Facts
The applicants are Plaster Assistants seeking the benefit of a pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-
Source reference: p.7, para. 2This claim is primarily based on an order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No. 3227/2011 (Brham Pal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.)
Source reference: p.7, para. 3The applicants also cited an order from the Jabalpur Bench of CAT (OA No. 204/2021) and a subsequent order from the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur (M.P. No. 3645/2022), both of which stemmed from the Brham Pal judgment
Source reference: p.8, para. 3The Jabalpur Bench had granted relief based on judicial propriety, directing respondents to consider the applicants' case as per the Principal Bench's judgment
Source reference: p.8, para. 4The Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to enter the merits, leaving it to the Delhi High Court to decide the legality of the Principal Bench's order
Source reference: p.9, para. 5The Delhi High Court, in W.P. (C) No. 6414/2015 (The Director General ESIC) & Ors. vs. Rakesh Saini & Ors., disposed of the writ petitions, including WP(C) No. 18/2015 against the Brham Pal order, without addressing the merits and explicitly leaving the question of law open
Source reference: p.10, para. 7The respondents stated that the benefit of the Brham Pal judgment was in persona and subject to the outcome of the Delhi High Court's review
Source reference: p.12, para. 12They also highlighted that recruitment rules for Plaster Assistants were amended via Notification dated 08.01.2022, placing them in Pay Level-5, and the applicants are now drawing a higher pay despite initially being in Pay Level-3
Source reference: p.13, para. 12The applicant in OA No. 779/2024 joined in 2011 and was promoted to Plaster Assistant in 2020, with pay fixed in the band of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2000/-, and had not raised objections at the time of fixation
Source reference: p.12, para. 11 & p.13, para. 12Issues
1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- based solely on the order of the Principal Bench in OA No. 3227/2011, given that subsequent reviews did not adjudicate the matter on merits
Source reference: p.11, para. 8 and p.12, para. 92. Whether the applicants' claim for higher grade pay is tenable in light of the amendment to recruitment rules (dated 08.01.2022) which placed them in a higher Pay Level-5, and their prior acceptance of a different grade pay upon promotion
Source reference: p.13, para. 12 and p.14, para. 13Law Applied
The court did not explicitly state a particular "rule of law applied" but rather focused on the absence of a conclusive legal determination in previous judgments.
Source reference: no citationThe principle of res judicata or stare decisis was implicitly considered regarding the binding nature of prior rulings
Source reference: p.8, para. 4, p.9, para. 5, p.10, para. 7The court also considered the specific Recruitment Regulations for the post of Plaster Assistants as the governing framework for pay scales
Source reference: p.14, para. 12Reasoning
The court found that the central issue of entitlement to the disputed pay scale had not been adjudicated on its merits by any higher court
Source reference: p.11, para. 8Specifically, the Jabalpur Bench's order granting relief was based on "judicial propriety" and parity, not a substantive assessment of the claim
Source reference: p.8, para. 4Both the Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Delhi High Court expressly declined to rule on the legality or validity of the Principal Bench's order, leaving the "question of law open"
Source reference: p.9, para. 5, p.10, para. 7Therefore, the foundational legal question remained unsettled
Source reference: p.12, para. 9The applicants in the present case failed to establish an independent claim on merits or distinguish their situation from the specific context of the Brham Pal judgment, which predated their promotion and subsequent amendment to the recruitment rules
Source reference: p.15, para. 14The respondents demonstrated that the Brham Pal judgment was applicable in persona and pertained to a prior pay scale scenario (5th Central Pay Commission benefits)
Source reference: p.10-11, para. 9Furthermore, the respondents highlighted the amendment in recruitment rules on 08.01.2022, which revised the pay level for Plaster Assistants to Pay Level-5, consequently providing a higher pay than previously
Source reference: p.13, para. 12The applicants had also accepted their initial pay fixation without objection
Source reference: p.13, para. 12Given these facts, the court concluded that the applicants had not established their case on merits for interference
Source reference: p.15, para. 14Holding
The court dismissed all the Original Applications
It held that the applicants failed to establish their case on merits, as the prior judgments they relied upon did not conclusively adjudicate the legal issue of grade pay on merits
Source reference: p.11, para. 8, p.12, para. 9, p.15, para. 14Furthermore, the court acknowledged the respondents' contention that the recruitment rules relevant to Plaster Assistants were amended, placing them in Pay Level-5, which meant they were already drawing a higher salary
Source reference: p.13, para. 12, p.15, para. 14No order was made as to costs
Source reference: p.15, para. 15Original Court PDF
OA No. 779/2024, OA No. 777/2024, OA No. 780/2024, OA No. 781/2024 & OA No. 778/2024
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in