1. The petitioners, who are retired employees from GREF (General Reserve Engineer Force) as Assistants (now called Office Superintendents), are aggrieved by the refusal to extend the benefit of the Apex Court judgment which granted parity of pay scale with Assistants in the Central Secretariat, for the sole reason that they are not parties to the judgment in the Apex Court.

2. It is seen that in Ext.P3 judgment of the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition No.29204 of 2019, it was held as follows:

“In that view of the matter, not to pay the similar pay scale to the appellants/Assistants in other lower formations in the Indian Navy with that of the Assistants in CSS would be clearly discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even the same will go against the report submitted by Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission which was directed to be constituted for the very purpose and Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission submitted its report recommending to remove the disparity and thereafter the Central Government accepted the said report. Therefore, the High Court has committed a grave error. While passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has observed that during the 5th Pay Commission, the Commission constituted for that purpose is supposed to have again studied the quality and quantity of the work of Assistants in CSS and other lower formations. However, the High Court has observed the same on surmises and conjectures and without considering the fact that Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission was constituted for the specific purpose and the Government accepted the same. The learned Tribunal was right in allowing the 0.A. preferred by the appellants herein. 

In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, present appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is hereby quashed and set aside and the judgment and order passed by learned Trial Court is hereby restored. Necessary consequences shall follow. Respective Assistants in Navy/lower formations be paid the arrears accordingly within a period of eight weeks from today.”

3. Heard Sri.R.Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri. Daya Sindhu Sreehari, CGC, for respondents.

4. The requests of the petitioners have been turned on by Ext.P5, wherein it is stated that the petitioners herein are not the petitioners in the Special Leave Petition, therefore, it is not applicable. When the judgment is passed by the Apex Court, it is the law of the land. Ext.P5 is a cryptic order and does not say the reason for not giving parity in scale and the benefit of the judgment. Therefore, I have no hesitation in quashing Ext.P5. The 2nd respondent or any other competent person under the 2nd respondent shall take up the issue and pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the dictum laid down by the Apex Court in Ext.P3, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

5. The writ petition is disposed of.