Employees are not entitled to enhanced dress allowance without establishing financial loss or functional parity.

The applicant Union and seven of its members, employees of PGIMER, Chandigarh, challenged the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s decision dated 3 April 2023 rejecting their request to increase Dress Allowance from ₹5,000 to ₹10,000 per annum with effect from 1 July 2017.

They sought revision by reference to the Seventh Central Pay Commission’s treatment of allowances and parity with nursing staff and certain Group A and B employees at AIIMS, New Delhi.

The applicants also relied on the fact that, under the Sixth CPC, eligible staff received Uniform Allowance and Washing Allowance totalling ₹4,660 per year.

The Ministry maintained that Dress Allowance was linked to Dearness Allowance and would increase by 25% whenever Dearness Allowance rose by 50%.

1. Whether the applicants established entitlement to an increase in Dress Allowance from ₹5,000 to ₹10,000 per annum with effect from 1 July 2017

2. Whether the applicants established a right to parity with nursing staff or with the relevant Group A and B staff at AIIMS, New Delhi, under Article 14 of the Constitution

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

The applicants invoked Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting discriminatory treatment, but the Tribunal found that they had not established the factual or functional basis for the claimed parity.

The Tribunal considered the Seventh CPC recommendations and the Department of Expenditure’s Office Memorandum dated 2 August 2017, under which Dress Allowance was subject to a 25% increase each time Dearness Allowance rose by 50%.

No judicial precedents were cited or applied in the order.

The Tribunal found that the applicants had not shown that merging Uniform Allowance and Washing Allowance into a single Dress Allowance caused them a financial loss, particularly in light of the allowance’s linkage to increases in Dearness Allowance.

It also held that the applicants had not explained why they were functionally comparable to nursing staff or established the basis for parity with the identified AIIMS employees.

In the absence of a demonstrated adverse financial effect, a reasoned basis for the proposed increase, or evidence supporting functional parity, the Article 14 claim was not made out.

It held that they had not established entitlement to the requested increase or a legally sustainable claim to parity with the comparator groups.

The Original Application was dismissed for lack of merit, with no order as to costs.