Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a retired Junior Scientific Officer in the Ministry of Defence, sought refixation of his pay on par with his junior, Sahasrabudhe, after superannuating in 1993. The petitioner was directly recruited as Assistant Foreman in January 1966, promoted as Foreman in November 1971, and as Junior Scientific Officer in August 1986. Sahasrabudhe was recruited a month later, promoted later, but benefited from third and fourth pay commission revisions, resulting in his basic pay being higher than the petitioner’s in both the Foreman and Junior Scientific Officer cadres. The petitioner filed Original Application No. 1307 of 1994 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) seeking stepping up of pay, citing discrimination. Another senior, Nadgauda, had filed a similar application (OA 1309/1994) and obtained an order on 7 December 1995 directing parity with Sahasrabudhe, which the respondents implemented without challenge. However, the CAT dismissed the petitioner’s application on 7 November 2000 and review on 14 March 2002, relying on a DOPT circular dated 4 November 2000 and FR 22C, holding that the anomaly must directly result from FR 22C and the earlier order did not discuss these. The petitioner then approached the Bombay High Court by way of writ petition. The High Court observed that the petitioner was senior to both Nadgauda and Sahasrabudhe in the Foreman and Junior Scientific Officer cadres, and there was no distinction between his case and Nadgauda’s. The Court found that the DOPT circular was not shown to be applicable, and the anomaly did not arise from FR 22C. Therefore, the CAT erred in refusing to follow its earlier binding precedent. Non-grant of parity amounted to hostile discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the CAT’s orders, and directed respondents to step up the petitioner’s pay in the Foreman and Junior Scientific Officer grades with effect from the dates applicable, recalculate pension and retirement benefits, and pay arrears within three months, with interest at 6% per annum on delayed payment.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Parity - Stepping Up of Pay - Fundamental Rule 22C, Article 14 of the Constitution of India - An employee who was senior to his junior in both the cadre of Foreman and Junior Scientific Officer sought stepping up of pay where the junior, due to promotions after pay commissions, drew higher pay - The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the original application relying on a DOPT circular and FR 22C - Held that there was no material to show applicability of the circular and the anomaly did not arise from FR 22C; refusing parity amounted to hostile discrimination violating Article 14 (Paras 8-12). B) Administrative Law - Precedent - Consistency in Tribunal Decisions - The same Tribunal had earlier allowed an identical original application of another senior employee (Nadgauda) seeking parity with the same junior, which was not challenged and was implemented - The Tribunal failed to follow its earlier decision without any valid distinction - Held that the Tribunal was not justified in taking a contrary view and dismissing the petitioner’s application, especially when the respondents accepted the earlier order (Paras 8, 12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to refixation of his pay on par with his junior, Sahasrabudhe, and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in not following its own earlier decision in the identical case of Nadgauda.
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed; CAT orders dated 7.11.2000 and 14.3.2002 quashed. Respondents directed to step up petitioner’s pay at par with Sahasrabudhe from 6.12.1973 in Foreman grade and in Junior Scientific Officer grade as was done for Nadgauda; recalculate pension and retirement benefits; pay arrears within three months with interest at 6% per annum on delayed payment.
Law Points
- equal pay for equal work
- parity in pay
- stepping up of pay
- hostile discrimination
- violation of Article 14
- consistency in judicial decisions
- binding nature of precedents
- Fundamental Rule 22C
- pay anomaly due to pay commission revision
- discrimination between similarly situated employees
