Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Income Tax Gazetted Officers ... vs Revenue on 28 August, 2025
1
OA No. 1705/2022
Item No.29/C-5
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 1705/2022
M.A. No. 1810/2022
Reserved on : 31.07.2025
Pronounced on : 28.08.2025
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
1. Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association (ITGOA)
A recognized association by the
Government of India under
CCS (CSA) Rules, 1993
Through its Secretary General
Bhaskar Bhattacharya
S/o Sh. Narayan Chandra Bhattacharya
A-10/D, MIG Flat, Vatika Apartments
Mayapuri, New Delhi- 110064.
2. Sh. Sanjeev Babbar
Age 59 years, Group: B
S/o Late Baldev Raj
Senior Personal Secretary
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
S/o Lt. Sh. Baldev Raj
R/o P-28, Double Story Qrs.
Near Arya Same Mandir, Malka Ganj, Delhi-110007.
3. Mrs. Deepa
Age 49 Years, Group: B
W/o Mr. Dinesh Kumar
Flat No. 10059, Sapwood Tower -1,
Mahagun My woods, Greater Noida
West, UP-201009.
4. Mr. Rajendra Kumar Upadhyaya
Age 52 Years, Group: B
S/o Late Sh. S.K Upadhyaya
R/o 155, Tilak Khand, Giri Nagar
Kalkaji, Delhi-110019 .
2
OA No. 1705/2022
Item No.29/C-5
5. Mr. Virendra Agnihotri
Age 54 years, Group: B
S/o Sh. K.K. Sharma
R/o 7/175, 3rd Floor,
Ramesh Nagar, Delhi-110015
6. Mrs. Archana Sabharwal
Age 56 years Group: B
W/o Ajay Sabharwal
GH-14/983, Paschim Vihar
Delhi- 110087
7. Mr. Ashish Soti
Age 53 years, Group: B
S/o Late R.K. Soti.
R/o 119- B, DDA (MIG) Flats
Rajouri Garden, New Delhi- 110027
..Applicants
(By Advocate: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh with Mr. Mangesh Naik)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Revenue Secretary
Ministry of Finance
128-A, North Block,
New Delhi-110002
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT),
Through its Chairman,
Secretariat Building,
North Block, New Delhi-110002
3. Department of Expenditure,
Ministry of Finance,
129-A, North Block,
Through the Secretary,
New Delhi-110002.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Dilbagh Singh)
3
OA No. 1705/2022
Item No.29/C-5
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A) In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):
"8.1 Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07/01/2022 passed by Under Secretary (E III/(B)), Branch to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure A-1) whereby the claims of the Applicants for and on behalf of Private Secretaries / Personal Assistants for grant of revised pay scales placing reliance on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as described in (Annexure-A- ) for the post of Private Secretaries/Senior Private Secretaries w.e.f 01/01/2006 in line with the CSSS Cadre has been rejected relying upon the office note dated 28/05/2020; and 8.2 Declare that the Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries of Income Tax Department, (Ministry of Finance) have always had a historical parity with its counterparts-CSSS of the Central Secretariat and that the Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries are entitled to pay scales at par with those of CSSS cadre of the Central Govt. in terms of the recommendations made by the 6th CPC onwards; and, 8.3 Grant such other reliefs as are deemed fit, just, fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, including consequential benefits with cost of the litigation and the interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payments from the date(s) on which the aforesaid relief becomes due."
2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant No.1 is a recognised association by the Govt. of India and applicant Nos. 2 to 7 are working as Sr. Private Secretaries/Private Secretaries with Income 4 OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 Tax Department across the country. The applicants are aggrieved by arbitrary and discriminatory act of pay anomaly in cadre of Private Secretary viz-a-viz Central Secretariat Stenographer Services (CSSS) in Income Tax Department in clear violation of the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission for creating a pay parity amongst the different Divisions of the respondent organization / Ministry. 2.1 It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that despite undergoing the process of recruitment initiated by the same recruiting agency, i.e. Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and having identical job profile, the respondents have created pay anomaly with the Private Secretaries of CSSS, without any basis. 2.2 The applicants have relied upon the Full Bench decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs Union of India and Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 618, wherein while dealing with the aspect of 'Equal pay for equal work', the Apex Court has opined as under:
"8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional right. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the state not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses 5 OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay....."
2.3 Reliance has also been placed on the following case laws:-
(i) D.S. Nakara and Ors. vs Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305;
(ii) All Manipur Pensioners Association vs The State of Manipur and Ors., (2020) 14 SCC 625;
(iii) Union of India & Ors. vs DGOF Employees Association & Ors., MANU/SC/1226/2023;
(iv) DGOF Employees Association & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors., 2014(145) DRJ 604 (DB);
(v) Union of India and O5rs. vs Rajesh Kumar Gond, (2014) 13 SCC 588;
(vi) State of Madhya Pradesh vs R.D. Sharma & Anr., 2022/INSC/101 : 2022(2) SCALE 398;
(vii) Randhir Singh vs Union of India & Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 618; and
(viii) State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635.
2.4 Further reliance has been placed on the Order dated 07.04.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1707/2019 titled as C.P. Meena & Ors. vs Union of India & Ors.
6OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that till the 3rd Pay Commission, there was a historical pay parity, however, subsequently, pursuant to 4th Pay Commission and onwards, the historical parity has done away with and on the said analogy the respondents are not granting the benefit of pay parity. 3.1 He drew a reference to the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, which reads as under:-
Office staff in 3.1.1 The various Secretariats of the Headquarters and Ministries and Departments of Government Field Organisations of India together constitute the headquarters of Government of organization. The Secretariats are chiefly India involved in matters relating to formulation of policy and ensuring that these policies are executed in a coordinated and effective manner. Actual execution of these policies, however, is left to field agencies outside the Secretariat which may be either attached or subordinate offices or quasi-
Government/autonomous/public sector undertakings. Disparity between Secretariat and field offices 3.1.2 The senior administrative posts in the Secretariat are mainly filled by officers of All India Services and Central Group A services on deputation under the Central Staffing Scheme. Some of the posts in the middle level are also held by officers of the Central Secretariat Services, Railway Board Secretariat Service in Ministry of Railways, Defence Forces Headquarters Services in Ministry of Defence and by Indian Foreign services (B) in Ministry of External Affairs.
Historically, various services in the Secretariat have been given an edge over analogous posts in the field offices. This was done on the ground that office staff in the Secretariat performs complex duties and are involved in analyzing issues with policy implications whereas their counter parts in field offices perform routine work relating to routine matters concerning personnel and general administration, etc. Another argument that is used to justify the edge for various posts in Secretariat is that in 7 OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 Secretariat, level jumping occurs and personnel in the grade of Assistant etc. submit files directly to decision making levels of Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, etc. 3.1.3 Higher pay scales in the Secretariat offices may have been justified in the past when formulation of proper policies was of paramount importance. The present position is different. Today, the weakest link in respect of any Government policy is at the delivery stage. This phenomenon is not endemic to India. Internationally also, there is an increasing emphasis on strengthening the delivery lines and decentralization with greater role being assigned at delivery points which actually determines the benefit that the common citizen is going to derive out of any policy initiative of the Government. The field offices are at the cutting edge of administration and may, in most cases, determine whether a particular policy turns out to be a success or a failure in terms of actual benefit to the consumer. Accordingly, the time has come to grant parity between similarly placed personnel employed in field offices and in the Secretariat. This parity will need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant. Beyond this, it may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different taking in view the functional considerations and relativities across the board.
Posts where parity 3.1.4 A parity has long been established exists and other posts between the posts of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) and Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in Secretariat and field offices. The position becomes different for posts above UDC level; with the Assistant in Secretariat offices being placed in higher pay scale vis- à-vis those working in field offices. Earlier, the respective pay scales of Rs.5500-9000 and 5000- 8000 existed for Assistants in Secretariat and in Field offices. This disparity was aggravated in 2006 when the Government further upgraded the pay scales of Assistants belonging to Central Secretariat Service to Rs.6500-10500."
8OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 3.2 It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are working in the field of Stenographers and though they are part of the CBDT under Ministry of Finance, but not drawing the identical pay scales as that of the Headquarter. He also contended that there is no reasonable access so as to arrive a discriminatory treatment meted out to the applicants in the field office viz-a-viz the Ministry, in violation of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, they are entitled to seek the benefit of the same.
3.3 A comparative chart has also been drawn by the learned counsel for the applicants, which is annexed at pages 90-91. According to which, the pay scales in Non-Secretariat and Central Secretariat Departments as per the 6th Pay Commission are as under:
Gr.II-PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 Gr.'D'-PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 GP GP 2400 (Gr.III renamed 2400 (After 5 years PB-2 as Gr.II Rs.9300-34800 GP 4200) Gr.I PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 Gr.'C'/PA PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 GP 4200 Gr.I (Gr.II & Gr.I GP 4600 merged) PS-PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 (After 4 years 9300-34800 GP GP 4600 5400 in PB-3 Sr. PS. PB-2 Rs.9300- PPS Rs.15600-39100 GP 6600 34800 GP 4800 in PB-3 After 4 years GP 5400/- in Sr.PPS Rs.15600-39100 GP PB-2 7600 in PB-3 PSO Rs.37400-67000 GP 8700 in PB-4 9 OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 3.4 Learned counsel for the applicants drew reference that in an identical situation pertaining to the same Department though pertaining to the post of Junior Hindi Translator, the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gond (supra) held as under:
"3. The respondent is a Junior Hindi Translator working in the office of Director General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics under the Commerce Ministry and he sought parity of pay with the Junior Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). The Home Ministry had issued Office Memorandum dated 9.2.2003, upgrading the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators from Rs.5000-1050-8000 to Rs.5500-175-9000, which were made applicable from 11.2.2003. The respondent sought the same pay- scale but it was denied to him. It is, therefore, that he filed an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work'.
4. The application filed by the respondent was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter, wherein amongst other things, in Para 9 they stated that the Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the pay scales of Junior Hindi Translators for the Central Secretariat (CSOLS) may be applied to all subordinate offices subject to their functional requirement. However, no material whatsoever was placed before the Tribunal to show as to how the functional requirement of the concerned job in the Commerce Ministry was different from that in the Central Secretariat."
3.5 Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in D.G.O.F. Employees Association & Anr. (supra), wherein it has been held as under:
"26. The petitioners were treated historically as equals to CSS/CSSS employees and enjoyed equal pay and all benefits flowing from equal pay. This was based on the previous four instances of determinations by successive Pay Commissions that they performed equal work. No other evidence of "complete identity" of work was necessary in the circumstances of the case. The materials on the record do show that the Sixth CPC stated in more than one place specifically that historical parity in pay scales ought not to be disturbed. Such being the case, this Court is of the opinion that the CAT fell into error in holding that 10 OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 differentiation was facially justified, and could not be gone into given the nature of restricted judicial review. Consequently, a direction is issued to the respondents to fix the members of the Petitioner Association and other similarly placed Assistants working in Ordnance Factories and in OFB in the same pay scale as was given to Assistants similarly placed in CSS/CSSS, Army Headquarters, UPSC, CAT, MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, etc. with effect from the same date as was first given to them. Consequential pay fixation and fitment orders shall be issued within eight weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms without any order as to costs."
The aforesaid order was assailed in Civil Appeal No. 1663 of 2016 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 09.11.2023 affirmed the Order passed by the Hon'ble High Court, as under:
"14. As noted by the High Court, it is evident that parity of pay scales vis-a-vis LDCs, UDCs, Assistants/PAs and Stenographers, was maintained even prior to 01.01.1986 under the Third Central Pay Commission recommendations (for the period of 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1985). This parity was continued in the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations (with effect from 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995) and the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations (for the period 01.01.1996 to 14.09.2006). The post of Assistants, PAs and Stenographers is governed by Director General Ordnance Factories Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1977.
15. Be that as it may, in the present facts the perusal of the judgment passed by the High Court impugned herein would indicate that the High Court having kept in view the legal, as well as the factual aspects, has not proceeded in a manner so as to equate two sets of employees in different organizations. But, keeping in view the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the applicability of the pay scales recommended to similarly placed employees employed in the headquarters and on noticing discrimination despite historical similarity has merely rectified the error, which does not call for interference.
16. In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands dismissed with no order as to costs."
3.6 It has been contended that the functionality is same and there is no difference in duties and all are identical, viz-a-viz the field office and the Headquarters.
11OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5
4. Opposing the grant of relief, the learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit, submitted that the challenge is to order dated 07.01.2022 rejecting the demand of removal of anomaly in pay scale of officers in the cadres of Private Secretaries / Stenographers in Income Tax Department viz-a-viz CSSS and other Departments. 4.1 Learned counsel for the respondents has also filed written synopsis. Highlighting para 2, 4 and 5 of the same, he submitted that considering the request of the applicants, the file was forwarded to the Department of Expenditure E-III(B) Branch for consideration, however, the same was not agreed to with the following observation:
"It is not possible to agree to the proposal as the scales in Secretariate/Headquarters of Govt of India are not applicable in the offices outside Secretariate."
4.2 He further submitted that the pay scale is dynamic which keeps changing as per the recommendations of the pay commission and acceptance by the Govt. of India, so the parity of pay cannot be claimed/compared on the basis of the pay scale of other organization/department. It is purely the domain of the pay commission recommendations and acceptance by Govt. of India. 4.3 He argued that the applicants have mainly relied on Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs D.G.O.F. Employees Association and Ors. (supra), wherein employees of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) were given pay parity with similarly placed employees 12 OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and other equivalent cadres as they had historically enjoyed pay parity with CSS employees, and the denial of this parity was unjustified.
4.4 He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal and Ors. vs West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and Ors. (15.03.2010-SC):
MANU/SC/0165/2010, wherein it has been held as follows:
"17. It is now well-settled that parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one of the functions of the Pay Commission is to identify the posts which deserve a higher scale of pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts. The Pay Commission has two functions; to revise the existing pay scale, by recommending revised pay scales corresponding to the pre- revised pay scales and, secondly, make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. Therefore, the mere fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same pay scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay scale. As noticed above, one post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher pay scale and another post which is considered to have a proper pay scale may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay scale but not any higher pay scale. Therefore, the benefit of higher pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of the subject post and holders of reference category posts, discharge duties and functions identical with, or similar to, each other and that the continuation of disparity is irrational and unjust."
4.5 Further, in State of Haryana and Ors. vs Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (10.07.2002 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0576/2002, the Apex Court held that pay fixation is 13 OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 primarily an executive function and should not be interfered with unless the decision is patently irrational.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings/judgments placed on record.
6. The claim of the applicants is that there was historical parity in the pay scales of Stenographers/Private Secretaries in Income Tax Department vis-à-vis CSSS and other departments upto the 3rd Central Pay Commission, however, subsequent to the 4th Central Pay Commission, the latter were granted higher pay scales which were further revised/upgraded in subsequent Pay Commissions.
7. From a careful perusal of the record, it is explicitly clear that at the time of 4th Pay Commission, higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- was granted to Stenographer Gr.II/PA of CSSS/CSS cadre by the Government vide order dated 31.07.1990, which was subsequently upgraded to Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 15.09.2006 specific to Assistants and Steno Grade 'C' of CSSS only, vide OM dated 25.09.2006.
8. It is noted that the Chapter 3.1 of the 6th CPC recommendation dealt very comprehensively the issues brought before it on the subject of disparity between Secretariat and Field Offices. The role and responsibilities of the Secretariat and Field Officers have been identified to be different. Parity of certain posts, disparity in other posts, anomaly in pay scale have been analysed in Para 3.1.7 and the 6th CPC has given its recommendations in Para 3.1.8 to 3.1.15. In 14 OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 Para 3.1.3 which dealt with the disparity between the Secretariat and field offices has canvassed a case for parity between similarly placed persons employed in field offices and the Secretariat; in view of the field offices being at the cutting edge of administration. However, it was concluded that parity would need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant and beyond that it may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different taking in view the functional considerations and relativities across the board. Thus, the 6th CPC in its recommendations had made a very clear distinction between pay scale of staff working outside the Secretariat and those of CSS/CSSS and clearly recognising the distinction between the Secretariat office on one side and Attached and Subordinate Offices on the other, the benefit of upgraded pay scale has been granted to personnel of CSS/CSSS w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide OM dated 16.11.2009 and this dispensation was only extended to staff working in CSS/CSSS, AFHQS, IFS(B) & RBSS.
9. Thus, the disparity in pay structure started in the 4th CPC continued in the following CPCs also, even though the nomenclature of the posts held by the non-Secretariat employees and those in CSSS/CSS may be the same or even though the nature of duties and responsibilities be the same or similar, as claimed by the applicants. 15 OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5 The fact, however, remains that the applicants do not fall under the Secretariat/Headquarter services.
10. We have also examined all the case laws as cited by the learned counsel for the applicants as well as the respondents, in detail. Although we are not discussing the salient points and ratio emerging out of each of those cases here, but we find that in none of those cases it has been clearly held that this Tribunal would be bound to provide relief only by a claim of historical parity, when an expert body like the Pay Commission has had an occasion to examine threadbare in detail the claims and contentions of the Non- Secretariat staff, has arrived at conclusions and made its recommendations, which were accepted by the Government.
11. It is trite law that pay fixation is a complex matter, the best authority to analyse and fix the pay is the Pay Commission. Further, it is legally well settled that even if the persons doing the same work having the same nomenclature like PSs, ASOs, Stenographers and Assistants; the pay parity need not be admissible as their recruitment, educational qualification, experience, promotion prospects, responsibilities, reliability and confidentiality matters which they may be handling would be different from other groups. These are sufficient reasons to maintain pay disparity between two groups even with same designation.
16OA No. 1705/2022 Item No.29/C-5
12. Furthermore, in Civil Appeal Nos. 913-14 of 2021 titled as Union of India & Ors. vs Manoj Kumar & Ors., while dealing with the issue of disparity in pay scales between Secretariat and field offices, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has opined as under:
"18. Para 3.1.3 which dealt with the disparity between the Secretariat and field offices has canvassed a case for parity between similarly placed persons employed in field offices and the Secretariat; in view of the field offices being at the cutting edge of administration. However, it came to the conclusion that parity would need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant. It was clearly stipulated that beyond that "it may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different taking in view the functional considerations and relativities across the board." If this principle is observed, the benefit cannot accrue to the respondents and we cannot accept the plea that as a result of parity being given up to the level of Assistant (which would put them in the grade of Rs.4200 (later Rs.4600)), the respondents, being one post higher, would automatically have to get one higher grade.
19. We are fortified in the view we are seeking to adopt in interpreting the aforesaid paragraphs of the Pay Commission by the observations in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, 7 where it was opined that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. While dealing with the 5th Pay Commission recommendations with respect to functional requirements, it was held that there was no question of any equivalence on that basis. The said case dealt with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. While observing that as a general statement it was correct to state that the basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given.
20. In the end we would like to reiterate that the aspect of disparity between the Secretariat and the field offices was a matter taken note of by the Commission itself while making the recommendations. Yet to some extent, a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizations and non-Secretariat Organizations. Once these recommendations are separately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make the separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations otiose. If one may say, there would have been no requirement to make these separate recommendations if everyone was to be treated on parity on every aspect."17 OA No. 1705/2022
Item No.29/C-5
13. The applicants have been granted the pay scales as per the recommendations of the CPC, notified by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India. However, the claim of the applicants was forwarded to the Department of Expenditure for clarification, however, the same was rejected. Thus, we find no illegality in the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the respondents.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the prayer made in the O.A. cannot be allowed and, therefore, we dismiss this O.A. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Anand S. Khati) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/jyoti/