/2022 INSC 0804/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6573     OF 2022
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.27130 of
2012]
R.D. KAUSHAL AND ORS.      ...APPELLANT(S)
 
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.  ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 18 th
April, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Delhi, in
Writ   Petition   (Civil)   No.   8503/2010,   thereby   setting   aside   the
judgment   dated   7 th
  July,   2010   passed   by   the   Central
Administrative   Tribunal,   Principal   Bench,   New   Delhi
1

(hereinafter   referred   to   as   “the   learned   CAT”)   in   Original
Application No. 3663/2009.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal are thus:
3.1  Prior   to   the   coming   of   force   of   the   5 th
  Central   Pay
Commission,   there   existed   two   distinct   posts   in   the   Language
Cadre of the  Research  and Analysis Wing, Cabinet  Secretariat,
Government   of   India   –   the   Group   ‘B’   post   of   Assistant   Foreign
Language Examiner  (hereinafter, AFLE) and the Group ‘A’ post
of  the  Deputy   Foreign Language  Examiner   (hereinafter,  DFLE).
Pursuant   to   the   recommendations   of   the   5 th
  Central   Pay
Commission,   in   January   1999,   the   pay­scale   of   AFLEs   was
revised retrospectively from 1 st
  January, 1996 to bring it at par
with   the   DFLEs.   Thereafter,   in   September,   1999,   the   Cabinet
Secretariat ordered for  the  post of AFLE to  be reclassified as a
Group   ‘A’   post.   For   both   these   cadres,   the   next   level   of
promotion was to the post of Under Secretary (Language). 
3.2  In   2001,   the   Research   and   Analysis   Wing   (Recruitment,
Cadre   and   Service)   Rules,   1975   (hereinafter,   the   Recruitment
2

Rules) were amended to equalize the required residency  period
for   promotion   to   the   post   of   Under   Secretary   (Language)   to   5
years for both posts. Additionally, the quota for promotion from
the   AFLE   stream   and   DFLE   stream   was   amended   to   make   it
60:40   from   the   earlier   quota   of   50:50.   The   Recruitment   Rules
also   provided   for   the   diversion   of   seats   from   one   quota   to   the
other   on   account   of   non­availability   of   eligible   candidates   for
promotion from that quota.
3.3  The   appellants   herein   joined   the   service   as   Interpreters
between April, 1985 and September, 1990, and were promoted
as  AFLEs between  March,  1995 and September, 1998.  DFLEs,
however, were first recruited only in the year 1999. In 2002, on
account   of   vacancies   that   arose   in   the   Under   Secretary
(Language)   cadre   due   to   the   non­eligibility   of   DFLEs   who   had
yet   to   complete   the   5   year   residency   requirement,   the
Department of Personnel & Training (hereinafter, the DoPT), on
a   proposal   sent   by   the   Cabinet   Secretariat   to   divert   the
vacancies   to   the   candidates   from   the   AFLE   quota,
3

recommended for  both  the posts  to  be  merged since they   were
identical   in   terms   of   the   nature   of   their   functions   and   duties,
their   salaries   as   well   as   their   promotional   avenues.   This
recommendation   remained   in   cold   storage   until   finally,   vide
Notification   dated   13 th
  March,   2008,   the   posts   of   AFLE   and
DFLE   were   merged   and   re­designated   as   Senior   Interpreter.
However,   a   footnote   was   added   therein   to   the   effect   that   the
merger would be effected in a manner that would not have any
adverse   impact   on   the   career   prospects   of   the   direct   recruits,
i.e.,  the   DFLEs,  who  would  continue   to   maintain   their  distinct
identity   till   their   promotion   to   the   post   of   Under   Secretary
(Language).
3.4  In   the   meanwhile,   the   vacancies   that   had   arisen   in   the
post   of   Under   Secretary   (Language)   were   the   subject   matter   of
litigation before the learned CAT.   The learned CAT, vide order
dated 26 th
 May, 2008, observed that the distinction between the
AFLEs   and   DFLEs   had   been   removed   with   effect   from   1 st
January, 1996, i.e., the date from which the recommendations
4

of the 5 th
  Central Pay Commission were implemented. Vide the
said order, directions were given to the Cabinet Secretariat and
the   DoPT to  reconsider  the  aspect  of  the  merger   of  AFLEs  and
DFLEs   and   the   consequences   thereof   within   a   period   of   three
months   from   the   date   of   the   order.   Promotions   to   the   post   of
Under   Secretary   (Language)   were   also   put   on   hold   until   such
reconsideration. 
3.5  In   pursuance   of   the   aforesaid   direction,   the   Cabinet
Secretariat,   through   the   Joint   Secretary   (Personnel)   issued   an
Order dated 2 nd
  September, 2008, wherein it was held that the
distinction between the AFLEs and the DFLEs remained up till
the   official   merger   on   13 th
  March,   2008,   and   thus,   no
amalgamation   of   the   two   cadres   had   taken   place   by   virtue   of
the operationalization of the recommendations of the 5 th
 Central
Pay Commission. 
3.6  Aggrieved by this order, one Vinod Kumar Jain, an AFLE,
filed   a   contempt   petition   before   the   learned   CAT,   which,   vide
order   dated   19 th
  November,   2008,   observed   that   the   direction
5

issued   by   the   learned   CAT   in   the   order   dated   26 th
  May,   2008
had   not   been   challenged   and   had   therefore   attained   finality.
Another   opportunity   was   granted   to   the   Cabinet   Secretariat   to
pass a fresh order taking into account the observations made in
the order dated 26 th
 May, 2008. 
3.7  Thereafter, the appellant nos. 1 and 2, filed O.A. No. 3663
of   2009   before   the   learned   CAT   along   with   three   other   AFLEs,
challenging   both   the   footnote   in   the   Notification   dated   13 th
March,   2008   as   well   as   the   order   dated   2 nd
  September,   2008.
The   learned   CAT   allowed   the   original   application   vide   order
dated   7 th
  July,   2010,   thereby   quashing   and   setting   aside   the
order   dated   2 nd
  September,   2008,   with   a   further   direction   to
pass,   within   two   months,   a   speaking   order   strictly   in
accordance   with   the   observations   of   the   learned   CAT   in   its
order dated 26 th
 May, 2008. 
3.8  Aggrieved   thereby,   the   Union   of   India   preferred   a   writ
petition   before   the   High   Court,   in   W.P.   (C)   No.   8503   of   2010,
which   was   allowed   by   the   High   Court   vide   the   impugned
6

judgment   dated   18 th
  April,   2012,   thereby   setting   aside   the
learned   CAT’s   order   dated   7 th
  July,   2010.   Being   aggrieved
thereby, the appellants have approached this Court.
4. We   have   heard   Mr.   Rohit   Sharma,   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants   and   Mr.   Vikramjit
Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General (“ASG” for short)
appearing on behalf of the respondents. 
5. Mr.   Rohit   Sharma,   learned   counsel,   submitted   that   the
High   Court   could   not   have   reopened   the   learned   CAT’s
judgment   and   order   dated   26 th
  May   2008.     He   submitted   that
the   issue   of   merger   also   stood   finally   decided   by   the   learned
CAT   vide   the   same   order,   which   was   never   challenged   by   any
party and had thus attained finality.  
6. Mr.   Sharma   further   submitted   that   the   order   of   the
Cabinet   Secretariat   dated   2 nd
  September,   2008   was   totally
contrary to the directions issued by the learned CAT dated 26 th
May   2008,   which   was   not   permissible   in   law.     By   order   dated
7 th
 July 2010 passed by the learned CAT, which was impugned
7

before   the   High   Court,   the   learned   CAT   had   only   directed   for
the implementation of the order dated 26 th
 May 2008.  As such,
there  was  no   occasion   for   the   High   Court  to   interfere   with   the
same.  
7. On   merits,   Mr.   Sharma   submitted   that   both   AFLEs   and
DFLEs   performed   the   same   responsibilities,   carried   the   same
pay and were classified as Group A and both also had the same
residency   period   for   promotion   to   the   post   of   Under   Secretary
(Language).   He submits that once the   AFLEs   and   DFLEs   were
merged   into   the   same   cadre,   a   further   classification   on   the
basis of their birthmarks was not permissible in law.   He relies
on   the   judgment   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   B.   Manmad
Reddy and others vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy and others 1
in support of his submission.  
8. Shri Vikramjit Banerjee, learned ASG,  submitted that  the
learned   CAT   had   erred   in   giving   retrospective   effect   to   the
Notification dated 13 th
 March 2008. He submits that it has been
1   (2010) 3 SCC 314
8

specifically provided by the footnote in the said Notification that
on the merger of   AFLEs   and   DFLEs   and their redesignation as
Senior   Interpreter,   the   same   would   not   have   any   adverse
impact on the career prospects of the existing direct recruits in
the grade of  DFLEs.
9. We   find   that,   in   the   peculiar   facts   and   circumstances   of
the  present  case,  it  is not  necessary  to  go  into  the  question  of
law   as   raised   by   the   parties,   since   all   the   appellants   have
superannuated.  
10. The   issue   involved   now   is   only   restricted   to   the   terminal
benefits   and   pension   payable   in   respect   of   the   appellants
herein, who are only three in number.   
11. Mr.   Sharma,   learned   counsel,   fairly   states   that   the
appellants are willing to give up their claim for arrears and that
they   would   restrict   their   claim   in   the   present   appeal   only
insofar as the terminal benefits and pension as payable to them
are concerned.  
9

12. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to dispose of the
present appeal with a direction to the respondents to calculate
terminal benefits as are payable to the appellants on the basis
of   the   orders   passed   by   the   learned   CAT   dated   26 th
  May   2008
and  7 th
 July, 2010 .  We are inclined to do so specifically in view
of   the   fact   that   the   order   of   the   learned   CAT   dated   26 th
  May
2008 was not challenged by the respondent­Union of India and
has,   therefore,   attained   finality.   The   pension   as   calculated   in
view of the aforesaid directions would be paid to the appellants
with   effect   from   1 st
  January   2023.       The   terminal   benefits,
which   the   appellants   are   entitled   to,   would   be   cleared   on   or
prior to 31 st
 December, 2022.  In the facts and circumstances of
the   case,   the   appellants   would   not   be   entitled   for   arrears   of
pension   from   the   date   of   their   superannuation   till   31 st
December,   2022.   However,   they   will   be   entitled   to   interest   at
the   rate   of   6%   per   annum   on   the   terminal   benefits   payable   to
them   from   the   date   of   their   superannuation   till   the   date   of
actual payment.  
10

13. The   appeal   is   disposed   of   in   the   above   terms.   Pending
applications, if any, stand disposed of.  However, there shall be
no order as to costs. 
   …….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
         ………………….…….........................J.
[PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 14, 2022.
11