Functional parity in qualifications and duties necessitates pay scale equality under the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The applicant, initially appointed as a Lab Attendant in 1986 and promoted to Laboratory Assistant in 2003 under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS), sought pay parity with Laboratory Assistants in Safdarjung Hospital.

Following the 5th Central Pay Commission, the pay scale for technical posts requiring Matriculation and DMLT was revised from Rs. 3200–4900 to Rs. 4000–6000.

While Safdarjung Hospital implemented this revision, the CGHS denied the same to the applicant despite similar Recruitment Rules and duties.

The applicant’s previous challenge (O.A. 4233/2012) was dismissed, but the Delhi High Court granted liberty in W.P.(C) 10207/2016 to approach the Tribunal afresh in light of new documents.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 4000–6000 on the basis of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and parity with Laboratory Assistants of Safdarjung Hospital.

2. Whether the difference in departments and minor variations in Recruitment Rules justify the denial of pay parity.

The court primarily applied the principle of "equal pay for equal work" as a constitutional goal under Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the landmark precedent Randhir Singh v. Union of India, which established that while the equation of posts is an executive function, persons holding identical posts with similar duties cannot be treated differentially across departments.

It further applied the crystallization of this doctrine from State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, which holds that the onus is on the claimant to prove parity in duties, qualifications, and responsibilities.

The Tribunal found that the Recruitment Rules for Laboratory Assistants in Safdarjung Hospital and CGHS were substantially similar, both requiring Matriculation and technical training (DMLT/In-service training).

The respondents' defense—that duties were not identical—was rejected as a "bald assertion" lacking material particulars to prove qualitative or quantitative differences.

The Tribunal noted that it had previously granted this parity in Ashok Kumar v. UOI and Keshav Singh v. UOI, the latter being affirmed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

Applying the law to the facts, the Tribunal reasoned that denying the scale to CGHS employees while granting it to Safdarjung Hospital employees amounted to hostile discrimination and an irrational classification violative of Article 14.

The 5th CPC recommendations were intended for all such technical posts, making the respondents' restrictive implementation arbitrary.

The respondents were directed to set aside the rejection order dated 29.03.2012, refix the applicant’s pay, and disburse arrears within three months. The Tribunal further ordered simple interest at 6% p.a. on arrears (increasing to 9% if delayed), restricted to three years prior to the filing of the O.A. as per the Tarsem Singh principle.