Government Must Provide Reasons for Rejecting Committee Recommendations Regarding Removal of Alleged Pay Scale Discrimination

The applicants, Workshop Attendants in the Technical Education Department, alleged pay anomalies following a 2002 High Court judgment that granted higher pay scales to other categories in the Polytechnic and ITI sectors

In 2004, the Government constituted a committee (Order No. 141-Edu (Tech) of 2004) to examine these grievances, which recommended a pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 for Workshop Attendants

Despite multiple rounds of litigation (SWP 818/2007 and SWP 586/2009) and subsequent High Court directions to consider their representations in light of the committee's recommendations, the respondents issued Government Order No. 42-Edu (Tech) of 2012, rejecting the applicants' claims

The applicants challenged this order as discriminatory, seeking the scale of Rs. 3050-4590 (at minimum)

1. Whether the impugned Government Order No. 42-Edu (Tech) of 2012 was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating the constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16

2. Whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the recommendations of the expert committee without providing specific reasons or considering the parity with similarly situated employees

Principles of Equality and Non-discrimination enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandate that the State must treat similarly situated employees equally and ensure that administrative actions are not arbitrary

While recommendations of a committee are not always binding, a wholesale rejection without reason—especially when similar benefits were extended to other recommended categories—constitutes an "antithesis to constitutional guarantees"

The Tribunal observed that the respondents admitted the existence of the 2004 committee recommendations favoring the Workshop Attendants but failed to approve them "without giving any reason"

The Court noted a gross disparity where similar sets of employees who were recommended by the same committee received benefits, while the applicants were denied, amounting to "apparent and gross discrimination"

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' defense that they have sole discretion over eligibility and qualifications, noting that if the applicants possess the requisite qualifications, any denial of parity based on arbitrary orders cannot be sustained under the constitutional framework

The Court set aside Government Order No. 42-Edu (Tech) of 2012 and directed the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, reconsidering the applicants' merit and entitlement specifically in light of the 2004 Committee recommendations, provided there is no legal impediment