Compassionate appointees in the Treasury cadre cannot be denied parity in pay solely due to recruitment source.

The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Class-III employee in the Treasury and Accounts establishment and joined service on 20 July 1998.

Treasury Clerks/Accountants who had entered the Treasury cadre through an option exercised in 1979 were granted the revised pay scale of ₹5,000–8,000 with effect from 1 January 1996, whereas the petitioner and other compassionate appointees were confined to the lower scale of ₹4,000–6,000.

The State sought to distinguish between employees who had opted for the Treasury cadre in 1979 and those appointed through other sources, including compassionate appointment, through Memo No. 1692 dated 13 March 2007.

The petitioner’s representation seeking parity was initially not considered, following which he approached the High Court in CWJC No. 6846 of 2013.

Pursuant to the Court’s direction, his representation was considered but rejected by Memo No. 6168 dated 3 August 2016, principally on the ground that the higher scale was applicable only to the 1979-optionists and that the issue was allegedly subject to pending litigation.

1. Whether the petitioner, a compassionate appointee working in the Treasury and Accounts establishment, could be denied the pay scale of ₹5,000–8,000 solely because he had not entered the Treasury cadre through the 1979 option process?

2. Whether Memo No. 6168 dated 3 August 2016, rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the basis of the distinction between “Treasury Clerks” and “Clerks in Treasury,” was legally sustainable?

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the higher pay scale from his date of joining, namely 20 July 1998, together with consequential arrears?

The Court applied Article 14 of the Constitution and the principle that similarly situated employees performing substantially similar duties cannot be subjected to discriminatory pay treatment.

A classification based solely on the source or mode of appointment is impermissible where the employees perform the same work and belong to the same functional establishment, unless the classification is reasonable and supported by a rational basis.

The Court relied on Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Bihar, which recognised the entitlement of Treasury Accountants to the ₹5,000–8,000 scale; Prabhat Shankar Poddar v. State of Bihar, which rejected reduction of the scale for compassionate appointees; and Syed Reyaz Monir v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 23781 of 2012, affirmed in LPA No. 1277 of 2018, which held that distinguishing compassionate appointees from 1979-optionists was unreasonable.

The Court also relied on Vijay Kumar Sinha, LPA No. 770 of 2014, for the principle that an employee appointed by the Treasury and Accounts authority and posted in a Treasury establishment is to be treated as part of that establishment rather than as an outsider.

Further, a decision based on a factual premise that had ceased to exist—namely, purportedly pending review proceedings—could not be sustained.

The Court found that the petitioner was appointed by the competent authority in the Treasury and Accounts establishment and thereafter performed duties in Treasury offices comparable to those performed by employees who had entered through the 1979 option process.

The State’s reliance on the distinction between “Treasury Clerks” and “Clerks in Treasury” was rejected because that distinction had already been expressly disapproved in Syed Reyaz Monir, which was affirmed by the Division Bench, and because the State produced no material showing that those decisions had been stayed, reversed, or otherwise unsettled.

Memo No. 1692 dated 13 March 2007, on which the State relied, had itself been quashed in earlier proceedings and therefore could not validly form the basis for rejecting the petitioner’s claim.

The Court further held that the rejection order was independently defective because it proceeded on the basis that Civil Review No. 182 of 2014 was pending, although that review had already been dismissed on 23 September 2015, before Memo No. 6168 was issued.

The decisions cited by the State concerning ACP benefits and the distinction between Treasury Clerks and Clerks working in Treasury were held either factually distinguishable or outweighed by the directly applicable decisions concerning similarly situated compassionate appointees.

Accordingly, denying parity solely on the basis of the petitioner’s compassionate appointment was held arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

It held that the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of ₹5,000–8,000 with effect from 20 July 1998, his date of joining, notwithstanding his compassionate mode of appointment.

The respondents were directed to re-fix his pay and calculate and pay the consequential arrears within three months from receipt or production of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.