Gujarat High Court
Director(Hr) vs General Secretary on 24 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/15706/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15706 of 2017
================================================================
DIRECTOR(HR) & ANR.
Versus
GENERAL SECRETARY & ANR.
================================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
MR MS RAO FOR HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE
Date : 24/03/2026
ORAL ORDER
1. The present writ petition impugns the award dated 20.04.2017 passed in Reference (CGITA) No.49/2012.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the respondent no.1 is a recognized Union. That the technical employees of Kakrapar Atomic Power Station (hereinafter "the KAPS" for the sake of brevity and convenience) have been denied the revised grade pay, which has been given to the non-technical, non-executive staff, who are in the same pre-revised pay-scale upon the implementation of 6 th Central Pay Commission. The grievance of the respondent no.1- Union is that earlier the grade pay of the non-technical staff as well as technical staff was the same, however upon implementation of 6 th Pay Commission, a disparity has occurred as below:-
Pre-revised Designation/Grade Upgraded 6th CPC Grade Pay 5th CPC by NPCIL scale Technical Non Technical For Technical For Non Employees like employees like employees Technical employees Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:42:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15706/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026 undefined 5000-150- SA/A, DM/A Steno Gr-2, 4200 4200 8000 And Tech/E Assistant Gr-2 ASO-Gr-1 5500-175- SA/B, AFM, ASO Gr-3, PA, 4200 4600 9000 DM/B Tech/F AG-3 6500-200- SA/C, FM/A, ASO Gr-3, PS, 4600 4800 10500 DM/C Tech/G Sr.AG-1
3. Aggrieved, the respondent herein raised the dispute before the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, who by reference adjudication Order No.L-42011/143/2011-IR(DU) dated 15.02.2012 referred the dispute for adjudication to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad (hereinafter 'the CGIT, Ahmedabad' for the sake of brevity and convenience) to decide the reference on '1. Whether the demand of the union to eradicate the anomaly between the Non-Technical Staff and Technical Staff of NPCIL which is caused due to the recommendations of 6th Central Pay Commission is legal, proper and just? 2. What relief the technical staff is entitled to?' Accordingly, the said dispute came to be numbered as Reference No.49/2012 at CGIT, Ahmedabad. In the reference proceedings, the parties have placed documentary evidence on record. The parties to the reference chose not to lead any oral evidence. The learned CGIT, Ahmedabad by the impugned order has allowed the reference in favour of the respondent-Union on the following reasoning:-
"19.In the present case as discussed above, the technical staff has been deprived the higher grade pay vis-à-vis non-technical staff. My general knowledge of science says that the technical staff put always Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:42:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15706/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026 undefined more labour and subject to more risk in their employment. In the present case, the body of these technical staff are subject to serious nuclear radiations causing their life short even then the NPCIL feels the technical staff inferior to the non-technical is disastrous and the approach of the committee, if any, constituted by the NPCIL is laughable. Therefore, the granting of lesser grade pay to the technical staff is arbitrary and discriminatory and same cannot be justified.
20. As the apex court in Union of India V/s P.V. Hariharan 1997 (0) GLHEL-SC 33097 wherein the Supreme Court has observed that unless a clear case of hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no justification for interfering with the fixation of pay scales. We have come across orders passed by Single Members and that too quite often Administrative Members, allowing such claims. Therefore, in the present case, the committee of the NPCIL in their letter Annexure A and B to the written statement has not given any reasons as to why non-technical staff has been given preference in granting more grade pay vis-à-vis technical staff and as to why and what were the reasons to deprive the technical staff to give the equal grade pay vis-à-vis non- technical staff. Therefore, the action of NPCIL cannot be said equitable, just and reasoned. The action of NPCIL or the committed constituted by it is arbitrary and discriminatory. Thus the demand of the second party union is legal, proper and just with respect to the Issue No.i"
4. While adjudicating the reference, the learned Tribunal has recorded the submissions advanced by both the parties in detail. However, in the impugned order, no adjudication has been done by the learned Tribunal. No findings have been rendered in respect of the issues to be adjudicated and further, the reasons as enumerated above, which have been given by the learned Tribunal, in the Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:42:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15706/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026 undefined considered opinion of this Court are irrelevant considerations for allowing the reference. Since no other reasons has been given by the learned Tribunal other than that those enumerated hereinabove, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is a fit case to be remanded back to the learned CGIT, Ahmedabad for fresh adjudication on merits. Accordingly, the impugned award dated 20.04.2017 is quashed and set aside. The Reference (CGIT) No.49/2012 is restored to the file of the CGIT cum Labour Court, Ahmedabad. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the reference afresh after giving due hearing to both the parties.
5. Learned counsel Mr. M.S.Rao appearing for the respondent- Union submits that in the earlier proceedings, the Union had chosen not to lead any oral evidence. He, however, submits that pursuant to the remand, the Union may be permitted to lead oral evidence as well in support of their case. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not object to the same. By consent, both the learned counsels agree that the reference may be adjudicated afresh permitting the parties to lead both the documentary as well as oral evidence.
6. In view of the aforesaid submission, the learned Tribunal is directed to permit the parties to lead fresh documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their contentions. The parties shall be at liberty to raise additional contentions in law. The learned Tribunal shall deal with all the contentions/submissions raised by the parties and pass a reasoned order adjudicating the same.
Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:42:44 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/15706/2017 ORDER DATED: 24/03/2026 undefined
7. Since the reference is of the year 2012, learned Tribunal is directed to decide the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Learned counsels for the parties agree to cooperate with expeditious disposal of the reference. The learned Tribunal shall fix a strict timeline for leading of evidence. The learned counsels for the parties undertake to adhere to the schedule so fixed by the learned Tribunal without seeking any unnecessary adjournments. Learned counsels undertake to lead oral evidence and complete their final arguments within a period of four months from the date of commencement of hearing by the learned Tribunal.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the present petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case and no opinion is expressed thereon. All the contentions raised by the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
(ANIRUDDHA P. MAYEE, J.) ABHISHEK/152 Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by ABHISHEK(HC01389) on Fri Mar 27 2026 Downloaded on : Fri Mar 27 23:42:44 IST 2026