Judicial Interference in Pay Parity Claims is Impermissible Absent Expert Recommendations or Proven Wholesale Identity of Posts

The applicants were initially appointed as Police Constables (1966-1967) and later selected as Drivers (1978-1979) in the Puducherry Police Department.

They were promoted to Driver Grade II (1993) and Driver Grade I (1996) before retiring in 2006.

Following the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC), the applicants sought a revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200, claiming parity with counterparts in Delhi.

While the Government of Puducherry upgraded pay for "General" Police Personnel via G.O. Ms. No. 14 dated 27.02.2009, it did not include the post of Drivers.

After an initial round of litigation (O.A. No. 138/2013), the 4th Respondent rejected their claim on 02.05.2016, citing a lack of recommendation for such an upgradation for Puducherry Drivers.

During the pendency of this OA, applicants 2 to 4 expired, leading to the abatement of their claims.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the upgraded pay scale and Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 on the basis of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" by comparing themselves to Delhi Police Drivers

2. Whether the Court can interfere in the executive function of determining pay scales and job evaluation in the absence of expert recommendations

The court primarily relied on the principle of judicial restraint in executive matters, establishing that pay fixation is a complex task for expert bodies like Pay Commissions rather than the judiciary.

It applied the doctrine from Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal (2019), which holds that parity claims require establishing "complete and wholesale identity" between groups.

It further cited Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma (2001) regarding the expert status of Equation Committees.

It cited S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) regarding the high constitutional principle of separation of powers in fixing pay scales.

It referenced Sri Abhijit Banerjee v. State of West Bengal (2024) to emphasize that different recruitment qualifications and duties between establishments preclude automatic pay parity.

The Tribunal reasoned that the 6th CPC specifically recommended upgraded pay for "General" Police Personnel but notably omitted any such recommendation for the Driver cadre in Puducherry.

The court observed that the applicants failed to prove a "wholesale identity" with the Delhi Police Drivers, noting that mere similarity in nomenclature or basic functions does not override differences in recruitment rules, qualifications, and the specific evaluations of expert bodies.

Applying the 2019 Punjab State Power Corporation precedent, the Tribunal held that job evaluation and the determination of salary are executive functions; absent any showing of mala fide or arbitrary exclusion by the Implementation Cell or the Government of Puducherry, the court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the executive.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, ruling that there was no merit in the claim for parity and no grounds to interfere with the executive decision. No costs were awarded.