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)

D. Manickavasagan, S/o. Late A. Deivasigamani, No.156-A, Periyar Nagar, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore – 641045. …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 initially appointed as a Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) on 21-07-1988, with a pay scale of Rs. 950/- in the scale of Rs. 950-1150. After completing 4 years, the applicant was promoted to Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) on 13-11-1992 with a revised pay scale of Rs. 1200/- in the scale of Rs. 1200-1560. Later, on 09-05-2003, the applicant was promoted to the post of Assistant with a pay scale of Rs.

5000-8000.

On 23-11-2009, the EPFO Head Office in New Delhi revised the pay scale for Assistants, aligning it with other services like the Central Secretariat Services and Armed Forces. However, the pay scale for the Assistants in Regional Offices (RO/SRO) was not updated to match this change, creating a disparity between the pay of Assistants in Head Quarters and those in Regional Offices.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Chennai, had earlier extended the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 to the applicant, but this order was inconsistent with the EPFO's 2009 revision. The applicant argued that there was no significant difference between the work of Assistants in the Head Quarters and Regional Offices, and therefore, they should receive the same pay.

The issue was previously raised before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, which ruled on 11.02.2013 that there should be no discrimination between the Assistants of Head Quarters and Regional Offices. This decision was upheld by the Karnataka High Court, and the Supreme Court dismissed the Head Office's appeal.

Despite these rulings, the applicant's claim was not addressed, and hence he filed O.A. No. 1485/2018 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 so