No Recovery Permitted from Employees Where Similarly Situated Staff Granted Immunity to Ensure Constitutional Parity

The Petitioners (Union of India and ESIC) challenged orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which held that the Respondents, employed as Laboratory Assistants in various hospitals, were entitled to a revised pay scale of ₹4000-6000 effective from January 1, 1996

During the pendency of these petitions, the Union of India complied with similar Tribunal orders in other cases (the "Kirat Ram batch" and "Rakesh Saini batch") and made a statement before the High Court that they would not seek recovery of the revised pay already granted, leading to the disposal of those cases

In the present matter, the UOI sought to distinguish itself from ESIC, arguing it should not be bound by such concessions and intended to effect recoveries based on undertakings signed by the employees

1. Whether the Union of India can be permitted to recover excess pay from Laboratory Assistants in UOI-run hospitals when it had waived such recovery for similarly situated Laboratory Assistants in ESIC-run hospitals

2. Whether the existence of an undertaking by the employees justifies recovery after a lapse of nearly two decades, notwithstanding the disposal of identical matters by Coordinate Benches

The Court primarily applied the principles of Equality and Non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which prohibit the State from treating similarly situated classes of employees discriminately

It also relied on the principle of Judicial Comity, following the precedents set by Coordinate Benches of the Delhi High Court in UOI v. Kirat Ram [para. 3] and Director General (ESIC) v. Rakesh Saini [para. 5], which disposed of similar writ petitions while leaving the question of law open but restraining recovery from employees.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's attempt to distinguish between ESIC Laboratory Assistants and UOI Laboratory Assistants, noting that both categories were covered by the same set of facts and recommendation disputes

The Court observed that allowing the UOI to recover funds from its assistants while sparing ESIC assistants would make the Court a party to a "clear violation of Articles 14 and 16"

Regarding the undertakings signed by the respondents, the Court noted that identical undertakings existed in the previously disposed cases where the State had nonetheless conceded the issue of recovery

Given that the payments were made nearly two decades ago (between 2006 and 2009), the Court held that the respondents were entitled to equal treatment as their counterparts in the earlier batches

The question of law regarding the entitlement to the pay scale was left open for future determination

The Court held that serving and retired employees must be treated at par regarding the waiver of recovery if they were part of the same original grievance