Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Suresh Chandra vs Cab Sec on 25 March, 2026
1 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.3033/2024
OA No.1255/2025
OA No.3454/2024
OA No.3455/2024
OA No.4641/2024
OA No.3403/2024
OA No.3456/2024
OA No.22/2025
OA No.44/2025
Order reserved on: 11.03.2026
Order pronounced on: 25.03.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Sh. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
OA No.3033/2024
Sohan Bir Singh,
Aged about 66,
Group-C, Designation
Asstt. Field Officer-Driver
S/o Lt. Sh. Kartar singh,
R/o 969, Sector-3,
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110022.
....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Special Secretary
To the Government of India,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
(Through Directorate General of Security),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
SUNITA 2026.03.27
16:06:20
DUTT +05'30'
2 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
3. Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Joint Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
... Respondents
OA No.1255/2025
Satinder Singh, aged about 68,
Group-C, Former Designation Driver
S/o Lt. Sh. Mohinder Singh,
A-1/2, Sector-18, Rohini,
New Delhi-110089.
....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Special Secretary
To the Government of India,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Aviation Research Centre,
(Through Directorate General of Security),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3. Special Secretary,
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
SUNITA 2026.03.27
16:06:20
DUTT +05'30'
3 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
... Respondents
OA No.3454/2024
Malkiat Singh, Aged about 66,
Group-C, Designation Driver,
S/o Lt. Bhounshi Ram,
V&PO Beh,
Tehsil Dadasiba,
Distt. Kangra (H.P.)-177105.
....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Cabinet Secretary
To the Government of India,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Aviation Research Centre,
(Through Directorate General of Security),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3. Special Secretary,
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Joint Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
SUNITA 2026.03.27
16:06:20
DUTT +05'30'
4 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
... Respondents
OA No.3455/2024
Suresh Chandra, Aged about 60,
Group-C, Designation Field Officer
Driver
S/o Lt. Sh. Chiranji Lal,
BG, Type 2, Tower No.11,
East Kidwai Nagar,
New Delhi-110023.
....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Cabinet Secretary
To the Government of India,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Aviation Research Centre,
(Through Directorate General of Security),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3. Special Secretary,
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Joint Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
... Respondents
SUNITA 2026.03.27
16:06:20
DUTT +05'30'
5 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
OA No.4641/2024
Jaswant Singh, Aged about 65,
Group-C, Designation Driver
S/o Lt. Sh. Ram Lal,
V&PO Khoarar,
Teshsil Nahar,
Rewari-123303 (Haryana)
....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Special Secretary
To the Government of India,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East), R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
(Through Directorate General of Security),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East), R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3. Special Secretary,
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Joint Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East), R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
... Respondents
OA No.3403/2024
Vijay Kumar, Aged about 64,
Group-C, Designation DFO Driver
S/o Lt. Sh. Duni Chand,
V.Kotla, P.O. Barotiwala,
Teshsil Baddi,
Distt. Solan, (H.P.)
....Applicant
SUNITA 2026.03.27
16:06:20
DUTT +05'30'
6 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Cabinet Secretary
To the Government of India,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Aviation Research Centre,
(Through Directorate General of Security),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3. Special Secretary,
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Joint Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
... Respondents
OA No.3456/2024
Suresh Kumar, Aged about 60
Group-C, Designation Field Officer Driver
S/o Sh. Kishori Lal,
R/o H.No.A-21, Pocket-3, DDA Bindapur,
Uttam pur,
New Delhi-110059.
....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Cabinet Secretary
To the Government of India,
New Delhi-110066.
SUNITA 2026.03.27
16:06:20
DUTT +05'30'
7 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
2. Aviation Research Centre,
(Through Directorate General of Security),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3. Special Secretary,
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Joint Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
... Respondents
OA No.22/2025
Mahindra Singh, Aged about 61,
Group-C, Designation Driver
S/o Lt. Sh. Maha Singh,
R/o C-57, Goyla Dairy,
Kutub Vihar,
Najafgarh,
New Delhi-110043.
....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Special Secretary
To the Government of India,
Cabinet Secretariat,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Aviation Research Centre,
(Through Directorate General of Security),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
SUNITA 2026.03.27
16:06:20
DUTT +05'30'
8 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
3. Deputy Director (Admn),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
4. Joint Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
... Respondents
OA No.44/2025
Surender Singh, Aged about 63,
Group-C, Designation Driver
S/o Lt. Sh. Arjun Singh,
R/o H.No.200, Munirka,
V&PO JNU,
New Delhi-110067.
....Applicant
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Special Secretary
Cabinet Secretariat,
To the Government of India,
New Delhi-110066.
2. Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
(Through Directorate General of Security),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East), R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
3. Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East), R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
SUNITA 2026.03.27
16:06:20
DUTT +05'30'
9 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
4. Joint Deputy Director (Pers.),
Aviation Research Centre,
Directorate General of Security,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Block-V (East),
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi-110066.
... Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Jagmohan Sharma, counsel for applicants.
Mr. R.K.Jain, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
1. Learned counsels for both the parties agreed on 11.03.2026 that the subject matter of OA No.3033/2024 is exactly the same as the subject matters in all other 7 OAs. They agreed that OA No.3033/2024 should be taken as the lead case. Hence, the pleadings, arguments and averments in OA No.3033/2024 are taken for the sake of brevity. Accordingly, all the OAs are disposed of by this common order.
1.1 The present OA has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
"i. Declare the orders dated 31st Aug. 2016 as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and quash and set aside the Order dated 31st Aug., 2016 passed by the Respondents wherein the Respondents effectively rejected the representation and grievances of the Applicant re. to. implementation of the report of One-Man Committee and SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 10 OA No.3033/2024 & batch grant of first ACP w.e.f. 2000 and 2nd and 3rd MACP w.e.f. 2008 and 2018 respectively.
ii. Call the Original file(s), office record(s) of the service records of the Applicant as well as the report of the one- man committee and the decisions taken thereon, as well as the Notification dated 7.12.2004;
iii. Direct the Respondents to implement the One-man Committee Report w.e.f. 1986 and grant the financial benefit to the Applicant from 1988 (the date of joining the service) itself given to the Matriculate drivers and similarly placed employees, (Drivers of R&AW).
iv. Direct the respondents to implement the 4th Central Pay Commission Report w.e.f. 01.01.1986, ACP scheme and MACP scheme strictly and grant the ACP w.e.f. 2000, the 2nd MACPs w.e.f. 2008, and 3rd MACP from 2018 itself vis a vis the Applicant and grant him the consequential financial benefits thereof.
v. Direct the respondents to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. upon the amounts due.
vi. Direct the respondents to give other consequential reliefs.
vii. Award costs of this application and proceedings against the Respondents in favor of the applicant, and, viii. Pass any further order(s), directions as may be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice."
2. Factual Matrix 2.1 The present applicant was appointed as Field Assistant (Driver) (Non-matriculate), hereinafter referred to as FA (Driver), in the pay scale of 210-4-250-EB-5-270 (Non-Matric) w.e.f. 08.07.1988 with Aviation Research Centre (ARC). 2.2 Prior to 1988, there were no recruitment rules pertaining to MT Executive cadre. The Recruitment Rules for this cadre was notified on 01.06.1989. The respondents created six posts of SFA (Driver) vide order dated 15.05.1989 and six officials in the rank of FA (Driver) were promoted to the post SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 11 OA No.3033/2024 & batch of SFA (MT). Subsequently, a cadre review was held and vide order dated 19.08.1993, 79 posts of FA (MT) were abolished and 33 new posts of SFA (MT) were created. It was further mentioned in the said order that the existing non-metric FA (MT)s shall continue to draw the pay scale of Rs.825-1250 on personal basis till the posts were vacated by them for whatsoever reasons.
2.3 In pursuance of cadre review order dated 19.08.1993, the applicant Shri Sohan Bir Singh was promoted to the rank of SFA (MT) on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 1994. After issuance of amended recruitment rules (RRs) dated 03.06.1994 in respect of MT (Executive Cadre), the applicant was regularized on the post of SFA (MT) w.e.f. 03.06.1994. The RRs of 1989 issued on 01.06.1989 were further amended vide notification dated 07.12.2004, where for the words "on promotion", was amended and was treated as "direct recruitment". The RRs were amended retrospectively. Considering these retrospective amendments of the RRs concerning the Motor Transport Executive Cadre, the applicant was treated as direct recruitee w.e.f. 03.06.1994. Taking the entry of the applicant as SFA (MT) as direct recruitment w.e.f. 03.06.1994, the present applicant was granted 1st ACP w.e.f. 03.06.2006 vide order dated 24.08.2006 in the grade of AFO (MT). The applicant was promoted to the rank of AFO (MT) vide order dated SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 12 OA No.3033/2024 & batch 16.12.2010. Upon completion of 20 years of service from the date of direct recruitment in the grade of SFA (MT), he was granted 2nd MACP w.e.f. 03.06.2014 vide order dated 08.05.2014.
2.4 The applicant and similarly placed employees approached the respondents to consider their service rendered as FA (MT) during the period 1988 till their direct recruitment on 03.06.1994 as SFA (MT) should be counted towards ACP benefits. Their contention was that similar benefits were granted to FA (MT)s in RAW by implementing the report of One-Man Committee. The respondents constituted a high-level committee under Special Secretary under ARC to examine the applicability of the Report of the One-Man Committee in ARC. However, the said Committee did not recommend the applicability of the recommendation of the One-Man Committee in ARC. The applicant and similarly placed employees were duly informed about this decision. Being aggrieved, the applicant filed OA No. 1709/2017 before Principal Bench of this Tribunal, which was dismissed as withdrawn.
2.5 Again the applicant and similarly placed employees agitated further for counting their services w.e.f. 01.09.2008 for granting ACP and MACP benefits at par with the similarly placed employees in RAW. The respondent No.4 issued an OM SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 13 OA No.3033/2024 & batch dated 31.08.2016, mentioning that services of staff of RAW cannot be compared with the service of ARC as both the departments are governed by separate conditions of recruitment rules and terms and conditions of recruitments. Accordingly, the applicant and similarly placed employees in ARC cannot claim parity of service benefits with those similarly placed employees in RAW. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA seeking the aforementioned relief.
3. Notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply, to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.
4. Submission by Learned counsel for Applicant 4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant states that six employees, who were appointed as FA (Driver) in ARC at the same time as the present applicant, were given benefits of ACP and MACP ignoring their subsequent designation of appointment as SFAs w.e.f. 1994. The respondents have wrongly adopted the premise that the service staff of RAW cannot be compared with their counter-parts in ARC. The one-man committee, which was appointed for considering the pay and anomalies, has given the recommendation for giving financial benefits of SFA (MT) ignoring the fresh appointment to the post of SFA (MT) and taking the benefit of initial SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 14 OA No.3033/2024 & batch appointment as MT (Driver). As there was a historical parity between the FA of ARC and RAW, the respondents have discriminated against the employees like the present applicant who are in ARC and were initially appointed as FA (MT) in 1994. The one-man committee report is equally applicable to the FA (MT)s of ARC. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in V.K. Mehta and Ors. vs. Union of India and another, 1988 (supp.) SCC 750, where the Apex Court, taking into consideration the nature of work performed by the staff in various wings of Doordarshan, held that:
"11. We have gone through the averments in the writ petitions and those made in the counter-affidavits filed by the Director General of Doordarshan and we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners perform the same duties as those performed by their counterparts in the Film Division. When two posts under two different wings of the same Ministry are not only identical, but also involve the performance of the same nature of duties, it will be unreasonable and unjust to discriminate between the two, in the matter of pay. One of the directive principles of State Policy, as embodied in clause
(d) of Article 39 of the Constitution, is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The provision of Article 39(d) has been relied upon by the petitioners. The Directive Principles contained in Part-IV of the Constitution, though not enforceable by any court, are intended to be implemented by the State of its own accord so as to promote the welfare of the people.
Indeed, Article 37 provides, inter alia, that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Even leaving out of our consideration Article 39(d), the principle of "equal pay for equal work", if not given effect to in the case of one set of Government servants holding same or similar posts, possessing same qualifications and doing the same kind of work, as another set of Government servants, it would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such discrimination has been made in SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 15 OA No.3033/2024 & batch respect of the petitioners, who are the Staff Artists of Doordarshan, by not giving them the same scales of pay as provided to their counterparts in PG NO 610 the Film Division under the same Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The petitioners are. therefore, entitled to the same scales of pay as their counterparts in the Film Division.
12. But the question is as to from which date they will be entitled to the scales of pay as prescribed for their counterparts in the Film Division. The petitioners have claimed that such scales of pay should be admitted to them with effect from their respective dates of appointments. After having given a careful thought to this aspect, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met sufficiently, if such scales of pay are given to the petitioners with effect from the first day of the month of the year in which each writ petition was filed in this Court except that in the case of Writ Petition (C) No. l756 of 1986 such scales of pay shall be given to the petitioners with effect from December 1, 1983.
13. In the circumstances, all these writ petitions are allowed. The Sound Recordists, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 974 of 1978, shall be given the pay- scale of the Recordist/Sound Recordist in the Film Division i.e., Rs.550-900 with effect from January 1, 1978. The Cameramen Grade-II, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 1239 of 1979, shall be given the pay-scale of the Cameraman of the Film Division i.e., Rs.650-960 with effect from August 1, 1979. The Lighting Assistants/Lightmen, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 1756 of 1986, shall be given the scale of Pay of Assistant Cameraman in the Film Division i.e., Rs.425-700 with effect from December 1, 1983. The petitioners in all these writ petitions will also be entitled to the substituted scales of pay and consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to disburse to the petitioners the arrear amounts being the difference in the pay-scales within four months from today." 4.2 He has further relied upon the judgment of Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K., (2008) 1 SCC 586, where the Radio Mechanics of Assam Rifles were equated with similarly designated employees with other paramilitary forces under the Central Government. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Randhir Singh vs. Union of SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 16 OA No.3033/2024 & batch India, (1982) 1 SCC 618, Yogeshwar Prasad and others vs. National Education, Planning And Administration and others, (2010) 14 SCC 323, Union of India vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond,(2014) 13 SCC 588.
4.3 Referring to all aforementioned judgments, learned counsel for applicants states that the Apex Court has allowed the pay parity between the same category of employees employed in different wings of Central Government and accordingly the case of the present applicant and similarly placed employees may be brought at par with the similarly designated employees who are working in RAW.
5. Submissions by Learned Counsel for Respondents 5.1 Per contra, learned counsel for respondents refers to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. He particularly draws attention to paragraph (vi) and (vii) of the preliminary submissions which reads as follows:
"vi. That the RRs dated 01.06. 1989 was further amended vide Notification dated 07.12.2004. The Para 2 and 3 of the amended Notification were as below:-
"2. In the Schedule to the ARC/SFF (Motor Transport Executive Cadre Rules, 1988, under the first note, for the words appearing at the end, "on promotion", if found suitable as Senior Field Assistant (Motor Transport) and upon such appointment, be treated direct recruits to the post of Senior Field Assistant (Motor Transport)", shall be substituted.
Explanatory Memorandum The appointment of erstwhile Field Assistant (Motor Transport) as Senior Field Assistant (Motor Transport) pursuant to the abolition of the Post of Field Assistants SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 17 OA No.3033/2024 & batch (Motor Transport) as promotes has resulted in the denial of benefit of financial up-gradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, which has been already extended to similarly placed employees in the Research and Analysis Wing. Therefore, to remove this disparity, it has become necessary to amend the rules retrospectively.
3. It is certified that no one will be adversely affected by this Notification being given retrospective effect."
vii. That thereafter, upon completion of 12 years of service in the Grade of SFA (MT) the Applicant was granted 1st ACP w.e.f. 03.06.2006 vide Order dt.24.08.2006 in the Grade of SFA (MT). Subsequently, the Applicant was promoted to the rank of AFO (MT) w.e.f. 16.12.2010 vide Order dt. 17.01.2011. Upon completion of 20 years of service from the date of his direct appointment in the Grade of SFA (MT) he was granted 2nd MACP w.e.f. 03.06.2014 vide Order dt. 08.05.2014. He retired upon superannuation w.e.f. 31.03.2018 (A/N) in the grade of AFO (MT)."
5.2 Referring to the above, the learned counsel for the respondents avers that the applicant has not challenged the RRs of 1989 amended vide Notification dated 07.12.2004. As these RRs were not challenged, the retrospective amendment holds good and the appointment of the applicant as SFA (MT) was taken as direct recruitment w.e.f. 03.06.1994. Taking this as the starting point of the applicant's fresh entry into direct recruitment as SFA (MT), all ACP/MACP benefits were granted to the applicant. Hence, the applicant has no case to claim the benefit of past service prior to 03.06.1994 for granting ACP/MACP benefits.
5.3 As regards the claim of parity with FA (MT)s of RAW, the learned counsel for respondents states that One-Man Committee was constituted prior to the appointment of SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 18 OA No.3033/2024 & batch present employees in 1986. This Committee was constituted only for the RAW. The ARC and RAW are two different departments. The applicant and similarly placed Field Assistants were appointed in 1988, however, at that time there were no recruitment rules and the respondents came out with recruitment rules in 1989. The recruitment conditions, the functions, and responsibilities in RAW are significantly different from those Field Assistants appointed in ARC.
5.4 As there was wrong designation given to the applicant in 2003, which was further modified vide order dated 17.03.2003, the applicant and similarly placed employees were confirmed in the post of FA (MT) instead of SFA (MT Executive). This re-designation, which has corrected the designation of the present applicant and similarly placed employees, has not been challenged as yet. As regards the confirmation that six persons were promoted, the learned counsel for the respondents states that all cannot be promoted as there were only six vacancies. 5.5 He further states that the promotion of six employees of SFA (Driver) in the rank of FA (Driver) cannot confer any right upon the present applicant and similarly placed employees as those promotions are vacancy based. Direct recruitment of the applicant as SFA (MT) along with others was made in SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 19 OA No.3033/2024 & batch 1994 and for their benefit this benefit was converted to Direct Recruitment.
5.6 As regards parity with the similarly designated employees in RAW. Learned counsel for the respondents states that ARC and RAW are significantly different organizations. Each employee in both the organizations may be similarly designated, but their rules, functions, and service conditions, as well as the requirement for entering into the service, are significantly different. The applicant has failed to bring any supporting document that they are performing similar duties and their service conditions, recruitment rules, educational qualifications for recruitment are the same as those in RAW. Moreover, he states that anomaly in pay structure is always addressed by the respective Anomaly Committee after due deliberations in each Pay Commission. The applicants and similarly placed employees are agitating their grievances from time to time since the 5th CPC and the Government is not convinced about the plea of the applicant and similarly placed employees in ARC are similarly placed as their counter parts in RAW. Pay parity is a policy decision and it falls squarely under the domain of Executive. There is no scope for judicial intervention in such matters. SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 20 OA No.3033/2024 & batch
6. Analysis 6.1 We have heard learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. 6.2 There is the single issue involved in adjudication of the present case. The issue is: whether the service rendered by the applicant and similarly placed employees prior to 1994 shall be counted for granting ACP/MACP benefits to them. The applicant claims on the basis of the parity with similarly designated employees in RAW based on the One-Man Committee Report. The respondents on the other hand deny such parity on the ground that RRs in ARC and RAW are different and the amended RRs of 2004, retrospectively amended certain provisions of RRs of 1989 stating that the appointment of the present applicant to the rank of SFA (MT) shall be considered as "direct recruitment" rather than "promotion" and services rendered prior to 1994 shall be personal to the employees like the present applicant. As all ACP/MACP benefits have been given taking this as direct recruitment with effect from 1994, the applicant has no case to claim the relief sought in the present case. 6.3 We agree that there is no challenge to the amendments to the 1989 RRs which were retrospectively notified by the respondents in 2004. In view of this, the period prior to 1994 cannot be taken into consideration for granting ACP/MACP SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 21 OA No.3033/2024 & batch benefits. In other words, the respondents may consider the period from 1988 till 1994 for pensionary benefits, but the same cannot be considered for granting ACP/MACP benefits. 6.4 As regards the averment that the respondents have considered similar period of FA (MT) is in RAW for granting ACP/MACP benefits, the short issue here is that the present applicant and similarly placed employees are agitating since long to treat them at par with similarly designated employees in RAW. The applicant has failed to bring any record nor has he substantiated to show that the recruitment rules, educational qualifications, duties and responsibilities of similarly designated employees in RAW are exactly the same as those prevailing in ARC. Mere similarity in designation will not entitle any parity in pay and emoluments at par with similarly designated employees in other organizations. In this regard, it would not be out of place to refer to the Apex Court's decision in Union of India & anr. vs. P.V.Hariharan & anr., (1997) 3 SCC 568, decided on 12.03.1997. The Apex Court held:
"5. Before parting with appeal, we feel impelled to make a few observations. Over the past few weeks, we have come across several matters decided by Administrative Tribunals on the question of pay scales. We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a pay Commission. Change of Pay scale of a category has cascading effect. Several other categories similarly SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 22 OA No.3033/2024 & batch situated, as well as those situated above the below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realises that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. the pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is all being mis- understood and mis-applied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise due restraint in the matter. 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. These orders have a serious impact on the public exchequer too. it would be in the fitness of the things if all matters relating to pay Scales, I.E. matters asking for a higher pay scale or an enhanced pay scale, as the case may be n one or the other ground, are heard by a Bench comprising at least one Judicial Member. The Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Chairmen of the State Administrative Tribunals shall consider issuing appropriate instructions in the matter."
6.5 Moreover, it is not the first time that the applicant and similarly placed employees in ARC have sought pay parity with similarly placed employees in RAW. The Anomaly Committees from time to time during and after the deliberations before the respective Pay Commissions have gone through such grievances. Even after the implementation of the Pay Commissions' recommendations, Government has constituted Anomaly Committees from time to time. It is appropriate that such grievances are placed before the appropriate forum to consider pay anomalies which too falls squarely under the domain of Executives. Needless to say that the exercise for re-structuring of pay of various departments is the subject matter of 8th Pay Commission which has already been constituted by Government of India. SUNITA 2026.03.27 16:06:20 DUTT +05'30' 23 OA No.3033/2024 & batch In view of this, it will be appropriate for the present applicant and similarly placed employees to place their grievances before such committee through appropriate channels for appropriate recommendations/decision.
7. Conclusion 7.1 In view of the above discussion, all the OAs are dismissed being devoid of merit.
8. No order as to costs.
9. All pending MAs are also disposed of.
10. Let a copy of this order be kept in each OA.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
'SD'
SUNITA 2026.03.27
16:06:20
DUTT +05'30'