Autonomous status cannot defeat historically established pay parity with an analogous government service.

The applicants were Superintending Engineers in the National Water Development Agency (NWDA), an autonomous society functioning under the administrative control of the Ministry of Water Resources. They had initially joined NWDA as Assistant Engineers during 1985–1986.

Before implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the engineering cadres of NWDA and the Central Water Commission (CWC) enjoyed parity in pay scales. After implementation of the revised pay structure, CWC Superintending Engineers were placed in the scale of ₹14,300–18,300, whereas NWDA Superintending Engineers continued in the lower scale of ₹12,000–16,500.

The NWDA Governing Body, in its 56th meeting held on 8 April 2011, recommended grant of the higher scale to eligible Superintending Engineers and Directors. The recommendation was not accepted by the Government, and the applicants’ claim was rejected through communications dated 29 October 2014 and 1 December 2014.

The applicants filed the present Original Application seeking pay parity with CWC Superintending Engineers. The OA was initially dismissed on 30 March 2017 with liberty to seek revival after disposal of connected proceedings before the Supreme Court. Following dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 4852/2015 and connected matters by the Supreme Court on 6 November 2024, the OA was revived pursuant to MA No. 211/2025, allowed on 12 March 2025.

1. Whether the applicants, as Superintending Engineers in NWDA, were entitled to restoration of the pre-existing pay parity with Superintending Engineers of CWC and to the scale of ₹14,300–18,300, together with corresponding revised scales under the subsequent Pay Commissions?

2. Whether the respondents could deny such parity on the grounds that NWDA is an autonomous society, its engineers do not belong to an Organized Group ‘A’ service, and its recruitment and cadre structure differ from those of CWC?

3. Whether the impugned communications dated 29 October 2014 and 1 December 2014 rejecting the applicants’ claim were legally sustainable?

The Tribunal distinguished the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” from restoration of an existing pay parity, observing that the applicants’ claim was based on historical parity rather than a fresh comparison of unrelated posts. It relied on State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, concerning the requirements applicable to equal-pay claims.

It followed the reasoning of the Delhi High Court in T.M. Sampath v. Director General, NWDA, W.P. (C) No. 8052/2009, and the connected decision concerning NWDA ministerial staff, which held that a claim for an already adopted pay scale constituted a claim for pay parity and could not be defeated by hyper-technical distinctions in cadre structure.

The Tribunal also considered Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 10 SCC 62, on judicial restraint in matters of pay fixation, but held that the present case involved hostile discrimination and implementation of the employer’s own recommendation rather than judicial fixation of a new scale.

T.M. Sampath v. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, (2015), was distinguished as relating to the applicability of a pension Office Memorandum in the context of NWDA’s separate CPF Rules.

The limitation on monetary arrears was governed by Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, under which arrears for continuing service-related wrongs may be restricted to three years and two months preceding institution of proceedings.

The Tribunal found that parity between NWDA and CWC engineering cadres had admittedly existed before 1 January 1996 and was disrupted when NWDA adopted the revised scales under Part A of the First Schedule to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, while CWC Superintending Engineers received the higher scale of ₹14,300–18,300.

Since the applicants sought restoration of a historically maintained parity, the Tribunal held that the respondents’ reliance on differences in recruitment method, Organized Group ‘A’ status, and cadre structure was relevant to an “equal pay for equal work” claim but not decisive of the present parity claim.

NWDA’s status as an autonomous society did not defeat the claim because it was fully funded by the Government and functioned under the same Ministry as CWC.

Further, the NWDA Governing Body itself had recommended grant of the higher scale, and the rejection was based principally on the applicants’ non-membership of an Organized Group ‘A’ service, which the Tribunal considered inadequate to displace the pre-existing parity.

The Tribunal also rejected the argument that the higher scale corresponded within NWDA to the post of Director (Technical), holding that this internal placement was itself a consequence of the earlier distortion of parity and could not defeat comparison between the respective Superintending Engineer posts.

The Tribunal quashed the communications dated 29 October 2014 and 1 December 2014 insofar as they denied the applicants the scale of ₹14,300–18,300.

The respondents were directed to grant the applicants the pre-revised scale of ₹14,300–18,300, along with corresponding revised scales under the Sixth and Seventh Central Pay Commissions, at par with CWC Superintending Engineers, upon completion of the requisite qualifying service under the NWDA Governing Body’s recommendation dated 8 April 2011.

The benefit was to be granted notionally from the date on which each applicant became eligible, while monetary arrears were restricted to three years and two months preceding institution of the OA, with consequential pay re-fixation.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise and pay admissible arrears within three months of receiving the certified order; delayed payment would carry simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of default.

No order as to costs was made.