J&K HC Upholds Higher Pay-Grade Benefit For Govt Press Category-B Skilled Workers, Finding Them At Par With Category A

The respondents, employees of the Government Press, sought the benefit of pay-grade upgradation under Schedule “C” of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 (SRO 149 of 1973).

The Government had extended the benefit to Category-A skilled workers, including qualifying ITI certificate holders, but denied it to Category-B skilled workers, who could qualify through experience.

The respondents challenged that denial before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in their favour.

The Union Territory and another petitioner sought to set aside the Tribunal’s order, arguing, among other things, that SRO 149 had been repealed and replaced.

The Court considered Schedule “C” of the Jammu & Kashmir Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973 (SRO 149 of 1973), which places Category-A and Category-B workers within the “Skilled Workers” schedule and describes routes to qualification based on technical credentials or relevant experience.

It also applied the principle of equal treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, reasoning that employees in the same schedule and skilled-worker category should not be treated differently in the grant of the relevant benefit without justification.

The Court noted that the benefit granted to Category-A employees had been upheld by the High Court, the Division Bench, and the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the related SLP.

The Court found that both categories were included in Schedule “C” as skilled workers and that Category-A employees had received the pay-grade upgradation benefit.

Given that Category-B employees were also skilled workers within the same schedule, and that the petitioners did not refute the prior grant of the benefit to Category-A employees, the Court found no reason to deny Category-B employees equivalent treatment.

It further relied on the prior litigation concerning Category-A employees, which had been upheld through the Supreme Court, and concluded that the Tribunal’s decision did not warrant interference.

The judgment records the petitioners’ repeal argument but does not separately analyse its legal effect.

Any subsisting interim directions were vacated, and pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.