Different recruiting agencies alone cannot justify unequal pay for the same sanctioned post.

The applicant was appointed as a Pump Driver on 26 October 2012 through a District Level Committee, in the pay scale of ₹4,440–7,440 with Grade Pay of ₹1,300.

He claimed that another Pump Driver, appointed in 2016 through the J&K Services Selection Board, received the higher scale of ₹5,200–20,200 with Grade Pay of ₹2,400.

The applicant relied on SRO 920 of 2019, which listed two Pump Driver posts in the revised Level-4 scale of ₹25,500–81,100.

The respondents maintained that the appointments differed by recruiting agency and asserted that the scale in SRO 920 had been included inadvertently.

After serving a legal notice, the applicant filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking pay parity and refixation

1. Whether the applicant could be denied the pay scale applicable to the post of Pump Driver solely because he was recruited through the District Level Committee, while another incumbent of the same post received the higher scale.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to refixation and consequential monetary benefits, and, if so, for what period.

The Tribunal applied the equality guarantees under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which prohibit arbitrary pay disparities between employees similarly situated in material respects; parity is not established by designation alone, but requires consideration of the cadre, duties, responsibilities, qualifications, and governing rules.

It held that where an employee is validly appointed to a sanctioned post and performs its duties, the pay attached to that post ordinarily cannot differ merely because a different recruiting agency processed the appointment.

The Tribunal further treated SRO 920 of 2019 as operative unless and until lawfully amended, rescinded, or corrected by the competent authority.

In limiting arrears to three years before the application, it relied on Jai Dev Gupta v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1997).

The respondents admitted that both employees held the post of Pump Driver and that the comparator received the higher scale; they identified no difference in duties, cadre, or other material conditions.

The Tribunal therefore found that the recruiting agency alone did not justify the disparity.

It also rejected the respondents’ assertion that the scale in SRO 920 was included inadvertently, because no lawful amendment or correction had displaced the notified provision.

The applicant was accordingly entitled to the scale applicable to the post.

However, the Tribunal restricted actual arrears to the three years preceding the filing of the application, while directing notional fixation for the earlier admissible period.

Consequential fixation was to be examined from the date the higher scale legally became applicable, with actual arrears limited to three years before the application and earlier benefits treated notionally.

The exercise was to be completed within three months; any valid subsequent amendment or correction to SRO 920 could apply only from its lawful effective date.