Pay Parity Can't Be Claimed On Common Recruitment When Pay Commission Maintains Cadre Distinction: Delhi HC

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that pay parity cannot be claimed solely on basis of historical parity, common recruitment, or similar designation and overlap in functional duties, when the Pay Commission has maintained a distinction between different service cadres i.e. Secretariat and non-Secretariat. Background Facts The petitioners were Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries. They were working in the Income Tax Department under the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance. They claimed pay parity with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service (CSSS). The two cadres had historically been treated equally up until the Third Central Pay Commission. However, the divergence in pay scales began with the Fourth Pay Commission. Further, higher pay scales were granted to CSSS from 15 September 2006. The petitioners made representations to the competent authorities seeking restoration of parity. The Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance rejected their claim on the ground that pay scales applicable to Secretariat establishments were not applicable to offices functioning outside the Secretariat. Aggrieved by this rejection, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed their application. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the Writ Petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the Tribunal's order. It was argued by the petitioners that their claim was based on the historical parity that had existed between the two cadres for a considerable period. The claim was not just based on identical nomenclature. It was further argued that recruitment to the stenographic posts is conducted through a common competitive examination by the Staff Selection Commission. It has identical qualifications and skill requirements at the entry stage. The candidates who are recruited may be posted either in Secretariat establishments or in subordinate offices. It was contended that the divergence in pay scales was due to post-recruitment classification on the basis of placement. The petitioners also contended that the duties performed by them were similar to their counterparts in the CSSS. On the other hand, it was argued by the respondents that a distinction between Secretariat and non-Secretariat establishments was maintained in matters of pay structure. Findings of the Court It was observed by the Division Bench that a claim for pay parity cannot be granted to two distinct categories of employees on the ground of historical parity, common recruitment, and functional overlap. It was further observed that the distinction between Secretariat establishments and non-Secretariat/field formations was not introduced casually. The Sixth Central Pay Commission had considered this distinction and observed that parity between Secretariat and field offices would remain absolute only up to the grade of Assistant, and beyond that level, complete parity might neither be possible nor justified, having regard to hierarchy, career progression, and service relativities. It was held that the petitioners could not be permitted to selectively use the Commission's observations favourable to field offices while disregarding the specific limitation. The decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Manoj Kumar & Ors was relied upon wherein it was held that where the Pay Commission framed separate recommendations for Secretariat and non-Secretariat organisations, a judicial direction granting absolute parity would render such recommendations useless. It was held that the existence of a common recruiting agency and common examination cannot be treated as a determinative test for pay parity. The source of recruitment constitutes only one among several factors relevant to the posts. It cannot override the distinctions arising from cadre deployment, functions, promotion, organisational hierarchy, or the qualitative responsibilities attached to the posts after appointment. It was further held that a claim for pay parity based on historical similarity, common recruitment and designation, or overlapping duties, cannot succeed when pay commission has maintained a distinction within the service structure. With the aforesaid observations, the Tribunal's order was upheld by the Division Bench. Consequently, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the Division Bench. Case Name : ITGOA & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 339 Case No. : W.P.(C) 1144/2026 Counsel for the Petitioners : Nitesh Kumar Singh, Mangesh Nayak & Devender Singh, Advs. Counsel for the Respondents : N/AClick Here To Read/Download Order

Pay Parity Can't Be Claimed On Common Recruitment When Pay Commission Maintains Cadre Distinction: Delhi HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

Pay Parity Can't Be Claimed On Common Recruitment When Pay Commission Maintains Cadre Distinction: Delhi HC

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Namdev Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers