No Right to Pay Parity for Tower Wagon Drivers with Loco Pilot Goods Absent Complete Functional Identity

The applicants (Tower Wagon Drivers in the Bilaspur Division of South East Central Railway) challenged their pay scale, asserting they should receive a Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- instead of the Rs. 2,800/- currently allotted

They contended that because they are treated as "Running Staff" for the purpose of allowances under Establishment Serial No. 79/91 [p. 3] and because Tower Wagon Drivers in other divisions (Raipur, Nagpur) allegedly receive the higher Grade Pay, they are entitled to parity

The respondents countered that duties of Goods Drivers are significantly more strenuous and require higher qualifications than those of Tower Wagon Drivers

1. Whether Tower Wagon Drivers are entitled to the same Grade Pay as Goods Drivers (Rs. 4,200/-) based on their classification as "Running Staff" for allowance purposes

2. Whether the alleged grant of higher Grade Pay to similarly situated employees in other divisions entitles the applicants to the same benefit under the principle of equality

The court primarily relied on the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. Jagdish Pandey, SLP(C) No. 365/2007, which established that Tower Wagon Drivers cannot claim pay parity with Goods Drivers unless there is "wholesale and complete identity" between the categories

The court applied the principle regarding Article 14 of the Constitution as articulated in Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab (2010), which holds that Article 14 does not envisage "negative equality" and cannot be used to perpetuate an illegality or claim a benefit based on a previous erroneous decision

The Tribunal found that the applicants' claim for pay parity had already been settled by the Supreme Court, which ruled against equal pay for these specific categories due to differences in duties and responsibilities

Regarding the applicants' argument that other divisions were paying the higher scale, the Tribunal accepted the respondents' clarification that any such payment was an error and was not repeated

The Tribunal reasoned that under Article 14, the applicants cannot demand that the administration repeat a mistake or illegality. Since the duties of a Goods Driver—involving independent operation of long-haul trains—are fundamentally different from a Tower Wagon Driver—who operates a single motor car within a limited 30km radius—the claim for parity lacked a legal basis

The Original Application was dismissed as devoid of merit. No order as to costs was made