Equal Pay for Equal Work | Parity in Government Service Benefits Requires Identical Service Conditions : Central Administrative Tribunal

The Central Administrative Tribunal's judgment in Chaman Lal v. State of J&K reaffirms that claims of pay parity under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require strict identity in service conditions, promotional history, and eligibility under governing rules. The decision clarifies that mere similarity in designation does not entitle employees to identical benefits when their service trajectories differ substantially under statutory schemes like the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Higher Standard Pay Scale Scheme) Rules, 1996.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The applicant, a retired employee of the Public Health Engineering Department, sought refixation of his pay and pension, alleging discriminatory treatment in the grant of in-situ promotions compared to a colleague, Keshub Dev Singh. He contended that both held the same post for over nine years but received differential benefits under SRO 14 of 1996, resulting in lower pensionary benefits.

Procedural History

The case originated as a writ petition before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court:

• 2016: SWP No. 329/2016 filed seeking mandamus for pay refixation
• 2020: Transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal as TA No. 2409/2020

Service Profile of the Applicant

• 1977: Engaged as daily-rated worker
• 1984: Regularized as Fitter Attendant (pay scale Rs. 345-460)
• 1986: Redesignated as Assistant Inspector
• 1988: Promoted to Electrician (pay scale Rs. 775-1025)
• 1989: Reverted to Assistant Inspector (upgraded scale Rs. 950-1500)
• 1997: First in-situ promotion under SRO 14
• 2005: Second functional promotion
• 2012: Retired after 35 years of service

Relief Sought

The applicant prayed for:

• A writ of mandamus directing refixation of pay and pension
• Release of arrears arising from alleged underpayment
• Any other relief deemed fit by the Tribunal

The Legal Issue

The Tribunal had to determine whether:

1. The applicant was entitled to pay parity with Keshub Dev Singh under Articles 14 and 16 despite differing service histories.
2. The denial of in-situ promotions constituted arbitrary discrimination when governed by SRO 14 of 1996.
3. Delay in challenging pay fixation post-retirement barred judicial relief.

Arguments Presented

For the Applicant

• Parity Claim: Both employees held the same post for nine years, entitling them to identical benefits under Articles 14 and 16.
• Statutory Violation: Alleged incorrect application of SRO 14 of 1996, which governs in-situ promotions.
• Pension Impact: Erroneous pay fixation directly reduced pension benefits, violating property rights.
• Precedent Reliance: Cited State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh (2017) to argue that equal pay for equal work applies to government employees.

For the Respondents

• Distinct Service Histories: The applicant availed two functional promotions, while Keshub Dev Singh had only one, making them ineligible for identical in-situ benefits under SRO 14.
• Statutory Compliance: Pay fixation and promotions were granted strictly per applicable rules and SROs.
• Delay: The applicant challenged pay fixation four years post-retirement, rendering the claim stale.
• No Arbitrariness: Differential treatment was based on statutory eligibility, not discrimination.

The Court's Analysis

The Tribunal conducted a three-pronged analysis to reject the applicant's claim:

1. Parity Requires Identical Service Conditions The judgment emphasized that Articles 14 and 16 mandate parity only when employees are similarly situated in all material respects. The Tribunal noted:

   "A claim of discrimination must rest on a foundation of complete parity in service conditions, promotional avenues, and eligibility under the governing rules. Mere similarity of designation does not ipso facto confer a right to identical pay fixation."

   The applicant's two functional promotions disqualified him from additional in-situ benefits under SRO 14 of 1996, which compensates employees who stagnate without promotions.

2. Statutory Interpretation of SRO 14 The Tribunal examined SRO 14 of 1996, which provides for in-situ promotions as a compensatory measure for employees without functional promotions. It held:

   "Once an employee avails functional promotion, the entitlement to further in-situ benefits stands curtailed."

   The differential treatment was thus a direct consequence of the statutory scheme, not arbitrariness.

3. Delay and Stale Claims The applicant retired in 2012 but filed the petition in 2016. The Tribunal cited established precedent that service-related claims, particularly those involving pay fixation, should not be reopened post-retirement without manifest illegality. The delay weakened the applicant's case, as no such illegality was demonstrated.

4. Pensionary Benefits The Tribunal held that pension is a derivative of last drawn pay. Since pay fixation was found lawful, the consequential pension fixation could not be faulted. No evidence suggested the Accountant General acted on incorrect inputs.

The Verdict

The Tribunal dismissed Transfer Application No. 2409/2020, holding:

1. The applicant failed to establish arbitrariness or discrimination under Articles 14 and 16.
2. Pay fixation and promotional benefits were granted in accordance with SRO 14 of 1996 and other applicable rules.
3. The claim was barred by delay and lacked proof of rule violation.
4. No order as to costs was passed.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Parity Claims Require Strict Identity in Service Conditions

• Government employees seeking pay parity must demonstrate identical service histories, including:
  • Number of functional promotions availed
  • Eligibility under governing statutory rules (e.g., SRO 14 of 1996)
  • Duration of stagnation in the same cadre
• Mere similarity in designation or post held is insufficient to invoke Articles 14 and 16.

Statutory Schemes Govern Promotional Benefits

• In-situ promotions under schemes like SRO 14 of 1996 are compensatory and do not apply to employees who have availed functional promotions.
• Practitioners must scrutinize the eligibility criteria of such schemes before advising clients on parity claims.

Delay Defeats Service-Related Claims

• Post-retirement challenges to pay fixation or promotions are unlikely to succeed unless:
  • The applicant demonstrates manifest illegality in the department's actions
  • The delay is satisfactorily explained
• Tribunals and courts are reluctant to reopen stale service claims due to administrative inconvenience and finality of retirement benefits.

Pension Fixation Is Derivative of Pay

• Pensionary benefits are directly linked to last drawn pay. Challenges to pension fixation must first establish illegality in pay fixation.
• Employees must ensure pay fixation is correct during service to avoid post-retirement disputes.