Central Administrative Tribunal - Jammu
Rita Sehgal vs Finance Department on 27 March, 2026
:: 1 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU (RESERVED)
Hearing through video conferencing
Original Application No. 115/2024
Reserved on:- 28.01.2026
Pronounced on: - 27.03.2026
HON'BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. RAM MOHAN JOHRI, MEMBER (A)
1. Rita Sehgal, Age 54 years W/o Sh. Ajay Kumar Talwar R/o H.No.
40, Mohalla Naraina, Jammu
2. Rajiv Gupta, Age 53 years S/o Sh. Subash Gupta R/o H.No. 38,
Rehari Colony, Jammu.
3. Ajaz Ahmed Shah, Age 51 years, S/o Sh. Gulam Jeelani Shah R/o
Dangerpora, Narwara, Srinagar, at present Talab Tillo, Jammu
4. Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed, Age 53 years S/o Sheikh Ghulam Rasool
R/o Mira Masjid Khanyar, Srinagar, at present Janipur, Jammu
5. Tajinder Singh, Age 54 years S/o Late. Sh. Jagat Singh R/o H. No.
572, Agricultural Workshop, Talab Tillo, Jammu
6. Ritu Sharma, Age 52 years D/o Sh. Nobat Ram Sharma R/o H.No.
53 Greater Kailash Colony, Jammu
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 2 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
7. Ab. Rashid Wani, Age 55 years S/o Ali Mohd Wani, R/o Vill.
Patushai, Tehsil Bandipora, District Baramulla, Kashmir, at
present Ustad Mohalla, Jammu
8. Sushma Dulloo, Age 53 years D/o Sh. S.N Dulloo R/o H.No. 33,
Sec. 3 J.D.A Housing Colony Roop Nagar, Jammu
9. Narinder Bali, Age 50 years S/o Sh. Madan Mohan Bali R/o Plot
No. 1, Bakshi Nagar, Jammu
10.Rakesh Kumar Peer, Age 55 years S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Peer R/o
Vicharnag, Soura, Srinagar at present Manorama Vihar, Patta
Bohri Chungi, Jammu
11.Mir Showket Ahmed Inayati, Age 50 years S/o Mohd Amin
Inayati R/o Dukani Sangeen, Feteh Kadal, Srinagar at present Lane
No. 2, Behind DPS Sunjwan, Jammu
12.Anju Tabasum, Age 50 years D/o Raja Nazir Ahmed R/o Iqbal
Colony, Batmaloo, Srinagar at present Subash Nagar, Govt.
Quarter, Jammu
13.Rohail Ahmed Banday, Age 50 years S/o Bashir Ahmed Bandey
R/o Zakoora, Tehsil Ganderbal, Distt. Srinagar at present Sidhra,
Jammu
14.Monika Gupta, Age 49 years D/o Sh. Ved Parkash Gupta R/o
H.No. 10A, Agarwal Lane, Street 2, Shakti Nagar, Jammu
15.Syed Shamim Hamid, Age 50 years S/o Syed Abdul Hamid R/o
Lal Bazar, Srinagar at present Mohalla Dalpatian, Jammu
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 3 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
16.Iftikhar Ahmed Siddiqui, Age 50 years S/o Fiaz Ahmed Siddiqui
R/o Lal Bazar, Srinagar at present Nagrota, Jammu
17.Fayaz Ahmed Sajud, Age 50 S/o Gh. Mohd R/o Chinkral Mohalla,
Habba Kadal, Srinagar at present Gujjar Colony, Channi Himmat,
Jammu
18.Rayaz Ahmed Mantoo, Age 56 years S/o Wali Mohd Mantoo R/o
Waltangoo, Tehsil Kulgam District Anantnag, Srinagar at present
Ragoda Sidhra, Jammu
19.Intikhab Alam, Age 52 years S/o Abdul Rehman Mir R/o Ludha,
Tehsil & District Doda
20.Manorajan Bhat, Age 53 years S/o Late Sh. Amar Nath Bhat R/o
Kandiwara, Tehsil & District Anantnag at present Sec. 3, Baisabhi
Colony, Jammu
21.Balwant Raj, Age 50 years S/o Sh. Karam Chand R/o Badwal, P.O
Gurha Salathian, Tehsil Vijaypur & District Samba
22.Prem Paul, Age 53 years S/o Sh. Bishamber Nath R/o Hamirpur,
Tehsil Hiranagar Distt. Kathua
23.Renu Bala Samyal, Age 53 years D/o Sh. Ram Saran Samyal R/o
Bahu Fort, Jammu
24.Rung Zaib, Age 55 years S/o Sh. Din Mohd R/o Kasblari, Tehsil
Mendhar, Distt. Poonch
25.Parshotam Singh, Age 52 years S/o Sh. Teju Ram R/o Narayan,
Tehsil Akhnoor, Distt. Jammu
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 4 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
26.Uttam Singh, Age 55 years S/o Sh. Kushal Singh R/o Nai Basti
(Pangali), Tehsil Akhnoor, Distt. Jammu.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: - Mr. Siddhant Gupta)
VERSUS
1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir Through
Commissioner/Secretary, Finance Department, Civil Secretariat,
Jammu (180001)
2. Director Finance, Government of Jammu and Kashmir Civil
Secretariat, Jammu (180001)
...Respondents.
(By Advocate: - Mr. Rajesh Thappa, ld. AAG)
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 5 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
ORDER
Per: - Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -
a) Allow the present application;
b) Quash order dated 26.12.2023 bearing Government order no.
255-f of 2023 issued by respondent no. 1 department in contradistinction to the existing legal as well as factual positions governing the field;
c) Command and direct the respondents to remove the pay anomaly of the applicants and to fix and release the pay scale in the post of Data Entry Operator which the applicants are entitled to in para materia with the counterparts who are working and serving in different departments but having a higher grade pay;
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 6 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
d) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -
a) The applicants, numbering twenty-six, are serving government employees who were initially appointed as Data Entry Operators pursuant to Government Order No. 317-F dated 11.12.1998 in the then pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 (pre-
revised). After their appointment, they were posted in the Excise and State Taxes Department of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.
b) It is the case of the applicants that soon after their induction into service, they discovered that similarly situated employees appointed as Computer Operators/Data Entry Operators in other departments, particularly the Forest Department and later the Power Development Department, were placed in higher pay scales and grade pay, resulting in an anomalous situation whereby persons performing comparable duties and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 7 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 possessing similar or even lesser qualifications were receiving higher remuneration.
c) Aggrieved by the said disparity, the applicants along with other similarly placed persons approached the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir by filing SWP No. 1833/2002 titled B.K. Sudan & Ors. vs State of J&K & Ors., seeking removal of the pay anomaly and grant of appropriate grade pay on parity with their counterparts in other departments. The High Court, vide judgment dated 14.10.2010, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the applicants and take a decision regarding removal of the pay anomaly within twelve weeks.
d) The applicants submit that despite service of the said judgment upon the authorities through implementation notice, no effective action was taken. Consequently, they initiated contempt proceedings (CPSW No. 56/2012) before the High Court. During the pendency of contempt proceedings, the respondents repeatedly filed statements of facts and compliance HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 8 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 reports but allegedly failed to implement the judgment in its true spirit, shifting responsibility to the Information Technology Department, particularly after the creation of a unified IT cadre in the year 2016.
e) According to the applicants, it was only after the IT Department clarified before the High Court that the Finance Department remained the competent authority to address pay-related grievances, that the respondents eventually proceeded to examine the matter. However, after a prolonged delay of about eleven years, the respondents rejected the claim of the applicants by issuing Government Order No. 255-F of 2023 dated 26.12.2023.
f) The High Court thereafter disposed of the contempt petition on 27.12.2023, granting liberty to the applicants to avail appropriate remedy against the rejection order. It is in these circumstances that the applicants have approached the present Tribunal challenging the said order on the grounds of HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 9 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 arbitrariness, discrimination and violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
g) The applicants further contend that even recently, by Government Order dated 21.11.2023, pay anomaly of similarly situated Computer Operators in the Power Development Department was removed and they were granted notional and monetary benefits, whereas the applicants have been denied similar treatment, thereby creating an unreasonable classification among equals. They also submit that earlier representations and constitution of a Pay Anomaly Committee did not culminate in any relief.
h) It is further pleaded that the respondents have sought to justify denial of pay parity on vague grounds relating to recruitment method, hierarchy, qualifications and financial capacity of the employer, even though the applicants claim that they were recruited through the same process, possess equivalent or higher qualifications, and discharged onerous duties including HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 10 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 postings at sensitive check posts such as Lakhanpur, often beyond normal working hours.
i) The applicants also dispute the stand of the respondents that grant of in-situ promotion to certain applicants resolves the grievance, asserting that in-situ promotion is not a substitute for proper removal of pay anomaly or grant of functional promotional avenues. On these premises, they seek quashing of the impugned order and direction to grant appropriate pay scale and consequential benefits.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows: -
a) In their written statement, the respondents have raised preliminary objections asserting that no legal or constitutional right of the applicants has been infringed, and therefore the Original Application deserves dismissal. It is further contended that the applicants have not approached the Tribunal with clean hands and have suppressed material facts. The respondents also take the plea that the claim is barred by limitation.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 11 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
b) On merits, the respondents submit that the applicants were appointed pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 03 of 1997 issued by the J&K Services Selection Board, clearly stipulating the pay scale attached to the post of Data Entry Operator. Having participated in the selection process and accepted appointment with full knowledge of the pay scale, the applicants cannot now claim parity with employees in other departments.
c) The respondents further state that following recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Committee and Cabinet approval, the Government constituted a Unified J&K Information Technology Service in 2016 vide Government Order No. 1094-GAD of 2016 and notified the corresponding Recruitment Rules through SRO 343 and SRO 344 of 2016. The objective of this exercise was to bring IT-related posts across departments under a common cadre structure ensuring uniformity, transparency and structured promotional avenues.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 12 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
d) It is emphasised that under the Unified IT Service Rules, the
standard pay scale of a Data Entry Operator is lower than what the applicants were already drawing, as they had been granted Grade Pay of Rs. 2400, which corresponds to the higher-level post of Senior Data Entry Operator in the unified cadre. Therefore, according to the respondents, the applicants have in fact enjoyed an advantageous position since their initial appointment.
e) The respondents also contend that the High Court directions were duly complied with by convening a meeting on 01.12.2023 involving the Finance and IT Departments. After examining the matter in light of settled legal principles governing pay fixation, the Government concluded that the claim for further enhancement of pay scale was not justified under the IT Service Rules and would disturb the hierarchical structure of the cadre.
f) It is further stated that the Government has addressed the grievance of career stagnation by granting in-situ promotions HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 13 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 to most of the applicants, thereby enabling them to reach higher grade pay of Rs. 4200 based on seniority and service record. The respondents argue that granting additional pay parity would create widespread disparity across the unified IT cadre and trigger similar claims from other employees.
g) In support of their stand, the respondents rely upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers vs Union of India, State of U.P. vs J.P. Chaurasia, and Union of India vs Pradip Kumar Dey, to contend that determination of pay scales is a matter of executive policy involving evaluation of duties, responsibilities and hierarchical considerations, and courts should ordinarily refrain from interfering unless the classification is manifestly arbitrary.
h) The respondents therefore pray for dismissal of the Original Application, asserting that the impugned order is reasoned, lawful and in conformity with applicable rules and judicial precedents.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 14 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
5. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants seeking quashment of Government Order No. 255-F of 2023 dated 26.12.2023 whereby their claim for removal of pay anomaly came to be rejected, and for a direction to the respondents to grant them the same pay scale and corresponding grade benefits as were made available to their counterparts similarly recruited and appointed in other departments.
6. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in brief, are that the applicants were appointed as Data Entry Operators vide Government Order No. 317-F dated 11.12.1998 in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 (pre-revised) and were thereafter assigned to serve in the Excise and State Taxes Department. Their specific case is that they were selected through a common process and belonged to the same stream of recruitment as similarly situated Computer Operators/Data Entry Operators appointed in other departments, yet after appointment they were placed in a disadvantageous pay position, whereas their HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 15 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 counterparts in departments such as Forest Department and later Power Development Department came to enjoy higher scales and better grade progression. According to the applicants, the difference was not founded on any rational basis but was purely the result of departmental placement after a common recruitment exercise.
7. It is pleaded that on noticing such disparity, the applicants had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 1833/2002 titled B.K. Sudan & Ors. vs State of J&K & Ors. seeking redressal of the pay anomaly. The High Court, vide judgment dated 14.10.2010, disposed of the matter with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners and take an appropriate decision. Since the matter was not meaningfully resolved, contempt proceedings came to be initiated. During those proceedings, the respondents kept filing statements of facts and compliance reports, but instead of addressing the grievance on merits, the matter was shifted from one department to another. Eventually, Government Order No. 255-F of 2023 dated 26.12.2023 came to be issued rejecting the claim of the applicants. The contempt proceedings were thereafter closed HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 16 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 with liberty to avail appropriate remedy. It is in that background that the present Original Application has been filed.
8. The applicants challenge the impugned order principally on the ground that it ignores the real issue. Their case is not one of abstract pay parity with unrelated categories. Their case is that they and their counterparts were recruited through a common process, for analogous IT-related functions, and later distributed into different departments, but while one set of employees was granted better scales, the applicants alone continued to suffer an inferior pay structure. They contend that once the respondents themselves have removed the anomaly in favour of similarly situated employees in other departments, denial of the same treatment to the applicants amounts to hostile discrimination offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
9. Learned counsel for the applicants have also pointed out that the respondents themselves, in recent years, granted relief to similarly situated employees, especially under Government Order dated 21.11.2023 relating to the Power Development Department. Their HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 17 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 grievance is that the same yardstick has not been applied to them. They submit that this has resulted in creation of a class within a class, where employees borne of the same recruitment stream and performing equivalent work have been treated unequally merely because of departmental allocation.
10. The respondents have resisted the claim. On merits, the stand taken is that the applicants had knowingly applied for the post carrying a particular pay scale and, having accepted appointment, cannot now seek a higher scale. It is also stated that after constitution of the Unified J&K Information Technology Service in 2016 through Government Order No. 1094-GAD of 2016 and the corresponding Rules notified vide SRO 343 and 344 of 2016, a structured and uniform cadre has been created for IT-related posts. According to the respondents, under the unified cadre the post of Data Entry Operator carries a lower grade pay than what the applicants were already enjoying, and therefore the applicants cannot claim further elevation outside the Rules. It is also their case that many applicants have already been granted in-situ promotions and the grievance stands HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 18 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 substantially addressed. The respondents further rely upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that matters of pay fixation, equation of posts and service hierarchy are ordinarily within the executive domain and courts should be slow to interfere.
11. This Tribunal had earlier passed an order directing reconsideration in the light of Government Order dated 21.11.2023. However, that order was carried in challenge before the Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh in WP No. 2441/2025. The Hon'ble High Court set aside the earlier order of this Tribunal and remanded the matter back for fresh decision on merits. The High Court specifically observed that the controversy required a proper adjudication on the substantive question whether the present applicants were in fact similarly situated to their counterparts in other departments and whether they were entitled to the same treatment. Thus, the remit before this Tribunal now is not merely to direct reconsideration, but to decide the matter on merits after recording a clear finding on parity, discrimination and entitlement.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 19 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
12. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the respondents have attempted to portray the case as one where the applicants are seeking an altogether different and higher pay scale contrary to the recruitment rules. That, however, is not the true nature of the controversy. The foundation of the claim is not a vague plea of "equal pay for equal work" in the abstract. The foundation is that there was a common recruitment, a common source of appointment, and thereafter appointees were distributed into different departments, but were later subjected to different pay treatment. The respondents have not disputed that similarly situated personnel in other departments were granted higher scales or anomaly removal. Their effort is only to justify why the same cannot be extended to the applicants. In the opinion of this Tribunal, once the genesis of recruitment is common and the distinction in pay arises merely because the appointees came to serve in different departments, the burden lies heavily upon the State to justify such differential treatment on an intelligible and legally sustainable basis. That burden has not been discharged in the present case.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 20 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
13. The respondents have repeatedly stated that the pay structure depends upon several factors such as method of recruitment, hierarchy, qualifications, nature of duties, responsibilities and employer's capacity to pay. These are no doubt valid considerations in an appropriate case. But in the present matter, those factors remain more in the nature of general propositions than established differentiating circumstances. The applicants' specific plea is that they and their counterparts came through a common process and were part of the same class at the time of entry. If that is so, a subsequent differential in pay structure merely on the basis of departmental allocation becomes inherently suspect, unless it is shown by cogent material that the nature of duties, responsibilities, skill requirement or cadre design were materially different from the beginning. No such convincing material has been placed on record.
14. On the contrary, the material placed before the Tribunal indicates that the State itself has, from time to time, acknowledged such anomalies and corrected them in respect of other similarly situated employees. The applicants have specifically relied upon the benefit conferred HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 21 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 upon counterparts in the Power Development Department and have also placed reliance on a judgment (SWP No. 1047/2003 & MP No. 1063/2003, Sandeep kumar and ors. Vs State of J & K and anr.) concerning similarly situated Programmers in the Excise and Commercial Taxes Department where parity was granted on the ground that employees performing similar duties could not be denied equivalent treatment merely because they belonged to different departments. The relevance of that precedent lies not merely in the relief granted, but in the reasoning that where recruitment source, functional similarity and acknowledged anomaly exist, denial of parity becomes arbitrary.
15. The stand of the respondents that the applicants accepted appointment with full knowledge of the pay scale and are therefore estopped from claiming revision also deserves rejection. Acceptance of an appointment does not deprive an employee of the right to challenge a discriminatory pay structure later discovered in relation to similarly situated persons. If that argument were accepted, every unconstitutional inequality in service conditions would stand HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 22 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 immunized merely because an unemployed person accepted appointment. Service jurisprudence does not countenance such a proposition. An employee may accept appointment in a given scale and yet legitimately challenge subsequent or continuing discrimination when it is shown that equals have been treated unequally.
16. The plea based on the constitution of Unified J&K IT Service in 2016 also does not advance the respondents' case to the extent they expect. The creation of a unified cadre was intended to bring uniformity, structured progression and coherence in IT-related posts across departments. Since this is a later development, it cannot be a ground for its retrospective application. Moreover, uniform cadre will support that all similarly placed recruitments shall be treated equally. If anything, the coming into existence of a unified IT framework strengthens the claim of the applicants that IT-related employees similarly situated should not continue to suffer discriminatory departmental disparities. The respondents cannot use the principle of unification to deny uniform treatment. If the cadre has been unified HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 23 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 for purposes of service structure, transparency and progression, the same administrative policy cannot at the same time be invoked to perpetuate pre-existing irrational disparity among persons drawn from a common recruitment pool.
17. This Tribunal is therefore of the clear view that after the IT Department/cadre framework came into existence, common and uniform treatment ought to have been accorded to all similarly placed personnel drawn from the same recruitment stream and performing comparable IT functions. If some of them were granted a better scale or anomaly correction and others were left out without a rational basis, the resulting discrimination cannot be sustained.
18. The respondents have also argued that the applicants are already enjoying a higher-grade pay than the standard Data Entry Operator under the unified cadre and that some of them have received in-situ promotions. This submission misses the core issue. In-situ promotion is not a substitute for correction of a foundational pay anomaly. Nor can the State defend unequal initial treatment by pointing to later time-bound or stagnation-based progression. The grievance here is HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 24 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 that the applicants were denied the same pay treatment as their counterparts who originated from the same recruitment matrix. That issue survives independent of in-situ promotional benefits.
19. As regards the case law cited by the respondents, there can be no quarrel with the proposition that equation of posts and pay fixation ordinarily lies within the executive domain and that courts should be cautious in interfering. But those authorities apply where the comparison is between different cadres or where a clear basis for differentiation exists. They do not authorize the State to maintain unequal treatment within a class of employees traceable to a common recruitment process (advertisement and selection process) and performing comparable duties, especially when the State itself has corrected the anomaly for one segment and denied it to another without a convincing basis. Judicial restraint in pay matters is not the same as judicial surrender in the face of obvious discrimination.
20. The Hon'ble High Court, while remanding the matter, required this Tribunal to return a specific finding on merits. The material on record sufficiently establishes that the grievance is not fanciful, that the HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 25 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 anomaly is real, that similarly situated employees in other departments have been accorded better treatment, and that the respondents have failed to justify the continued exclusion of the applicants.
21. The impugned Government Order No. 255-F of 2023 dated 26.12.2023, therefore, cannot be sustained. It proceeds more on broad generalities than on a real examination of the applicants' case. It does not adequately deal with the central plea of common recruitment, departmental distribution, subsequent unequal pay treatment, and extension of similar benefit to counterparts in other departments. It is thus arbitrary and legally unsustainable.
22. It is an admitted position emerging from the record that the petitioners had initially approached the Hon'ble Court as early as in the year 2002 seeking removal of pay anomaly and grant of parity with similarly situated Computer Operators/Programmers working in other departments. The claim of the petitioners remained pending consideration for an inordinately long period and ultimately came to be rejected by the respondents after more than eleven years. Such delay is wholly attributable to the administrative authorities and HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 26 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 cannot be put against the petitioners. A litigant who approaches the Court at the earliest possible opportunity cannot be denied relief on account of lethargy or inaction on the part of the State.
23. The plea raised by the respondents regarding delay or limitation is thus liable to be rejected for the simple reason that the claim relating to removal of pay anomaly constitutes a continuing cause of action, affecting the petitioners month after month. The petitioners cannot be made to suffer on account of the respondents' failure to take a timely decision on their representations and on the directions issued by the Court from time to time.
24. Further, it has been brought on record that similarly situated employees in the Power Development Department as well as in the Forest Department, who were recruited through a common process and were performing duties of similar nature, have already been granted the benefit of higher pay scale and removal of anomaly. Once the respondents themselves have extended such benefit to identically placed employees, denial of the same treatment to the petitioners HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 27 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 would amount to hostile discrimination, offending the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
25. The issue is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in SWP No. 1911/2013, (Anil Raina & Ors. Vs. State and anr.) wherein it has been held that employees recruited through a common process and discharging similar functions cannot be placed in different pay scales merely on account of posting in different departments. The Hon'ble High Court has further held that administrative delay in framing recruitment rules or in finalizing service structure cannot be made a ground to deny legitimate monetary benefits arising out of pay parity.
26. Applying the ratio of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present case, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to removal of pay anomaly and grant of pay scale at par with their counterparts in other departments.
27. It is further borne out from the record that the present applicants had earlier approached the Hon'ble High Court by way of SWP No. 1833/2002, seeking removal of pay anomaly and grant of parity with HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 28 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 their counterparts working in other Government Departments. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.10.2010, whereby the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicants and take appropriate steps for constitution of a separate cadre of IT/Computer Experts and removal of pay anomalies existing amongst employees having similar technical background but working in different departments.
28. Despite the aforesaid directions, no effective steps were taken by the respondents for a considerable period, compelling the applicants to continue in a lower pay scale while similarly situated employees in other departments, particularly Power Development Department and Forest Department, were granted higher pay scale and promotional avenues. The grievance of the applicants thus remained unresolved, giving rise to the present Original Application.
29. The delay in granting relief to the applicants cannot be attributed to them. Having approached the Hon'ble High Court as early as in the year 2002, the applicants demonstrated due diligence in asserting their rights. Once the matter was adjudicated by the Hon'ble High Court on HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 29 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 14.10.2010, the respondents were under an obligation to take timely and effective action. Their failure to do so cannot operate to the detriment of the applicants. In such circumstances, the applicants are entitled to be placed in the appropriate pay scale notionally from the date they had approached the Hon'ble High Court for relief. While actual monetary benefits deserve to be granted from the date of the judgment.
30. Accordingly, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned action of the respondents in denying the applicants parity in pay scale with similarly situated IT/Computer personnel working in other Government Departments is declared arbitrary and discriminatory and is accordingly set aside.
31. Government Order No. 255-F of 2023 dated 26.12.2023 is quashed. The respondents are directed to grant the applicants the benefit of pay scale at par with their counterparts in the Power Development Department and Forest Department, who were recruited through a common process and possess identical academic and technical qualifications.
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV
:: 30 :: O.A. No. 115/2024
32. The respondents are directed to remove the pay anomaly of the applicants and to fix and release the pay scale in the grade of 6500- 10500(pre-revised) attached to the post of Data Entry Operator which the applicants are entitled to in para materia with their counterparts who are working and serving in different departments but having a higher grade pay.
33. The applicants shall be entitled to notional fixation of pay and consequential service benefits with effect from the year 2002, being the year when they first approached the Hon'ble High Court seeking redressal of their grievance. However, actual monetary benefits shall be payable with effect from 14.10.2010, i.e., the date on which the Hon'ble High Court disposed of SWP No. 1833/2002 and cast a clear obligation upon the respondents to remove the anomaly.
34. The respondents shall compute and release the arrears of salary arising out of such re-fixation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. In case the amount is not HARSHIT Digitally signed by YADAV HARSHIT YADAV :: 31 :: O.A. No. 115/2024 released within the stipulated period, the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum till actual payment.
35. The Original Application is accordingly allowed in the above terms.
No order as to costs.
(RAM MOHAN JOHRI) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
/harshit /
HARSHIT Digitally signed by
YADAV HARSHIT YADAV