Employees are entitled to notional retrospective pay parity, without pre-effective-date arrears, with consequential future benefits.

The applicant, Ravi Kant Tyagi, was appointed as a Medical Laboratory Technologist in the Moraji Desai National Institute of Yoga in 2011.

He sought the pay scale of ₹9,300–34,800 with Grade Pay of ₹4,200 from the date of his joining, together with arrears, increments and consequential benefits.

The respondents had extended the corresponding benefit prospectively with effect from 16 August 2016, pursuant to a Committee’s recommendations concerning structural adjustment and pay parity for Laboratory Technicians in institutions under the Ministry of AYUSH.

The applicant challenged orders dated 7 June 2023 and 23 November 2023 denying his request for retrospective extension of the benefit.

He relied on the Tribunal’s decision in Amit Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. , O.A. No. 1213/2019, decided on 24 April 2023, which was upheld by the Delhi High Court in CCRH v. Amit Kumar , W.P.(C) No. 2286/2024, decided on 16 February 2024.

Whether the applicant was entitled to the corresponding Central Government pay scale and Grade Pay of ₹4,200 on a notional basis from the date of his appointment in 2011, despite the respondents having granted the benefit prospectively from 16 August 2016?

Whether the Committee’s recommendation for prospective implementation could defeat the applicant’s claim for parity based on the judicially recognised entitlement of similarly situated employees?

Whether the relief should be limited or moulded in view of the applicant’s delay in approaching the Tribunal in 2024?

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It applied the principle that employees of an autonomous institution governed by a statutory framework providing for parity with corresponding Central Government scales cannot be denied such parity merely because prior approval of the Ministry of Finance was not obtained, as affirmed in Amit Kumar Sharma & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. , O.A. No. 1213/2019, and by the Delhi High Court in CCRH v. Amit Kumar , W.P.(C) No. 2286/2024.

The Tribunal further applied the principle that similarly situated employees are entitled to equal treatment and that an administrative Committee’s recommendation for prospective implementation cannot override an existing entitlement recognised under the applicable statutory framework and judicial precedent.

However, relief may be moulded equitably by granting notional fixation without reopening past salary payments, particularly where the applicant has approached the Tribunal belatedly.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was appointed in 2011 and was similarly situated to employees who had received the corresponding pay benefit.

The Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations had been accepted and implemented by the Central Government, and the entitlement to parity with identical Central Government posts had already been recognised in Amit Kumar Sharma and affirmed by the Delhi High Court.

Since the respondents failed to identify any material distinction between the applicant and the employees covered by those decisions, the Committee’s subsequent recommendation for prospective implementation from 16 August 2016 could not, by itself, extinguish the applicant’s underlying claim to parity.

Nevertheless, considering that the applicant filed the O.A. in 2024 although his appointment dated from 2011, the Tribunal moulded the relief: the pay was to be notionally fixed from the date of joining, while actual salary arrears before 16 August 2016 were excluded.

The impugned orders dated 7 June 2023 and 23 November 2023 were quashed to the relevant extent.

The respondents were directed to extend the applicable pay scale and Grade Pay of ₹4,200 to the applicant on a notional basis from the date of his appointment in 2011, with consequential effect on future increments and pensionary/retiral benefits under the applicable rules.

The applicant was expressly denied actual salary arrears for the period preceding 16 August 2016; that period was to remain notional.

The exercise was to be completed within two months of receipt of the order, with no order as to costs.