order passed by the Tribunal was bereft of reasons and did
not reveal any exercise of adjudication having been undertaken.
Thereafter, the Tribunal after fresh adjudication passed the
Page 5 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
impugned order dated 21st March, 2023, again setting aside the
speaking order dated 19th December, 2016 with a direction to
the authorities to grant upgraded pay scales to the respondents
from the dates of their respective entitlements. The Tribunal,
Guwahati Bench vide impugned order dated 21st March, 2023
whilst setting aside the fresh speaking order dated 19th
December, 2016 observed that the said fresh speaking order was
unsustainable in law. Being aggrieved by the said order passed
by the Tribunal, the petitioners have approached this Court by
way of the aforesaid petition.
3. Mr R. Debnath, learned CGC appearing for the petitioners
submitted;
(i) that the Tribunal did not appreciate the settled law
and instead applied the principle of ‘equal work for equal pay’,
blindly without taking into consideration the differences in the
educational qualifications, job responsibilities, hierarchy of
persons working in CSOLS, from those working in the Assam
Rifles;
Page 6 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
(ii) that the recruitment rules of Assam Rifles differ
significantly from those of CSOLS and that the posts are not
comparable;
(iii) the fresh speaking order dated 19th December, 2016
was issued, only after obtaining approval and expert inputs from
the Ministry of Finance;
(iv) that even if, some employees elsewhere may have
received higher benefits wrongly, such an illegality cannot be
perpetuated to claim similar benefits; and
(v) that the respondents knowingly joined Assam Rifles
with lower pay scale and once having accepted the terms of
service, are barred from challenging them.
4. Mr M. Chanda, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents, vehemently opposed the petition. He submitted
that no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed
by the CAT. Learned counsel relied on various circulars and
judgments in support of his submission that the respondents
herein, working with the Assam Rifles are squarely covered by
the said circulars, which extends benefits apart from CSOLS to
Page 7 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
other similarly situated persons in other Departments/attached
and subordinate offices.
5. We have perused the impugned order dated 3rd November,
2011 passed by the CAT, Guwahati Bench in R.A. No. 4 of 2011
in O.A. No. 295 of 2010; the fresh speaking order dated 19th
December, 2016, several circulars issued by the Ministry of
Home Affairs dated 19th February, 2003, 26th February, 2003,
24th November, 2008 and 27th November, 2008; the document
which throws light which Departments, come under the Ministry
of Home Affairs i.e., attached and subordinate offices and allied
organisations coming under the Ministry of Home Affairs; and
several judgments relied upon by the parties. After hearing the
parties and perusing all the aforesaid papers/documents, we are
of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned
order passed by the Tribunal dated 21st March, 2023 for the
following reasons.
It is the petitioner’s case that the respondents herein,
working in the Assam Rifles are not entitled to the benefits as
granted by the Ministry of Home Affairs to the officers of CSOLS.
Page 8 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
Whereas, according to the respondents, they are working as
Hindi Translator, Grade-I and Grade-II as well as Hindi Officer
in different units of Assam Rifles and that the posts of Hindi
Translator, Grade-I and Grade-II, Hindi Officer and Senior Hindi
Officer in Assam Rifles are equivalent to the posts of Junior
Translator, Assistant Director (OL) and Deputy Director (OL)
respectively in the CSOL under the Ministry of Home Affairs.
6. In the aforesaid context, it would be apposite to refer to
certain Office Memorandum, Corrigendum and other relevant
documents, which have a bearing on this issue.
The Office Memorandum issued by the Ministry of
Finance, Government of India dated 24th November, 2008 is
with respect to revised pay scale for Official Language post in
various subordinate offices of the Central Government. The said
Office Memorandum reads thus,
New Delhi, dated the 24th November, 2008
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Revised pay scales for Official Language posts in
various subordinate offices of the Central
Government.
Page 9 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
Consequent upon the implementation of the
recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission, this
Department has received queries from many
Ministries/Departments regarding the revised pay structure
applicable in the case of Official Language posts existing in
subordinate offices of the Central Government. In this
connection, it is clarified that in accordance with the
recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission as
accepted by the Government, similarly designated posts
existing outside the Central Secretariat Official Language
Service (CSOLS) cadre in various subordinate offices of the
Central Government have been granted the same pay scales as
those granted to CSOLS. The Government has notified the
following revised pay structure for the Official Language cadre
belong to CSOLS:-
Recommended Corresponding Pay
Designation pay Band & Grade Pay
scale Pay Grade
Band Pay
Jr Translator 6500-10500 PB-2 4200
Sr. Translator 7450-11500 PB-2 4600
Asstt. Director(OL) 8000-13500 PB-3 5400
Dy. Director (OL) 10000-13500 PB-3 6100
Jt. Director(OL) 12000-16500 PB-3 6600
Director(OL) 16300-18300 PB-3 7600
2. Accordingly, w.e.f. 1.1.2006, all Ministries/
Departments etc., are required to grant the revised pay
scales approved for various posts in the CSOLS to
similarly designated Official Language posts existing in
their subordinate offices. (emphasis supplied)
Sd/-
ALOK SAXENA
DIRECTORR (IC)”
The subsequent corrigendum dated 27th November,
2008 has in paragraph 2 noted as under:
Page 10 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
“2. All Ministries/Departments, etc., are required to
grant the revised pay structure as indicated in the
table above, which has been approved for various
posts in the CSOLS, to similarly designated Official
Language posts existing in their subordinate offices.”
(emphasis supplied)
Subsequently, O.M. dated 2nd April, 2009 was issued by
the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department
of Official Language and a letter dated 2nd May, 2013 was also
issued by the Government of India, Official Language, Ministry
of Home Affairs to the Secretary, all Ministries, Departments of
Government of India. The said letter reads thus,
“Dear Secretary,
1. You may be aware that Expenditure Dept. Ministry of
Finance had ordered vide their O.M. No. 1/1/208-IC dated
24th Feb, 2008 (copy encl) that the designations and Pay
Scale of Official Language posts in subordinate offices of
Govt. of India will be similar to that of Central Secretariat
Official Language Service. It has been brought to the notice
of the Official Language Dept that the order of Expenditure
Department has not yet been implemented in all sub-
ordinate offices, which causes discontentment in the
Official language officers employed there.
2. I shall be grateful if you ensure compliance in the
subordinate offices of your Ministry/Dept about the
implementation of similar designations and pay scales at
par with Central Secretariat Official Language Service and
Page 11 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
Official Language Dept. may be intimated about the action
taken in this regard.”
7. It is pertinent to note that although the learned counsel
for the petitioners has argued that Assam Rifles employees
cannot be treated at par with those the employees of CSOLS, the
document which at Annexure 13 at page 473 of the paper-book
shows that there are ’25 attached and subordinate offices and
three allied organisations under the column of attached and
subordinate offices and allied organisations under the
Ministry of Home Affairs’. At Sl.No. 8, ‘Assam Rifles’ is
mentioned. Thus, the petitioners cannot shy away from the fact,
that the Assam Rifles is part of the Ministry of Home Affairs and
as such, the Office Memorandum and Corrigendum thereto, also
extends benefits to attached and subordinate offices would
includes the Assam Rifles.
8. It is also pertinent to note that the petitioners in their
written statement in paragraphs 13 and 18 filed before the
Tribunal have stated as under:
“13. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs
4.14 & 4.15 of the Original Application, the answeringPage 12 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DBrespondent beg to submit that the point regarding
equal recruitment qualifications in Assam Rifles and
Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) is
agreed to pay and allowances are applicable as per rank
structure approved by the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs in Assam Rifles hence, point is not agreed to
and denied.
…….. ……. ……… ……….
18. That with regard to the statement made in Para
5.5 of the Original Application, the answering
respondents beg to state that the educational
qualifications, nature of duties and responsibilities
of the applicants are similar to that their
counterparts working in Central Secretariat Official
Language Office Service and its subordinate offices
is denial of upgraded pay scale to the applicants is
discriminatory and opposed to the provisions of
Article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India is
agreed in principal but without specific orders of
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs
accepting the requests of applicant is clear cut
violation of law which is unjustified and illegal hence
denied.” (emphasis supplied)
9. Thus, from a perusal of paragraph 18, it is evident that
though the petitioners have agreed in principle that the
educational qualification, nature of duty and responsibilities of
the respondents are similar to their counterparts working in
CSOLS service, they say that without specific orders of the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs accepting the
respondents’ request, the claim is unjustified. Infact, the Office
Page 13 of 14
2026:MLHC:341-DB
Memorandum and the Corrigendum thereto, is clear and as
such, no clear or specific direction was required from the Home
Department. The petitioners have in their written statement
accepted the fact, that there is equal recruitment qualification
and similar nature of duties and responsibilities of translators
in Assam Rifles as in CSOLS, and hence, consequently, it would
follow that the respondents herein would be entitled to receive
pay parity as those working in the Translation Department of
Assam Rifles i.e., pay parity with their counterparts as in
CSOLS. Accordingly, no interference is warranted in the
impugned order dated 21st March, 2023 passed by the Tribunal.
10. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. The order
passed by the Tribunal be complied with at the earliest and in
any event within eight weeks from today.
(W. Diengdoh) (Revati Mohite Dere)
Judge Chief Justice
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by SYLVANA Page 14 of 14
LIZ KHARBHIH
Date: 2026.04.16 18:49:32 IST