Parity-based pay fixation claims rejected when foundational order not adjudicated on merits.

The applicants, Plaster Assistants in ESIC Hospitals, filed five Original Applications seeking the benefit of a pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-

This claim was based on an order dated 19.12.2013 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA No. 3227/2011 (Brham Pal & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.)

The applicants also cited further orders from the Jabalpur Bench of CAT (OA No. 204/2021) and the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Misc. Petition (M.P) No. 3645/2022), which upheld the Jabalpur Bench's decision without going into merits, deferring to the Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court, in WP (C) No. 6414/2015, disposed of petitions related to the Principal Bench's order, including WP (C) No. 18/2015 against OA No. 3227/2011, "leaving the question of law open"

The respondents contended that the benefit of the 2013 judgment was granted in persona and provisionally, subject to the Delhi High Court's outcome

They further stated that the applicants were already drawing higher pay in Pay Level-5 following amendments to the Recruitment Rules on 08.01.2022, which changed the nomenclature and pay matrix for Lab Assistants (Plaster Assistants)

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/-, based on the order dated 19.12.2013 in OA No. 3227/2011 (Brham Pal & Ors.).

2. Whether the lack of adjudication on the merits of the foundational order (OA No. 3227/2011) by higher courts impacts the present applicants' claim for parity.

3. Whether the subsequent amendment to the Recruitment Rules and the applicants drawing a higher pay in Pay Level-5 renders their claim for the earlier grade pay untenable.

The Tribunal considered principles of judicial propriety and parity, as seen in the Jabalpur Bench's decision in OA No. 204/2021, which granted relief based on the Principal Bench's judgment without addressing the merits

However, the primary legal principle applied was that a benefit extended solely on the basis of a previous judgment, where the underlying question of law remained un-adjudicated, does not create an automatic right for others, especially when distinguishing facts exist

The Tribunal also acknowledged the statutory framework under Section 17(2) of the E.S.I. Act, 1948, which governs the conditions of service for ESIC staff according to Central Government rules and corresponding pay scales

The court found that the applicants' claim for a higher grade pay was based solely on a previous judgment (Brham Pal & Ors. in OA No. 3227/2011) where the "question of law" was explicitly left open by the Delhi High Court

The Jabalpur Bench had granted relief based on parity, not merits, and the Madhya Pradesh High Court deferred to the Delhi High Court on the legality of the foundational order

Since the core legal issue of the pay scale entitlement was never adjudicated on its merits by any higher court, the present applicants could not claim automatic extension of that benefit

Furthermore, the respondents successfully distinguished the applicants' case, pointing out that the 2013 judgment concerned Plaster Assistants in Pay Level-3, whereas the present applicants, promoted in 2020, were already drawing higher pay in Pay Level-5 due to amended Recruitment Rules from 08.01.2022

The applicants failed to demonstrate that their case was similar to the one relied upon or to rebut the respondents' contentions regarding the amended rules and higher pay

Therefore, the claim lacked a basis in substantive law and relied only on an un-adjudicated premise

The Tribunal held that the applicants failed to establish their case on merits, as their claim was solely based on a previous judgment whose underlying question of law remained un-adjudicated by higher courts

Additionally, the court accepted the respondents' distinction that the applicants were already drawing higher pay in Pay Level-5 due to subsequent amendments in Recruitment Rules, making their claim for the earlier grade pay untenable