JUDGMENT : N. Unni Krishnan Nair. J. Heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2. The petitioners, by instituting the present writ petition has presented a challenge to an order dated 14.03.2019, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application being O.A. No. 344/2017. 3. The sole respondent herein was initially appointed as a Junior Hindi Translator on 01.01.2000 in 42 Wing Indian Air Force. The respondent had thereafter, participated in a selection process through the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment as a Senior Hindi Translator. On being selected in the recruitment exercise, the respondent was vide order dated 18.12.2008, appointed to the post of Hindi Translator, in the scale of pay of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4,000/- in the Income Tax Department, North-Eastern Region, Shillong. The respondent, on being released from his services in the Indian Air Force, joined as Senior Hindi Translator on 29.01.2010 in the establishment of the Chief Commissioner of Taxes, Shillong. The respondent, on noticing that persons appointed as Junior Translators in various establishment of the Central Government, were being extended with the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-, approached the petitioners herein, praying for enhancement of his Grade Pay to Rs. 4800/-. The prayers as made by the respondent herein, not finding favor with the petitioners herein, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench by way of instituting an Original Application being OA No. 344/2017, interalia, praying for grant of the higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- w.e.f., 29.01.2010, i.e., the date when he had joined as Senior Hindi Translator. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, upon hearing the parties to the proceeding and also on perusal of the materials coming on record before it, proceeded to allow the Original Application filed by the respondent, herein, with a direction to the petitioners herein, to grant to the respondent herein, Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- w.e.f., 29.01.2010; i.e., the date he had joined in the establishment of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, Meghalaya. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition. 4. 4,800/- w.e.f., 29.01.2010; i.e., the date he had joined in the establishment of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, Meghalaya. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present writ petition. 4. The order dated 14.03.2019, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No. 344/2017 being under challenge in the present proceeding, the operative portion therein, is extracted herein below: - “ 9. Two cases of Junior Hindi Translators namely Shri Gaurav and Shri Rajeev Ranjan have been brought out by the applicant in his rejoinder, who are Junior Hindi Translators but granted Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- through the revised orders of their respective Departments. Since he is appointed as Senior Hindi Translator, he is entitled to the next higher Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-. 10. We have considered the above facts as brought out by the applicant and we are in the agreement with the stand taken by him. Respondents are therefore, directed to grant the applicant the Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- from 29.01.2010 i.e. from the date of his appointment in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, Meghalaya. 11. Accordingly, O.A. Stands disposed of. No order as to the costs.” 5. Assailing the order 14.03.2019, Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department has at the outset submitted that the learned Tribunal had passed the direction for authorizing to the respondent herein, the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- w.e.f., 29.01.2010 without recording any reasons towards justification of the said direction. Mr. Keyal, learned counsel, by referring to the operative portion of the order dated 14.03.2019 has submitted that the learned Tribunal after noticing the pleadings brought on record by the parties and also noticing the submissions of the learned counsels appearing in the matter, had abruptly proceeded to issue the direction as noticed herein above. Mr. Keyal has submitted that in absence of any reason being assigned for the directions so issued in the matter by the learned Tribunal, the order dated 14.03.2019 cannot be sustained and would require an interference from this Court. 6. Mr. Mr. Keyal has submitted that in absence of any reason being assigned for the directions so issued in the matter by the learned Tribunal, the order dated 14.03.2019 cannot be sustained and would require an interference from this Court. 6. Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the services of the respondent herein, at the time of his initial recruitment in the establishment of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, was governed by the provisions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Attached and Subordinate Offices), Senior Hindi Translator Recruitment Rules, 1992. The said Rules of 1992 were subsequently superseded by Central Board of Direct Taxes (Attached and Subordinate Offices), Senior Translator (Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted/Non-Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2018. It is contended by Mr. Keyal that in the Rules holding the field, the pay authorized to the post of Hindi Translator is PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-. It is further submitted by Mr. Keyal, learned counsel that the Rules having not challenged by the respondent herein, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to direct for authorizing to the respondent herein, a higher Grade Pay than that was authorized under the provisions of the Rules holding the field to the post of Senior Translator. 7. Mr. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the respondent herein, in support of his contentions before the learned Tribunal had relied upon the decision of the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal in the case of T. P. Leena Vs Union of India & Ors., (OA No. 107/2011) as well as the decision of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Pal & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors., (OA No. 3806/2014). Mr. Keyal has submitted that the said decision would has no bearing with the claim made by the appellant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, inasmuch as, the said decisions were so passed by the concerned benches of the Tribunal, basing on the facts involved in the said cases and the same cannot have a general application. Mr. Keyal, learned counsel, in the above premises, has submitted that the order dated 14.03.2019; passed the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench would call for interefence by this Court. 8. Per contra, Mr. Mr. Keyal, learned counsel, in the above premises, has submitted that the order dated 14.03.2019; passed the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench would call for interefence by this Court. 8. Per contra, Mr. A. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in the case of T. P. Leena (supra), the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had dealt with a case of a Hindi Translator and had therein, concluded as a Hindi Translator, the applicant, herein, was entitled to be authorized the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-. He further submits that the said decision was upheld by the High Court of Kerela in O.P.(CAT) No. 467/2012 and the Special Leave Petition, so preferred against the decision of the High Court of Kerela in the matter, was dismissed. 9. Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel has further submitted that the decision in the case of T. P. Leena (supra) was followed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Pal (supra) and the Junior Hindi Translator involved therein was directed to be authorized the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-. Mr. Ahmed, submits that the Junior Hindi Translator being authorized the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-, the next higher post of Senior Hindi Translator must be necessarily be authorized the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/-. Mr. Ahmed submits that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the materials brought before it by the parties to the proceeding, had proceeded to issue the direction for authorizing to the respondent herein, the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- w.e.f., the date of his joining against the post of Senior Hindi Translator in the establishment of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong, Meghalaya. Mr. Ahmed submits that the conclusions drawn by the learned Tribunal being not erroneous, the same would not mandate any interference from this Court. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also perused the materials brought on record. 11. On a perusal of the order dated 14.03.2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal; Guwahati Bench would reveal that the Tribunal, after having noticed the submissions made by the parties to the proceeding had abruptly concluded that they were in agreement with the stand taken by the respondent herein, before it and accordingly, proceeded to direct the petitioners herein, to authorize to the respondent his Grade Pay @ Rs. 4,800/- w.e.f., 29.01.2010. The direction as passed by the learned Tribunal and noticed above, is not supported by any reason. The learned Tribunal has not recorded any reasons as to why the submissions made before it by the respondent, herein, was required to be so accepted and why the submissions made by the petitioners, herein, before it, was not mandated to be accepted. 12. It is a settled position of law that the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, is subject to the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court and the reasons, if recorded, would enable the High Court to effectively exercise the supervisory jurisdiction. Recording of reasons serves a salutary purpose namely; it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the process of decision making. Accordingly, it is to be noted that the reasons are the heart of an order and in absence of reasons being assigned for the directions so issued in an order; the same would be liable to be interfered with on a challenge, being presented to it. 13. In view of the fact that the direction issued by the learned Tribunal, vide the order dated 14.03.2019, in OA No. 344/2017, not being supported by any reasons, we are of the considered view that the same would not be sustainable and would call for an interference. 14. Having drawn the above conclusions, the contention of the respondent herein, would mandate an examination. 15. The contentions of the respondent herein, before the Tribunal as well as in the present proceeding is that the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of T. P. Leena (supra) having held that a Junior Hindi Translator would be entitled to be authorized Grade Pay of Rs. 4,600/-, the said decision having been upheld by the High Court of Kerela, as well as the SLP prepared against it, being dismissed, the respondent herein, who is a Senior Hindi Translator would be entitled to be authorized the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- w.e.f., the date of his joining against the post of Senior Hindi Translator. 16. We have perused the decision of the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and we find that the same is clearly distinguishable, in view of the facts as involved therein. 4,800/- w.e.f., the date of his joining against the post of Senior Hindi Translator. 16. We have perused the decision of the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal and we find that the same is clearly distinguishable, in view of the facts as involved therein. The said decision would have no application to the facts as involved in the present proceeding in respect of the service rendered by the respondent herein. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the decision of the Ernakulam Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of T. P. Leena (supra) , as well as the decision of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of Ramesh Pal (supra) would not have any application with regard to the claim made by the applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 344/2017. 17. At this stage, it is also to be noted that the petitioners in the writ petition have made a categorical assertion to the effect that the services of the applicant is governed by the provisions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Attached and Subordinate Offices), Senior Translator (Group ‘B’ Non-Gazetted/Non-Ministerial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2018 and the said Rules do not authorize the Grade Pay of Rs. 4,800/- for the post of Senior Hindi Translator. 18. The respondent herein, although, had filed his response to the writ petition, the said contention of the petitioners pertaining to the Rules holding the field, has not been denied by the respondent herein. Accordingly, in absence of a challenge to the provisions of the Rules holding the field, which mandate a particular Grade Pay to the post of Senior Hindi Translator, in our considered view, the learned Administrative Tribunal ought not to have entertained the claim made by the respondent herein, in OA No. 344/2017 and the same was required to be dismissed in limine. 19. In view of the above conclusions drawn by us herein above, we are of the considered view that for multiple reasons as noticed herein above, the order dated 14.03.2019, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application being O.A. No. 344/2017 cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same stands set aside. Consequently, the OA filed by the respondent herein, being O.A. No. 344/2017 stands dismissed. 20. The present writ petition accordingly, stands allowed.