Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Girisha D C vs 515 Army Base Work Shop on 22 August, 2025
1
OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/00143/2023
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
CORAM:
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Girisha D.C.
S/o late D.V. Chikkanna
Aged about 45 years
Working as Turner (now Machinist)
Token No. 3181
CVD Branch
515 Army Base Workshop
Ulsoor, Bangalore560 008 .... Applicant
(By Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar, Advocate)
Vs.
1. Union of India
represented by Secretary to Government
Ministry of Defence
Army Headquarters
DHQ PO, New Delhi 110 011
2. The Director General of EME
Integrated HQ of MOD (Army)
Ministry of Defence
DHQ PO, New Delhi 110 011
3. The Commander
HQ BWG
Meerut
kavya shree
k
CAT,
kavya shree
Bangalore
k
2025.09.03
17:07:36
+05'30'
2
OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
4. Commander & Managing Director
515 Army Base Workshop
Ulsoor, Bangalore 560 008 ... Respondents
(By Shri K. Gajendra Vasu, Senior Panel Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"(a) Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal
(b) Quash and set aside the Speaking Order No. 21301/515/113/Est dated 8.4.2022 (Annexure:A14) passed by the third respondent.
(c) Issue a consequential direction to the respondents to extend the scale of pay/technical pay to the applicant as granted to the Group X Technicians from the date of his being posted to work along with such Technicians till his transfer out of Aviation Branch.
(d) Issue a further direction to the respondents to draw and disburse the arrears of pay and allowances without any further loss of time
(e) Grant such other relief/s as deemed fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this application in the interests of justice."
2. Briefly stated the facts as narrated by the applicant are that he joined service in 515 Army Base Workshop, Bengaluru as Turner kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 3 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE on 04.03.2003. At the time of his initial recruitment, his initial pay was Rs. 3050 which came to be equated with scale of pay of Rs. 5200-20200 plus Grade Pay of Rs. 1900 in VIth CPC. Upon grant of 1st MACP, the applicant is drawing grade pay of Rs. 2000 presently and in VIIth Pay Commission scale, he is in level 3. While working as Mechanist (Turner) in the year 2012, he was sent on temporary duty to Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), Engine Division, Bengaluru. He successfully completed his training for the period from 25.07.2012 to 20.05.2013. Thereafter, the applicant underwent training programme for different periods at HAL. The applicant contends that he has been continuously working in the repairs/overhaul of Chetak/Cheetah helicopters before, during and after the several training programmes that he has attended. In the process of working of repairs/overhaul of Chetak/Cheetah helicopters - involved as Aviation Technician Aero Engine Servicing, some hazardous chemicals are used viz., Trichloroethylene and Aero Turbo Fuels/AFT kerosene. Continuous exposure to these chemicals causes kidney cancer, liver cancer and dermatitis (skin disease) etc. The applicant has been exposed to such atmosphere for the last more than eight years. kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 4 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
3. It is the grievance of the applicant that the Group 'X' Aviation Trade Technicians are working in Army Aviation in Corps of EME (Electronics and Mechanical Engineers) with the scale of pay in the 7th CPC dispensation in level 5, whereas the applicant, who is discharging identical duties as that of the employees belonging to the Group 'X' Aviation, is drawing his pay in level 3. In the circumstances, the applicant submitted a representation dated 01.06.2020 addressed to the 4th respondent seeking for equal pay for equal work, the same was forwarded to the 3rd respondent but was of no avail. Hence, the applicant was constrained to approach this Tribunal in OA No. 32/2022 which came to be disposed of with a direction to the Commander, HQ BWG, Meerut to decide the applicant's pending representation dated 01.06.2020 and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant, pursuant to which, the impugned speaking order has been passed rejecting the representation. Hence, this OA.
4. Learned counsel Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicant submitted that the Regional Directorate of Aeronautical Quality Assurance/Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 5 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE Assurance (RDAQA/DGAQA) has granted the applicant, authority to sign and stamp in respect of his overhauled Rotables of Artouste Engine which are all quality assurance documents. After undergoing training in Quality Assurance Course, the duties of the applicant is, in fact, far superior to Group 'X' Technicians. Ordinarily, in Army Aviation Corps of EME, no civilian is allowed to work but because of the extensive training received by the applicant, he is permitted to work there. In order to service the 3rd and 4th line engines, extensive use of Trichloroethylene is required which is carcinogenic to humans by all routes of exposure and poses a potential human health hazard. The applicant having continuously worked in repair/overhaul of the Cheetah/Chetak helicopter engine from 2012-2013 till his transfer in March, 2023, he should have extended the payscale on par with Group 'X' Technician payscale. The impugned speaking order is contrary to the well-settled legal principles of law on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Hence, calls for interference of this Tribunal.
5. Learned counsel Shri K. Gajendra Vasu representing the respondents, referring to the detailed reply statement and additional reply statement filed on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 6 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE nature of duty performed by Group 'X' Combatant Aviation Technicians (Soldiers) of Corps of EME (Electronic and Mechanical Engineers) in Army Aviation units of Indian Army is totally different from what the applicant is performing and cannot be compared vis- à-vis Defence Civilian Technician. They are performing duties of 1st and 2nd line activities in complete system of the helicopter, however, the applicant is trained in only one Rotable of Artouste III B Engine of Cheetah/Chetak helicopter i.e., Torch Ignitor Rotable and is partially trained in mechanical portion of Electrical Fuel Cork (EFC). He has performed overhaul/repair of only Torch Ignitor in Aviation Division. An aero engine has approximately more than 30-40 Rotables fitted on it. Moreover, it is a skill based job and can be learned by any skilled technician with adequate training. Trichloroethylene is one of the consumables (cleaning agent) used to clean the spare parts of Torch Ignitor after disassembly. Personal protective equipments in the form of hand gloves, face masks and goggles are being provided for ensuring safety precaution. The defence civilian technicians were selected for working in aviation division based on their age bracket and performance, which would be the criterion in any government/private organization. The duties of Combatant Aviation Technician (Soldiers) of Corps of EME kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 7 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE cannot be equated to the duties of defence civilian Technician as the former is performing technical duties in support of operational commitments and is employed 24x7 as per operational requirements. The pay benefits of a Combatant Aviation Technician cannot be equated to that of a defence civilian Technician due to different nature of duties being performed by both. The education qualification for recruitment of two different category of employees cannot be equated, as the duties performed by both are different. The applicant has not obtained any diploma certificate. The Quality Assurance Services course underwent by Technician is a quality assurance course for which the applicant was never employed. The authorization and stamp is a normal procedure provided to Technician in aviation for documentation purpose. Moreover, his task is supervised by a Quality Inspector at each and every stage. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Anr. reported in (2023) 19 SCC 482, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the OA. kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 8 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE
6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material on record.
7. Factual aspects are not in dispute. The fulcrum of dispute involved herein revolves around the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground that the applicant was performing the duties on par with Group 'X' Technicians of Indian Army Aviation, after undergoing training from HAL for overhaul and repair of Rotables of Cheetah and Chetak helicopter Artouste engine.
8. Before proceeding further, it is apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Charanjit Singh and Ors. reported in 2006 (9) SCC 321, wherein the doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been extensively analysed. The relevant paragraph is quoted hereunder for ready reference:
"19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh [(1996) 11 SCC 77 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 210 : AIR 1997 SC 1788 : (1997) 2 LLJ 667] , Tilak Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828] , Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology [(2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645 : (2003) 2 LLJ 968] and Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 225] lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 9 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work"
has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by the competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work (emphasis supplied) kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 10 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event, the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court, the court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court is, on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors."
9. In Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions and Anr. vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao reported in (2015) 3 SCC 653, the Hon'ble Apex Court, reiterating the aforesaid legal position, observed thus:
"26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. There may be more grades than one in a particular service."
10. Referring to the aforesaid citations, in Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:
"15. In view of the aforestated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine "equal pay for equal work" is not an kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 11 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc.
16. It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts.
17. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.
18. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not disputed that the Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as per the SRO 367 dated 08.12.1996, as amended by SRO 246 dated 21.11.2002, whereas the Recruitment Rules governing the CTOs (Design) are as per the SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982. The probation period in case of CTOs is longer than that of JDOs. The duties and responsibilities of both the posts are different and kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 12 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE the promotional avenues also have different duration and different criteria. There was not a single error, much less grave error pointed out by learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Khurshid, in the fixation of the pay scales for the JDOs and CTOs, which would have justified the interference of the Tribunal.
19. Much emphasis was placed by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Khurshid on the noting made by the Officer of the Naval Department in the file recommending pay scale of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, however, it may be noted that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer, and by no stretch of imagination such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government. [Shanti Sports Club vs. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705)].
20. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.
21. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal and the High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs."
11. In view of the aforestated legal position, it is clear that ordinarily the courts should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commission which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 13 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE powers conferred upon the person holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc.
12. Indisputably, the applicant being SSLC & ITI (Turner) certificate holder, was appointed in the 515 Army Base Workshop in the year 2003 as Turner - a Group C, Non-Gazetted industrial category post, governed by Recruitment Rules of Industrial Employees published vide Gazette of India Statutory Rules and Orders No. 54 dated 21.08.2014. The applicant is governed by Central Civil Service Rules. Group 'X' Combatant Aviation Technicians are governed by Military Law and are trained in whole engine. Group 'X' pay is entitled to Junior Commissioned Officers/other ranks of Armed Forces after obtaining qualification equivalent to a diploma recognized by All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE). The recruitment and essential qualifications for both the jobs are different. The duties and responsibilities of both the posts are different and the promotional avenues also have different duration. Admittedly, the applicant is not a diploma holder. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Charanjit Singh, supra, that the person has not gone for the process kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 14 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. It cannot be judged by mere volume of work/function.
13. Doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied mechanically when the functions and responsibilities of two categories are distinct and different. No comparison could be established with Civilian Technicians and the Group 'X' Combatant Aviation Technicians (Soldiers). The duties can also not be compared with Technicians of HAL as HAL is Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), pay and benefits of PSU is totally different from other government departments. Similarly, use of Trichloroethylene cannot be a ground to equate the two posts. Ensuring of safety measures would be necessary and it is not the case of the applicant that such safety measures were not followed.
14. It is well-settled that even if an employee has an equivalent qualification to a different job, the same would not entitle him for the emoluments equivalent to the other job as recruitments are governed by the Service Rules. Service Rules being different, no parity can be claimed. Considering all these aspects, the impugned speaking order kavya shree k CAT, kavya shree Bangalore k 2025.09.03 17:07:36 +05'30' 15 OA.No.170/00143/2023/CAT/BANGALORE is issued. Hence, we find no exception with the reasoning of the respondents in rejecting the representation.
15. For the reasons stated hereinabove, OA lacks merit. Resultantly, OA stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/ksk/
kavya shree
k
CAT,
kavya shree
Bangalore
k
2025.09.03
17:07:36
+05'30'