Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rahul Kumar vs Health And Family Welfare on 3 February, 2026
1
Item No.69(C-V)
O.A. No.3141/2024
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.3141/2024
MA No.2880/2024
This, the 3rd day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Rahul Kumar
Age 36 years,
S/o Satya Prakash
R/o 45, Street No. 3,
Radhey Puri Extn-2,
Krishna Nagar,
East Delhi-51.
2. Hitesh Arora
Age 39 years
S/o Sh. Suresh Arora
R/o D-719, Gali No.-13,
Near Durga Mandir,
Ashok Ngar, Nand Nagri,
N.E. Delhi-93
3. Sanjay Kumar
Age 43 years
S/o Bangali Prasad,
R/o A-149, Gali No-4,
Mahaveer Enclave, Part-2,
Dwarka Park,
Uttam Nagar, Dwarka,
West Delhi-59
4. Harkesh Tewari
Age 37 years
S/o Sh. Krishan Tiwari
R/o D-75, 6, Dayalpur,
Near 33 Feeta Road,
Karawal Nagar, North East
Digitally signed by
Delhi-110094.
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
2
Item No.69(C-V)
O.A. No.3141/2024
5. Preeti Kumari
Age 33 yeas
W/o Rahul
R/o C-302, Albert Square,
Gole Market,
New Delhi
...Applicants
(By Advocate : Shri Sachin Chauhan)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry Of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi .
2. Director General Of Health Service,
Ministry of Health And Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3.Director and Medical Superintendent,
Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital,
Atal Bihari Vajpayee Institute of Medical Sciences &
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital
Central Government Hospital
Baba Kharak Singh Marg,
Near Gurudwara Bangla Sahib,
Connaught Place, New DelhI-110001.
...Respondents
(By Advocate : Ms. Gauraan)
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR
3
Item No.69(C-V)
O.A. No.3141/2024
O R D E R (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :- MA No.2880/2024
This Application has been filed by the applicants seeking permission of this Tribunal to join together in a single OA.
2. For the reasons mentioned therein, the MA is allowed.
OA No.3141/2024
3. The applicants are working as Operation Theatre Assistants in the RML Hospital under the supervision of Director General of Central Health Services, Headquarter, New Delhi. A circular of resolution and notification dated 30.10.1997 was issued relating to recommendations of 5th Central Pay Commission regarding implementation, however, the respondents did not implement the revised Pay Scale (as per Revised Pay Rule 1997) in case of. O.T. Assistants. The 6th Central Pay Commission had recommended pay revision of scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 in the PB-1 + Grade Pay Rs.2400. Learned counsel for the RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR applicants submitted that some of the employees of different hospitals under the Government approached 4 Item No.69(C-V) O.A. No.3141/2024 the Tribunal seeking benefit of the resolution dated 30.10.1997. The Tribunal vide order dated 19.04.2016 passed in OA No. 2995/2014 with OA No.2996/2014 titled Dharambir Singh Ranga Vs. ESIC, allowed the OA following the order of the Tribunal in OA No.3227/2011 decided on 19.12.2013. The operative portion of the said judgment reads as under:-
"8. Since the applicants who are working as O.T. Assistants/CSSD/CSR Assistants are identically placed like the Plaster Assistants and Laboratory Assistants of the respondent-ESIC, and for parity of reasons, we reject the contentions of the respondents and accordingly, allow the OA. The respondents are directed to implement the scale notified vide Resolution dated 30.09.1997, i.e., by granting the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the applicants. However, they are entitled for arrears with effect from the date of filing of the OA, without any interest thereon. This exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. This order is subject to the result of the Writ Petition filed, by the respondents -against the orders of this Tribunal dated 13.01.2004 in OA No.1464/2003-Ashok Kumar & Others v. Union of India and also the Writ Petition No.18/2015,fled against the orders dated 19.12.2013 in OA No.3227/2011 (Brham Pal & Others v. Union of India). No costs."
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the aforesaid relief was granted by the Tribunal Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR subject to the Writ Petition number 18/2015 which 5 Item No.69(C-V) O.A. No.3141/2024 was filed against the order dated 19.12.2013 in OA No. 3227/2011 titled Braham Pal and others Versus Union of India.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants further submitted that the similarly placed OT Assistants working in the Ram Manohar Lohia hospital approached the Tribunal by way of OA No.3963/2016 titled Satbir Singh Vs. UOI decided on 29.09.2022 and OA No.3903/2016 titled Nirmala Devi Vs. UOI decided on 19.01.2023, seeking the benefit of resolution dated 30.09.1997 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and further the same pay scale being replaced as 5200- 2000 as per 6th Pay commission along with consequential benefits. Thereafter, the Writ Petition No.3497/2024 filed by the respondents against the order of this Tribunal dated 19.01.2023 in OA No.3903/2016 before the Hon'ble High Court was also disposed of with the following directions :-
"In the light of the aforesaid specific directions issued by the learned Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. We, therefore, dispose of the present writ petition by making it clear that the respondents would remain bound by the orders passed in W.P. C 18/2015 and the amount in terms of the RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by impugned order will be released in their favour subject to their filing undertakings RACHNA KAPOOR before the learned Tribunal within two 6 Item No.69(C-V) O.A. No.3141/2024 weeks from today to remain bound by the order passed in W. P. © 18/2015."
6. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that despite the fact that the orders of the Tribunal in respect of the pay scale of OT Assistants qua the same respondents are jus in rem, the respondents in gross violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution came out with an order dated 30.04.2024, restricting the relief to the applicants who had filed the OA before the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief(s) :-
"8.1 That to set aside the order dated 30th of April 2024 to an extent that the benefit of the judgement of Hon'ble Tribunal OA No. 3903 of 2016 title Nirmala Devi and others versus union of India, OA No. 2195 0f 2014 title Dharam Veer Singh Ranga and others vs union of India, is being restricted to the applicants in the same OA only and not being extended to similarly placed OT assistant working on regular basis in RML hospital like applicants despite the fact that the judgement in relation to the pay scale of OT assistants in above cases is jus in Rem.
8.2 To set aside the orders dated 04/07/2024 passed on the representation of the applicants with different serial numbers as despite the fact the judgement RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by of the Hon'ble Tribunal in respect of the pay RACHNA KAPOOR scale of the OT assistants regarding 7 Item No.69(C-V) O.A. No.3141/2024 upgradation of pay scale to rupees 4000 to 6000, w.e.f 01.01.1996, grade pay of 2400 as per 6th CPC and consequential pay scale in 7th pay commission is just in Rem but still the same is being denied as the applicants was not the party in the aforesaid OA.
8.3 To direct the respondent extend the benefits of 5th Pay Commissions revised report of 30.09.1997 to the applicants & grant the pay scale of Rupees 4000-100- 6000 w.e.f 01.01.1996 along with all consequential benefits, Same pay scale has been replaced in Rs.5200-20200/- Grade pay Rs.2400/- as per 6th C.P.C and the corresponding pay scale in the seventh pay commission and to further direct the respondent to pay interest on the arrears of pay till the date of payment.
Or/and Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant."
7. The learned counsel for the applicants contended that the act of the respondents in not granting relief to the applicants on the ground that the order/judgement passed by the Tribunal and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court is restricted to the employees who approached the Tribunal, is wrong, illegal, arbitrary and in violation of fundamental rights RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR of the applicants. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicants relied upon the 8 Item No.69(C-V) O.A. No.3141/2024 judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Amrit Lal Berry Vs. Collector of Central Excise New Delhi & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 714, Inderpal Yadav Vs. UOI 248 SLR 1985(2) and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors.
8. Learned counsel for applicants further relied upon the following judgments :-
(i) Randhir Singh Vs.Union of India AIR 1982 SC 879.
(ii) Ramachandra Iyer P.K. Vs. Union of India AIR 1984 SC 541.
(iii) Union of India Vs. P. Jagdish 1997 (3) SCC 176.
(iv) K.C. Sharma & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
1998 (1) SLJ SC 54.
9. On issuance of notice, the respondents appeared through their counsel and filed counter affidavit opposing the OA. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the representation submitted by the applicant has been considered by the competent authority who found that the request of the applicants cannot be acceded to as the relief Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR has been granted to the employees who were party in RACHNA KAPOOR 9 Item No.69(C-V) O.A. No.3141/2024 the OA No.3903/2016 and similar associated OAs filed before the Tribunal.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the relied upon judgments.
11. It is not in dispute that the applicants are similarly placed to the applicants in the OA No.3903/2016 and associated OAs. It is further not in dispute that the relief has been granted in the aforesaid OA(s) by the competent authority amongst the respondents and the issue has attained finality. The only impediment in non-grant of benefit to the applicants is that they were not party to the aforesaid OA(s).
12. It is a well settled law that once the judgment of any judicial forum in respect of similarly placed employees claiming the similar relief has been complied with, the same benefit has to be extended to all the similarly placed employees irrespective of the fact that they were part of the litigation or not. RACHNA KAPOOR Digitally signed by RACHNA KAPOOR
13. In the result, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Original Application deserves to be 10 Item No.69(C-V) O.A. No.3141/2024 allowed. The action of the respondents in denying the upgraded pay scale to the applicants on the recommendations of the respective Pay Commissions, despite the same having been granted to similarly situated OT Assistants pursuant to the judgment in OA No. 3903/2016 and associated OAs, is held to be illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the OA is allowed with the following directions :-
(i) The orders dated 30.04.2024 & 04.07.2024, passed by the respondents is quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the upgraded pay scale to the applicants on the recommendations of the respective Pay Commissions, at par with the beneficiaries of OA No. 3903/2016 and OA No.2995/2014, from the same date as granted to the said employees.
(iii) The applicants shall also be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing therefrom, including fixation of pay, revision of allowances, and arrears.Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR RACHNA KAPOOR 11 Item No.69(C-V) O.A. No.3141/2024
(iv) The exercise as ordained above, shall be completed within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order.
(v) It is further clarified that the benefit granted under this order shall not be confined only to the applicants herein, and the respondents are expected to extend the same to all other similarly situated OT Assistants, in accordance with law, without compelling them to approach the Tribunal.
15. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'rk'
Digitally signed by
RACHNA KAPOOR
RACHNA KAPOOR