Distinction in pay protection based on mode of recruitment through interview versus competitive examination is unconstitutional.

The applicants were formerly employed as Nursing Officers/Staff Nurses in various government organizations (e.g., PGIMER Chandigarh) where they had completed their probation.

Seeking employment with the ESIC (Respondent No. 2), they applied through a 2018 recruitment notification, were selected via an open competitive written examination, and submitted technical resignations to join the ESIC.

The applicants sought "pay protection" to ensure their starting salary at ESIC matched their previous scale, but the respondents rejected their representations via an impugned order dated 06.02.2025.

The respondents argued that under Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) OMs dated 07.08.1989 and 10.07.1998, pay protection is only granted to candidates selected via "interview" and not through "open competitive examinations".

1. Whether the distinction made between candidates selected through interview versus those selected through open competitive examination for the purpose of granting pay protection is legally valid and constitutional.

2. Whether the DOPT OMs dated 07.08.1989 and 10.07.1998 are discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality and prohibit arbitrary state action in public employment.

Sanjog Kapoor v. Union of India, which held that the distinction between interview-based selection and competitive examination for pay protection lacks rational justification.

The "reasonable classification" test from Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Justice S.R. Tendolkar, requiring an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the objective.

Gaurav Semalty v. GNCTD and Union of India v. Atul Shukla, establishing that once employees belong to the same cadre, "birthmarks" or selection modes cannot justify discriminatory treatment.

The Tribunal found that the DOPT OM dated 10.07.1998, which attempted to limit pay protection to interview-based selections, was not a mere "clarification" but a substantive modification that restricted benefits without a sound legal basis.

The court reasoned that there is no "intelligible differentia" between the two modes of selection; if anything, an open competitive examination offers a higher degree of objectivity than an interview.

Under the doctrine of equality, the Tribunal held that creating a "class within a class" regarding salary protection is arbitrary.

It dismissed the respondents' argument that the Delhi High Court's rulings were not binding, noting that judicial discipline requires uniformity across Benches and that the logic of the precedents (Sanjog Kapoor) had attained finality.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicants, having joined via technical resignation after prior government service, could not be denied pay protection solely because they proved their merit through a written test rather than an oral interview.

The Tribunal allowed the applications and quashed the impugned orders dated 06.02.2025; the respondents were directed to grant the benefit of pay protection and counting of past service to the applicants from their respective due dates along with all consequential benefits within three months.