Consequential Arrears Can't Be Denied Once Pay Parity Is Restored: Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Prasar Bharati Technicians
The Delhi High Court has held that once pay parity between similarly placed employees is restored, consequential arrears cannot be denied.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan thus directed Prasar Bharati to extend the upgraded pay scale of ₹5,000-8,000 to eligible Technicians and Senior Technicians with effect from January 1, 1996, along with consequential benefits, including arrears of pay.
The Court allowed two writ petitions filed by 66 Technicians and Senior Technicians working in Prasar Bharati, who had challenged Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) orders granting them the higher pay scale only on a notional basis, without arrears.
Petitioners contended that Technicians and Senior Technicians had historically enjoyed pay parity with Lighting Assistants. They argued that Lighting Assistants, with whom parity had been restored, had received arrears as well and denying the same benefit to them amounted to discrimination.
Centre opposed the plea, arguing that on an earlier occasion, when pay parity had been restored for the period between 1983 and 1995, Technicians and Senior Technicians had been granted only notional fixation without arrears, and therefore no further monetary benefits could be claimed.
Rejecting the contention, the High Court observed that the earlier denial of arrears was based on a concession made by the employees in those proceedings that they would not claim arrears. It held that such a concession could not crystallise into an “immutable rule” for all future cases.
"When the aim is to restore parity in pay scales and no waiver/relinquishment of arrears of pay has been pleaded, the Petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of consequential benefits that flow from such restoration. Depriving the Petitioners from grant of arrears entirely will be manifestly unjust," the Court observed.
The Court also referred to Supreme Court and Delhi High Court precedents recognising that where historical parity exists between two categories of employees, restoration of parity ordinarily carries with it the consequential financial benefits.
It observed that the respondents had failed to provide any cogent explanation for treating Technicians and Senior Technicians differently from Lighting Assistants despite the settled position regarding parity.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the petition and directed grant of arrears.
Appearance: Mr Manish K Bishnoi with Mr Khubaib Shakeel, Advs. for Petitioners; Mr Jitendra Kumar Tripathi, Mr Sumit Kumar Raj & Mrs Anjali Dwivedi, Advs. for R-1. Mr. S.M. Arif with Ms. Shabnam Perween, Advs. for R-2 to R4.
Case title: Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. UoI
Case no.: W.P.(C) 6723/2017