news details |
|
|
| Govt can't pick and choose on pay parity: High Court | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 19: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union Territory Government against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jammu Bench, holding that the Government cannot selectively deny a higher pay scale to an employee after extending the same benefit to a class of similarly situated employees without showing any legally sustainable distinction.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Rajesh Sekhri upheld the CAT order granting relief to Sandeep Kumar Sharma, a Draftsman in the Public Works (R&B) Department, and directed the authorities to comply with the Tribunal's directions in accordance with law.
The UT had challenged the common order dated July 11, 2025, passed by the CAT in O.A. Nos. 976/2024 and 1006/2024, whereby the Tribunal had set aside Government Order No. 214-PW(R&B) of 2021 dated June 28, 2021, to the extent it denied the benefit claimed by Sharma.
Sharma was appointed as a Draftsman in the Public Works Department during 2004-2008. His case before the Tribunal was that although he had initially been appointed in a lower pay scale, several similarly placed Draftsmen were subsequently granted the higher pre-revised scale of Rs 5,150-8,300 pursuant to judicial pronouncements and consequential Government orders.
He maintained that once the benefit had been extended to other Draftsmen similarly placed, denial of the same scale to him amounted to unjustified differential treatment.
The Government, represented by Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta, assisted by advocate Nirmal Kotwal, argued that Sharma had accepted his appointment on the pay scale prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules and could not seek a higher scale several years later.
It was also contended that an erroneous benefit granted to another employee could not create a right to claim "negative equality". Advocate N. D. Qazi appeared for the respondent.
The UT further sought to distinguish Sharma's case on the ground that he had been appointed on compassionate grounds under SRO-43 of 1994, whereas some of the employees with whom parity was claimed had entered service through a regular selection process.
Rejecting the challenge, the Division Bench noted that several Draftsmen who had initially entered the department in a lower scale were later granted the higher pay scale pursuant to judicial proceedings and Government orders.
The Court observed that the Tribunal had examined the material on record and found Sharma similarly situated to those employees, while the Government had failed to demonstrate any rational basis for treating him differently.
The Bench acknowledged the settled principle that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality and that an illegal or erroneous benefit granted to one employee cannot ordinarily be claimed by another.
However, the Court drew a clear distinction between an isolated illegal benefit and a consistent course of treatment adopted by the Government pursuant to judicial precedents and administrative decisions.
In the present case, the higher pay scale had been extended to a number of Draftsmen and was therefore not an isolated or accidental benefit, the Court noted.
The Division Bench held that the Government had not demonstrated any legally sustainable distinction between Sharma and his counterparts and consequently its reliance on the doctrine of negative equality was misplaced.
The Court also rejected the argument based on the respondent's compassionate appointment.
It observed that no statutory provision or Recruitment Rule had been shown which made a particular mode of initial appointment a disqualification for claiming the pay scale attached to a post once the employee had been appointed to and continued to hold that post.
The Bench further ruled that merely accepting appointment and joining on an initial pay scale would not by itself defeat an employee's subsequent claim to a higher scale already extended to similarly situated counterparts.
The claim, it noted, arose from subsequent judicial and administrative developments and from the treatment accorded by the Government itself to similarly placed employees.
In a significant observation, the High Court said that if the Government believed the earlier grant of the higher scale was contrary to the Recruitment Rules, it was open to the authorities to challenge those judicial orders in appropriate proceedings.
"Having implemented such orders and extended the benefit to a number of employees," the UT could not subsequently characterize those benefits as illegal merely to deny parity to Sharma without establishing a lawful basis for distinction, the Bench held.
The High Court also rejected the Government's argument based on dismissal of an earlier Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court through a non-speaking order, observing that Sharma's claim was not founded solely on that dismissal but on the consistent treatment extended to similarly situated Draftsmen following judicial decisions and Government action.
On the question of delay and laches, the Court agreed with the CAT that Sharma had been continuously pursuing his grievance through representations and the delay of the authorities in responding to those representations could not be attributed to him.
The Bench further observed that considerations of financial implications or burden on the public exchequer could not, in the circumstances of the case, defeat an otherwise established entitlement arising out of a continuing wrong.
The Court clarified that although matters relating to revision of pay, pay fixation and equation of posts ordinarily fall within the domain of the executive and expert bodies, the present case did not involve creation of a new pay scale.
The Tribunal had merely ordered extension of a scale which had already been granted to similarly situated Draftsmen pursuant to judicial pronouncements and consequential administrative action.
Finding no patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity in the CAT order, the Division Bench dismissed the UT's petition and upheld the relief granted to Sharma. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
