The Court reinforced that employees of autonomous bodies are entitled to pay scales similar to government employees when equitable principles and directives by law are applicable.

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 9^th day of March, 2026 The petitioner, who retired from the service of the 1^st respondent - Export Inspection Council of India as a Junior Hindi Translator, is before this Court aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to grant to the petitioner the Scale of Pay of ₹5500-9000, the scale of Junior Hindi Translator fixed by the Government of India with effect from 01.01.1996 and to extend her the grade pay of ₹4600/- with effect from 01.01.2006, the Grade Pay of ₹4800, the 1^st MACP and the Grade Pay of ₹5400/- on being granted the 2^nd MACP and the 3^rd MACP Level-10 granted by the Government of India to Hindi staff, in spite of the direction issued by this Court.

2. The petitioner states that she joined under the respondents as Hindi Translator on 27.04.1989 on daily wage basis. The service of the petitioner was regularised on 17.05.1991. Her initial appointment was on provisional basis and was in the Pay Scale of ₹1200-2040. The Junior Hindi Translators' Pay Scale was ₹1400-2300, as per the 4^th CPC revision. The petitioner was not aware of this fact. In the year 1996, the petitioner's pay was revised and was placed in the scale of ₹4000-6000. The petitioner would urge that her Pay Scale ought to have been ₹5000-8000.

3. The petitioner, therefore, submitted Ext.P2 representation. An OM was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, wherein it was clarified that all posts of Junior and Senior Hindi Translators in offices outside the Secretariat will be granted revision of pay in the scale of ₹5000-8000 from 01.01.1996.

4. The petitioner would point out that as per the 5^th pay CPC recommendation, the Scale of Pay attached to the post of Hindi Translators was ₹5000-8000, which was an error. The Pay Scale ought to have been ₹5500-9000. By Ext.P4 communication dated 09.07.2004, the petitioner was informed that the petitioner's representation cannot be considered as the Government of India policy in granting new Pay Scale is not applicable to the Export Inspection Agency.

5. The 1^st respondent, on 31.05.2013, issued Office Order withdrawing the enhanced of Scale of Pay of ₹5000-8000 and directed the 2^nd respondent to re-fix the pay of the petitioner. The 2^nd respondent consequently issued an order dated 20.06.2013 reducing the Scale of Pay to ₹4000- 6000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and effecting corresponding revision. As per the said revision, the petitioner was placed in the scale of ₹9300-34000 with Grade pay of ₹4200/- on granting 2^nd MACP. The petitioner would urge that she was drawing the Grade Pay of ₹4200/- already even without the MACP benefits.

6. The petitioner challenged the said action filing W.P.(C) No.17363 of 2005. This Court, quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents to reconsider the matter as per Ext.P9 judgment dated 20.01.2017. The respondents filed W.A. No.809/2017 against Ext.P9 order.

7. The petitioner, thereafter, filed W.P.(C) No.9590/2022 and this Court disposed of the writ petition as per Ext.P21 judgment directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for Grade Pay of ₹5400 on 2^nd MACP from 01.01.2006 in the light of the implementation of the policy on Official Languages including the designations and Pay Scales to all the Autonomous Institutions under the Central Government. This Court directed that appropriate orders shall be passed by the respondents within a period of two months and monetary benefits shall also be calculated and released to the petitioner within a period of two months thereafter.

8. The respondents challenged Ext.P21 judgment filing W.A. No.114/2023. A Division Bench o