Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Akashwani Doordarsan Administrative ... vs M/O Information And Broadcasting on 7 May, 2026
1
Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015
Court No. V
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 2711/2015
Reserved on :- 08.04.2026
Pronounced on:- 07.05.2026
Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
1. Akashwani & Doordarsan Administrative Staff
Association (Recognized) (National Council)
Through its' President G. K. Acharya,
Aged- 55 Years,
Jam Nagar House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110011
2. M.C. Pandey,
Aged- 56 Years,
S/o Late Sh. B.D. Pandey,
Working as Head Clerk/ Assistant/Senior Store Keeper,
in DDK, New Delhi.
R/o 1154, Type-II, MS Building,
Timarpur, Delhi.
...Applicants
(By Advocate(s): Mr. Yogesh Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Prasar Bharti, PTI building,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-1
3. Director General,
All India Radio,
Akashwani Bhawan,
Sansad Marg, New Delhi
...Respondents
(By Advocate(s): Mr. S M Arif)
SHILPI GUPTA
2026.05.08
SHILPI GUPTA
16:58:57
+05'30'
2
Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015
Court No. V
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) By way of the present Original Application, the applicants have prayed for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect non-considering and request and representation of the applicants to remove the disparity among Property Assistant and Senior Storekeeper / Head clerk is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently pass an order to directing the respondents to grant the upgraded revised Pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 / GP of Rs. 4600 to the member of applicant No.1 and to the applicant No.2 from the due date i.e. from the date of their appointment as Sr. Storekeeper/Head clerk or w.e.f. 1.1.1996 whichever is later, with all consequential benefits including the arrears of difference of pay allowances with interest.
(ii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the applicant No. 1 is the Administrative Staff Association representing employees working in Akashwani and Doordarshan. Most employees holding posts such as Property Assistant, Head Clerk, Senior Store Keeper, and Assistant (Accounts) are members of this Association. The Association has authorized its President, Sh. G.K. Acharya, to file the present Original Application (OA) on behalf of its members regarding the issue of revision of pay scale to the post of Head Cleark/Sr. Store Keeper/ Assistant (Acct.) at par with Property Assistant. SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 3 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V 2.1. Applicant No. 2 is presently working as Senior Store Keeper/Head Clerk/Assistant (Acctt.). These posts are identical and interchangeable and have common a cadre, as evident from the appointment order dated 16.08.2011. 2.2. The Government of India, vide order dated 13.09.1995, converted all posts of Property Assistant into Sr. Store Keeper. Subsequently, vide Office Memorandum dated 25.02.1999 and 10.03.1999, the Government upgraded pay scales of certain posts. The post of Property Assistant was granted an upgraded pay scale from Rs. 5000-8000 to Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 01.01.1996. This upgradation was not promotional but applied uniformly to all incumbents of the post. 2.3. Vide order dated 06.05.1999, the posts of Accountant and Senior Store Keeper were re-designated as Assistants, with recruitment through promotion, departmental examination, and direct recruitment. 2.4. The 5th Central Pay Commission recommended a higher pay scale for supervisory posts i.e. Rs. 5500-9000; however, the applicants whose posts are supervisory in nature were initially granted a lower scale of Rs. 5000- 8000. Aggrieved, the Association of Akashwani & Doordarshan Administrative Staff along with others filed O.A. No. 469/2003 before this Tribunal seeking the grade pay of Supervisory post. The Tribunal, vide its judgment SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 4 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V dated 21.01.2004, directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of the applicants therein through a committee. Consequently, vide order dated 15.11.2007, the pay scale of Head Clerk/Assistant was revised to Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996, later replaced with PB-2 + Grade Pay Rs. 4200 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
2.5. Meanwhile, former Property Assistants continued to receive a higher replacement scale of PB-2 + Grade Pay Rs. 4600.
2.6. Despite all posts (Property Assistant, Senior Store Keeper, Head Clerk, and Assistant) being merged, identical, and carrying similar duties, a pay disparity persists: one group receives Grade Pay Rs. 4600 while the other receives Rs. 4200.
2.7. The applicants submitted representations in 2013 and 2015 seeking removal of this anomaly, but no action or response has been received from the respondents. Aggrieved by the continuing pay disparity and inaction of the respondents, the applicants have filed the present O.A. seeking parity in pay scale.
3. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit. He submitted that the present Original Application raises the issue whether Senior Store SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 5 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V Keepers/Head Clerks/Assistants are entitled to pay parity with Property Assistants.
3.1. He stated that the applicants seek upgradation of their pay scale from Rs. 5500-9000 to Rs. 6500-10500. However, the claim of parity is found to be devoid of merit. It is undisputed that the post of Senior Store Keeper belongs to the Administrative Cadre for AIR & Doordarshan. In contrast, the post of Property Assistant falls under the Programme Cadre of Doordarshan. Thus, both posts belong to distinct cadres with no functional linkage and the nature of duties performed by the two posts is also materially different. 3.2. He highlighted that the post of Property Assistants handle programme - related documentation and transmission work. Whereas, Senior Store Keepers perform administrative and clerical functions. Further, the promotional avenues of the two posts are entirely different. Senior Store Keepers are promoted to Administrative Officer. Property Assistants are promoted to Programme Executive. This difference clearly negates any claim for equivalence.
3.3. He draw attention to the order dated 13.09.1995, by virtue of which the applicants seeks parity to the SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 6 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V Property Assistants. The said order only provided for conversion of vacant posts of Property Assistant to posts of Senior Store Keeper. In the order dated 13.09.1995 it is provided that as and when the existing posts of Property Assistant fall vacant on retirement/resignation, etc. the said posts be not filled up so that the cadre of Property Assistant is completely abolished and said posts be converted into the posts of Senior Store Keeper on the administrative side. It did not amount to merger or re- designation of the two posts. The higher pay scale granted to Property Assistants was cadre-specific. The same cannot be extended to Administrative Cadre employees. Fixation of pay scales is within the domain of expert bodies.
3.4. He submitted that there is no arbitrariness or violation of Articles 14 and 16 in the action of the respondents. Accordingly, the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed being without merit.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the pleadings and documents available on record. The core issue that falls for consideration before this Tribunal is whether the applicants, holding the posts of Senior Store Keeper/Head Clerk/Assistant (Accounts) in the SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 7 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V Administrative Cadre of Akashwani and Doordarshan, are entitled to pay parity with the post of Property Assistant, which falls under the Programme Cadre of Doordarshan.
5. At the outset, it is necessary to examine the factual matrix and the historical background of the pay scales involved in the present case. Prior to the 5th Central Pay Commission, the posts of Property Assistant, Senior Store Keeper, Head Clerk, and Assistant (Accounts) were placed in similar pay scales. However, pursuant to the Office Memorandums dated 25.02.1999 and 10.03.1999, the post of Property Assistant was granted an upgraded pay scale from Rs. 5000-8000 to Rs. 6500-10500 with effect from 01.01.1996. Subsequently, upon implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, the post of Property Assistant was placed in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/-, whereas the posts of Senior Store Keeper/Head Clerk/Assistant (Accounts) were placed in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/-, later revised to Rs. 4200/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 vide order dated 15.11.2007. This differential treatment is the genesis of the grievance raised by the applicants in the present Original Application.
6. The applicants have sought pay parity essentially on the ground that all the posts stand merged, are identical, SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 8 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V and carry similar duties, and therefore the continuance of a pay disparity one group receiving Grade Pay Rs. 4600/- and the other receiving Rs. 4200/- is illegal, arbitrary, and discriminatory, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
7. Before proceeding further, it is apposite to refer to the law laid down by this very Bench in the matter of O.A. No. 3219/2015, decided by this Tribunal, which was based on a pari materia set of facts and identical legal principles. In that case, the applicants were Marketing Officers (Group-I and Group-III) working in the Directorate of Marketing & Inspection (DMI), who sought pay parity with Marketing Officers (Group-II). The Tribunal, after an elaborate analysis of the factual background, the pay commission recommendations, and the applicable law, dismissed the Original Application, holding that where the nature of duties, qualifications, and cadre structures are distinct, the claim for pay parity on the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not sustainable.
8. The principle governing such disputes is now well- settled by a long line of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Pramod Bahrtiya (1993) 1 SCC 539 laid down the law in the following terms:
SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 9 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V "Where equal pay has brought about a discrimination within the meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it will be a case of 'e qual pay for equal work', as per Article 14 of the Constitution. If the classification is proper and reasonable and has a nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' will not have any application even though the persons doing the same work are not getting the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', as envisaged by Article 39(d) of the Constitution, has no manner of application, nor it is enforceable in view of Article 37 of the Constitution."
9. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sohan Singh Sodhi Vs. Punjab Electricity Board (2007) 5 SCC 528 has categorically held that:
"11. The circular issued by the Board provided for parity in the scale of pay in the induction post and not on a higher post. The said circular, therefore, has no application in this case. The jurisdiction of the Board to lay down different scales of pay for the employees on the basis of educational qualification per se is not discrimination. (See Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19, see also State of Punjab v. Kuldip Singh (2002) 5 SCC 756.)
12. In P. Murugesan (1993) 2 SCC 340, (1993) 24 ATC 149 it was clearly held:
"Looked at from this broad angle, it may appear there is some force in what the respondents contend viz. that once the graduate engineers and diploma-holder engineers constitute one class, perform same duties and discharge same responsibilities, placing a restriction on the diploma-holders alone (limiting their chances of promotion to one out of four promotions, as has been done by the impugned amendment) is not justified but this may be a too simplistic way of looking at the issue. We cannot fail to take note of the fact that right from 1974 i.e since the decision of the Constitution Bench in Triloki Nath Khosa (1974) 1 SCC 19 this Court has been holding uniformly that even where direct recruits and promotees are integrated into a common class, they could for purposes of SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 10 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V promotion to the higher cadre be classified on the basis of educational qualifications."
(emphasis in original)
13. No doubt Ravinder Kumar was junior to the appellant but his case has become final due to the decision in Ravinder Kumar (1986) 4 SCC 617, AIR 1987 SC 367. However, that decision has been overruled by a larger Bench of this Court, and hence the appellant before us can get no benefit from the fact that his junior has been promoted. Article 14 will have no application in such a case.
14. In Govt. of W.B v. Tarun K. Roy (2004) 1 SCC 347, a three-Judge Bench of this Court, noticing several other decisions opined that parity in the pay cannot be claimed when the educational qualification is different."
10. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has also been held to be inapplicable in the area of professional service. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in C., Girijamal (Dr) Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1981 SC 1537) held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is inapplicable in the area of professional service.
11. It is also a settled proposition of law, as observed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3219/2015, that:
"It is a settled law that as prerequisite for upholding the claim, the claimant's must not only establish that the nature of work is identical but also that there was no reasonable basis to treat them separately."
The applicants in the present case have failed to discharge this twin burden. A mere assertion that the posts are identical or that the cadres have been merged is wholly insufficient to make out a case for pay parity, particularly when the cadre structure, recruitment rules, SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 11 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V and promotional avenues of the two posts are materially and structurally distinct.
12. Turning to the facts of the present case, we find that the respondents have placed cogent and uncontroverted material on record to demonstrate that the post of Senior Store Keeper/Head Clerk/Assistant (Accounts) belongs to the Administrative Cadre of AIR & Doordarshan, whereas the post of Property Assistant falls under the Programme Cadre of Doordarshan. The two posts belong to entirely distinct cadres with no functional linkage whatsoever. The nature of duties performed by the two sets of employees is materially different -- Property Assistants handle programme-related documentation and transmission work, while Senior Store Keepers perform administrative and clerical functions. Furthermore, the promotional avenues of the two posts are also entirely different: Senior Store Keepers are promoted to the post of Administrative Officer, whereas Property Assistants are promoted to Programme Executive. This fundamental distinction in cadre, duties, and promotional hierarchy squarely negates any claim for equivalence.
13. The order dated 13.09.1995, upon which the applicants heavily rely, does not advance their case. A close reading of that order reveals that it merely provided SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 12 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V for the conversion of vacant posts of Property Assistant into posts of Senior Store Keeper as and when they fell vacant on account of retirement, resignation, etc., so that the cadre of Property Assistant may be gradually abolished. It explicitly did not amount to a merger or re- designation of the two posts. The higher pay scale granted to the post of Property Assistant was, therefore, strictly cadre-specific in nature and was a result of the distinct functional and programmatic character of that post under the Programme Cadre. This cadre-specific upgradation cannot, in law, be extended to employees belonging to the Administrative Cadre merely on the basis of the 1995 conversion order.
14. It is also well-established that the fixation of pay scales is a matter falling within the exclusive domain of expert bodies such as the Pay Commissions and the Government. Courts and Tribunals do not ordinarily interfere with such expert determinations unless the classification is shown to be arbitrary, unreasonable, or lacking in nexus to a legitimate object. In the present case, the pay differential between Property Assistants and the applicants' posts was consciously maintained and recognised by both the 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions, which examined the service conditions SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 13 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V and functional requirements of the respective posts. As this Tribunal observed in O.A. No. 3219/2015:
"The 5th CPC & 6th CPC recognised the factum of educational qualification for the post of Marketing Officer (Group-II) and the classification of that account is proper and reasonable and has a direct nexus to the object sought to be achieved."
By analogy, in the present case, the classification of Property Assistants under the Programme Cadre with higher pay, as against the Administrative Cadre posts of the applicants, is equally proper, reasonable, and directly connected to the distinct functional requirements and programmatic character of the two cadres.
15. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the applicants have failed to make out any case of arbitrariness, discrimination, or violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The claim for pay parity rests on the incorrect premise that the posts are identical and the cadres have been merged, which is factually incorrect and legally unsustainable. There is a clear and reasonable classification between the two posts, which has a nexus to the distinct objects and functional requirements of the respective cadres. Following the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 3219/2015 and the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgments referred to above, the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed. SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 14 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V Conclusion
16. In view of the above factual and legal analysis, we do not find any merit in the present O.A. The claim of the applicants to grant them pay parity with Property Assistants is not made out for the following reasons:
(i) The posts of Senior Store Keeper/Head Clerk/Assistant (Accounts) belong to the Administrative Cadre of AIR & Doordarshan, whereas the post of Property Assistant falls under the Programme Cadre of Doordarshan. Both posts belong to distinct cadres with no functional linkage, and the nature of duties performed is materially different.
(ii) The promotional avenues of the two posts are entirely distinct -- Senior Store Keepers are promoted to Administrative Officer, while Property Assistants are promoted to Programme Executive --
which conclusively negates any claim for equivalence in pay.
(iii) The order dated 13.09.1995 only provided for conversion of vacant posts of Property Assistant into Senior Store Keeper upon retirement/resignation and did not amount to a merger or re-designation of the posts. The higher pay scale granted to Property Assistants was cadre- SHILPI GUPTA 2026.05.08 SHILPI GUPTA 16:58:57 +05'30' 15 Item No. 41 O.A. No. 2711/2015 Court No. V specific and cannot be extended to Administrative Cadre employees.
(iv) The 5th and 6th Central Pay Commissions consciously maintained the pay differential between the two cadres, and such expert determinations do not warrant judicial interference in the absence of any demonstrated arbitrariness or unreasonableness.
(v) As a prerequisite for upholding the claim of 'equal pay for equal work', the claimants must establish not only that the nature of work is identical but also that there was no reasonable basis to treat the two posts separately. The applicants have failed to discharge this twin burden.
17. As a result, the present Original Application stands dismissed. Pending M.As., if any, stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajveer Singh Verma) (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)
Member (J) Member (A)
/SG/
SHILPI GUPTA
2026.05.08
SHILPI GUPTA
16:58:57
+05'30'