Non-participation in prior litigation cannot deny similarly situated employees equal pay-scale benefits.

The applicants, Junior Translation Officers in Ordnance Factory Medak, challenged the respondents’ letter dated 15 February 2024 rejecting their claim for extension of the upgraded pay scale of ₹5,500–9,000 applicable to Junior Hindi Translators.

The rejection was based on the ground that the applicants were not parties to the earlier proceedings in Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India, OA No. 2474/2015, decided by the Principal Bench on 20 January 2023.

In that decision, the Principal Bench directed grant of the upgraded scale to Junior Translators with effect from 1 January 1996 notionally and 11 February 2003 actually, until implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission.

The respondents contended that the applicants belonged to a distinct Ordnance Factory cadre, governed by separate recruitment rules, and that their duties and responsibilities were not comparable to those of employees of the Central Secretariat Official Language Service or Armed Forces Headquarters Official Language Service.

The applicants argued that they were similarly situated to employees who had already received the benefit in other Ordnance Factories and that non-membership of the earlier litigation could not justify denial of equal treatment.

1. Whether the applicants could claim extension of the upgraded pay scale granted in the earlier litigation, despite not being parties to that proceeding?

2. Whether the respondents were justified in denying the benefit on the ground that the applicants belonged to a distinct cadre with different duties and responsibilities?

3. Whether the applicants were entitled to notional pay fixation from the date of appointment and actual monetary benefits subject to limitation principles?

The Tribunal applied the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

It relied on the principle that similarly situated employees must ordinarily be treated alike, and that extension of a judicially recognised service benefit cannot be denied merely because an employee did not individually participate in the earlier litigation, subject to the exceptions of delay, laches and acquiescence, as recognised in State of Karnataka v. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347.

The Tribunal also applied Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 652, holding that pay-fixation claims involving a continuing wrong may be entertained despite delay, although arrears may ordinarily be restricted to three years preceding the filing of the claim.

It further relied on Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar Gond & Ors., SLP (C) No. 17419/2009, decided on 25 July 2013, and Union of India v. D.G.O.F. Employees Association & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 1663 of 2016, decided on 9 November 2023, which recognised correction of discriminatory pay disparities where historical and functional parity had been established.

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ impugned order rejected the applicants’ claim substantially because they were not parties to the earlier proceedings, without furnishing sufficient material to establish a material difference between their duties and those of the employees who had received the benefit under OA No. 2474/2015.

Applying the principle of equal treatment of similarly situated employees, the Tribunal held that the respondents could not selectively implement the benefit within the relevant Hindi Translator cadre, particularly when similar benefits had already been extended in other Ordnance Factories.

The additional objections raised in the counter-affidavit concerning cadre structure, recruitment rules and alleged differences in duties were not adequately demonstrated in the impugned administrative order.

At the same time, following Tarsem Singh, the Tribunal limited the actual arrears to three years preceding the filing of the respective OAs, while allowing notional benefits from the date of appointment.

It directed that the applicants be granted the benefit of the decision in OA No. 2474/2015 from the date of their appointment to the cadre of Junior Hindi Translator on a notional basis.

Actual arrears were directed to be paid for the period of three years preceding the filing of the OAs, together with consequential pay re-fixation.

The respondents were directed to complete the exercise within three months from receipt of the order.

No order as to costs was made.