CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH Dated Thursday the 18^th day of December Two Thousand Twenty Five CORAM: HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)

&

HON'BLE MR. M. L. SRIVASTAVA, Member (A)

V. Saraswathi, D/o. Late. Velusamy, 156-A, Periyar Nagar, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore - 641 045. …Applicant By Advocate Mr. S. Saravanan Vs

1. The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Ministry of Labour & Employment Govt. of India, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 14- Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.

2. The Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner (HQ), Zonal Office, No.37, Royapettah, High Road, Opp. Swagat Hotel, Chennai - 600 014.

3. The Additional Provident Fund Commissioner, Zonal Office, Post Box No.3875, Dr.Balasundram Road, Coimbatore - 641018. …Respondents By Advocate Mr. V. Vijay Shankar

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. L. Srivastava, Member(A))

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“a. to call for the entire records on the file of the 3^rd respondent in connection with proceedings No. TN/RO- CBE/Adm./A3/F-1/Assist./2019 dated 12.07.2019 and quash the same, consequently direct the respondents to fix pre-revised scale of Rs.7450-11500 fixed by the EPFO, Head Office, New Delhi dated 23/11/2009 to the Assistant in the Regional Office without any discrimination and to pay the arrears of the difference salary to the applicant.

b. it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to stay the proceedings No. TN/RO- CBE/Adm./A3/F-1/Assist./2019 dated 12.07.2019 on the file of the 3^rd respondent till the disposal of this original application.

c. Issue any other order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

The applicant was appointed as a Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) on 27-07-1988 and, after completing seven years of service, was promoted to Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) on 17-02-1995. She was further promoted to the post of Assistant on 18-11-2003 with a pay scale of Rs. 5000–8000.

On 23-11-2009, the EPFO Head Office revised the pay scale of Assistants/Personal Assistants to Rs. 7450–11500, placing them at par with equivalent Central Secretariat and allied services. However, this upgraded pay scale was extended only to Assistants in the Head Office and not to those in Regional/Sub-Regional Offices, despite there being no difference in duties, responsibilities, or service conditions.

The applicant contended that this resulted in an unjustified pay disparity. She submitted a representation on 06-10-2018 seeking extension of the revised pay scale and payment of arrears, but the representation was not considered.

The issue had already been decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench in O.A. No. 100/2012, which held that discrimination between Head Office and Regional Office Assistants was arbitrary and unconstitutional. This decision was upheld by the Karnataka High Court, and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Head Office.

Despite these rulings, the applicant's claim was not addressed, and hence he filed O.A. No. 1479/2018 wherein this Tribunal vide order dated 01.11.2018 directed the respondents to consider the applicant's representation and pass orders. When the order of this Tribunal was not complied with by the respondents, the applicant sent contempt notice dated 24.06.2019. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 12.07.2019, his claim has been rejected. The applicant has now filed the present OA challenging this rejection.

3. Heard both sides. Perused the pleadings, scrutinised the whole conspectus of the case.

4. When the matter is taken up for hearing, we found that the relief sought by the applicant is no longer res integra since the Hon. Supreme Court of India decided the issue on 22.02.2023 in the case of Union of India Vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Another (2023 Live Law (SC) 129). The relevant por