Claim for higher pay based on parity denied when foundational orders lack merit adjudication.

The applicants are Plaster Assistants in ESIC Hospitals, seeking the benefit of a pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-.

They rely on an order dated 19.12.2013 by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No. 3227/2011 (Brham Pal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.), which addressed the fixation of grade pay for Laboratory Assistants.

The applicants also cited an order dated 21.02.2022 by the Jabalpur Bench of CAT in OA No. 204/2021 (Deepak Jairaj Kalyane v. Union of India & Ors.) and a subsequent order dated 05.09.2022 by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in M.P. No. 3645/2022.

The respondents stated that the benefit in Brham Pal (supra) was granted in persona and subject to the outcome of a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in W.P. (C) No. 6414/2015 (The Director General ESIC) & Ors. vs. Rakesh Saini & Ors.), disposed of the connected matters, including WP (C) No. 18/2015 (against Brham Pal), on 04.02.2026, explicitly "leaving the question of law open".

The respondents also contended that subsequent to Brham Pal, Recruitment Rules were amended on 08.01.2022, placing Laboratory Assistants (Plaster Assistants) in Pay Level-5, and the applicants are now drawing a higher pay in Pay Level-5, distinguishing their case from the one cited.

1. Whether the applicants, Plaster Assistants, are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-, based on the principle of parity with the order passed in OA No. 3227/2011 (Brham Pal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.).

2. Whether the un-adjudicated nature of the "question of law" in the previous judgments, including the High Courts' decisions, impacts the present application for relief based on those judgments.

3. Whether the applicants have established their case on merits, considering the amendments in recruitment rules subsequent to the relied-upon judgments.

The Tribunal considered the principle of judicial propriety in granting similar relief based on prior judgments, as seen in the Jabalpur Bench's order in OA No. 204/2021.

However, it noted that the High Courts, including the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, disposed of the matters by "leaving the question of law open" without adjudicating on merits.

The respondents cited Section 17(2) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, which states that the conditions of service for ESIC staff shall be as specified in regulations made in accordance with rules applicable to Central Government employees drawing corresponding pay scales.

The Tribunal also considered the impact of amended Recruitment Rules and changes in Pay Matrix on the entitlement of applicants.

The Tribunal found that the previous orders relied upon by the applicants, including the Principal Bench's order in Brham Pal, Jabalpur Bench's order in Deepak Jairaj Kalyane, and the High Court orders in review, did not adjudicate the core issue on merits.

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi explicitly "left the question of law open" when disposing of the writ petitions challenging Brham Pal, indicating that no conclusive legal precedent on the merits was established.

The Jabalpur Bench had granted relief based on parity, not on an independent assessment of the merits, and similarly, the Madhya Pradesh High Court declined to rule on the merits, deferring to the Delhi High Court.

Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the respondents had distinguished the applicants' case by highlighting amendments to Recruitment Rules on 08.01.2022, which placed Laboratory Assistants (Plaster Assistants) in Pay Level-5, a higher scale than what the original Brham Pal judgment addressed.

The applicants failed to rebut this distinction or establish the factual similarity of their case to Brham Pal, especially given their promotion in 2020 and the earlier judgment addressing the 5th CPC recommendations from 1997.

The Tribunal held that the "question of law" regarding grade pay fixation remained un-adjudicated by higher courts.

It further concluded that the applicants failed to establish their case on merits, particularly in light of subsequent amendments to recruitment rules and their current higher Pay Level-5, which rendered their reliance on the older judgments for a lower grade pay untenable.