CAT - ['Delhi']Employment and Labour LawAdministrative and Public Law

101 AIIMS Radiology Employees Win Pay Revision: CAT Orders ₹4,600 Grade Pay For Technician Grade-II From 2006 And Corrects Promotional-Scale Anomalies

Satypal Aryav.M/o Health And Family Welfare

101 AIIMS Radiology Employees Win Pay Revision: CAT Orders ₹4,600 Grade Pay For Technician Grade-II From 2006 And Corrects Promotional-Scale Anomalies. Satypal Arya vs M/o Health And Family Welfare. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to Grade Pay of ₹4,600 for Radiographer/Radiology Technician Grade-II under the Sixth Central Pay Commission, with corresponding revision of pay scales for promotional posts.

The court held

The OA was allowed.

It also directed

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the memorandum dated 12 May 2021 and directed the respondents to grant Radiographer/Radiology Technician Grade-II Grade Pay of ₹4,600 from 1 January 2006, with the corresponding subsequent pay scales for the specified promotional posts and rectification of the feeder/promotional-post anomaly.

It further directed that the applicants receive the benefits associated with the merged Radiology Technician cadre from 26 September 2016, with arrears to be paid within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

No costs were awarded.

01Facts

The applicants, employees in the Radiology cadre at AIIMS, New Delhi, challenged a memorandum dated 12 May 2021 rejecting their request for revision of pay scales.

pp. 15–18

They claimed that Radiographers—designated Radiology Technician Grade-II at AIIMS—were entitled to Grade Pay of ₹4,600 under the Sixth Central Pay Commission, and that equal Grade Pay for feeder and promotional posts created an anomaly.

pp. 15–18

In an earlier proceeding, OA No. 421/2021, the Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the applicants’ representation and issue a reasoned decision; the impugned memorandum followed that direction.

pp. 15–16

The respondents maintained that the matter was under consideration, disputed the applicants’ reliance on committee material and other institutions’ pay structures, and objected that the OA was premature for non-exhaustion of remedies under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

pp. 20–22

02Issues

i.1. Whether the applicants were entitled to Grade Pay of ₹4,600 for Radiographer/Radiology Technician Grade-II under the Sixth Central Pay Commission, with corresponding revision of pay scales for promotional posts.

pp. 15–18, 22

ii.2. Whether the difference in pay treatment between AIIMS Radiology employees and comparable employees at PGIMER, Chandigarh, and the same Grade Pay for feeder and promotional posts rendered the impugned decision arbitrary or discriminatory.

pp. 22–25

iii.3. Whether the merger of Radiology Technician Grades I and II entitled the applicants to the pay benefits claimed from the date of merger.

pp. 15–17, 25–26

03Law Applied

The Tribunal relied on the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in Articles 14 and 16, holding that denying comparable pay benefits to AIIMS Radiology employees, while such benefits had been extended to the corresponding cadre at PGIMER, Chandigarh, was irrational and discriminatory.

pp. 24–25

It also relied on the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations concerning the Radiology cadre and the respondents’ acknowledged pay anomaly between feeder and promotional posts.

pp. 22–24

The applicants cited Amar Chand & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and Sabu Thomas & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., concerning pay-scale treatment of radiographers and alleged discrimination; the judgment records that reliance but does not set out a distinct test or detailed application of those decisions.

pp. 18–20

The respondents’ objection under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act was noted, but the Tribunal did not separately analyse it before allowing the OA.

pp. 20–22, 25–26

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Section 19Section 20

04Reasoning

The Tribunal treated the pay anomaly as established by AIIMS’s acknowledgment that feeder and promotional posts carried identical Grade Pay and noted that the proposed cadre review had remained unresolved through successive committees.

pp. 22–25

It considered PGIMER, Chandigarh, a sister institution whose Radiology cadre had received higher pay scales under the Sixth Pay Commission, and found the different treatment of AIIMS employees irrational, arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 16.

pp. 24–25

Concluding that further committee deliberations had not resolved the long-pending grievance, it set aside the memorandum and ordered pay revision.

pp. 25–26

05Holding

The OA was allowed.

p. 25

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the memorandum dated 12 May 2021 and directed the respondents to grant Radiographer/Radiology Technician Grade-II Grade Pay of ₹4,600 from 1 January 2006, with the corresponding subsequent pay scales for the specified promotional posts and rectification of the feeder/promotional-post anomaly.

p. 25

It further directed that the applicants receive the benefits associated with the merged Radiology Technician cadre from 26 September 2016, with arrears to be paid within three months of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

pp. 25–26

No costs were awarded.

pp. 25–26
CAT - ['Delhi']

Original Court PDF

Satypal AryavsM/o Health And Family Welfare

CAT - ['Delhi'] · October 28, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment