Different recruitment methods and educational qualifications justify distinct pay scales despite identical job designations.

The applicants, representing Laboratory Technicians at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), sought a retrospective pay scale revision to Rs. 5000-8000 effective 01.01.1996, and subsequent re-fixation in Pay Band-2 (Rs. 9300-34800) with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 effective 01.01.2006

Historically, their pay was fixed at Rs. 4500-7000 in 1996

The applicants claimed pay parity with Laboratory Technicians at PGI Chandigarh, asserting identical functions and responsibilities

This dispute followed a protracted procedural history involving TA No. 9/2009, which was remanded by the Delhi High Court and resulted in a 2011 Tribunal order directing the respondents to decide the issue

Consequently, AIIMS issued a speaking order on 24.08.2012 (the impugned order) rejecting the claim for parity

1. Whether the Laboratory Technicians of AIIMS are entitled to pay parity with Laboratory Technicians of PGI Chandigarh based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work."

2. Whether the Tribunal should interfere with executive policy decisions regarding pay fixation and retrospective recruitment rule amendments.

The court applied the constitutional principle that "Equality must be among the equals; unequals cannot claim equality" under Articles 14 and 16

Relying on Mewa Ram Kanojia v. AIIMS (1989), the court held that the State may classify employees based on qualifications and duties if the nexus is reasonable

Furthermore, the court applied the "complete and wholesale identity" test from S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) and State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj (2003), which stipulates that parity cannot be claimed if recruitment methods, responsibilities, or educational qualifications differ

Finally, citing Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan (1997) and State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga (1988), the court affirmed that pay fixation is a complex executive function best left to expert bodies and Pay Commissions, barring cases of hostile discrimination

The Tribunal analyzed the Recruitment Rules (RRs) of both institutions and found substantial discrepancies that precluded the application of "equal pay for equal work."

Specifically, AIIMS Technicians were classified as Group 'C' with a recruitment method of 75% direct recruitment and 25% promotion, whereas PGI Chandigarh Technicians were Group 'B' and recruited 100% through direct recruitment

Furthermore, the entry-level educational qualifications for AIIMS included a 12th-pass with a diploma and experience, whereas PGI Chandigarh required a B.Sc. in Medical Lab Technology

The Tribunal reasoned that since the cadre designations, qualifications, and recruitment methods were significantly different, there was no "wholesale identity" between the two groups

It further noted that the applicants failed to demonstrate any "hostile discrimination" and that retrospective pay revision is a policy matter within the executive domain, particularly as the Government constitutes Pay Commissions and anomaly committees for such grievances

The court declined to interfere in the executive's policy-making role regarding pay fixation, suggesting that the applicants should instead approach the 8th Central Pay Commission for redressal of remaining grievances

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of accordingly