Parity in Pay Cannot Be Claimed Solely on Similarity of Designation Without Establishing Wholesale Identity of Service Conditions

The applicants (103 individuals), employed as Choudhary, Senior Mali, and Mali within the President’s Garden at Rashtrapati Bhawan, filed this Original Application in 2015.

They sought the grant of a "Selection Grade" after 8 years of service and corresponding revised pay scales, citing a CPWD Office Memorandum (OM) dated 09.06.2011.

The applicants contended that since they perform duties similar to CPWD employees and have received certain parity in allowances (e.g., washing allowance) in the past, they are entitled to the same financial upgradation schemes.

The respondents opposed the claim, stating that the President’s Secretariat is a distinct establishment governed by its own recruitment rules and that the CPWD OM applied specifically to work-charged employees under court directions, a category non-existent in the Secretariat.

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the grant of Selection Grade and revised pay scales on the basis of parity with CPWD employees under the principle of "equal pay for equal work".

2. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 09.06.2011 issued by CPWD is automatically applicable to employees of the President’s Secretariat.

The court primarily applied the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" as a constitutional goal under Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution of India.

It relied on Randhir Singh v. Union of India, which established that pay parity requires substantial identity in qualifications, duties, and responsibilities, rather than mere similarity in nomenclature.

The court further applied principles from State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh and State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, holding that the "onus of proof" for establishing wholesale identity between the subject and reference posts lies entirely on the claimant.

Additionally, it noted that employees of different departments may be governed by different service structures based on administrative requirements.

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to discharge the burden of proof required to establish complete parity.

While the applicants asserted broad similarities in work, they failed to provide a detailed comparative framework regarding recruitment rules, educational qualifications, or organizational hierarchy.

The court reasoned that the CPWD OM was issued in a specific administrative context for "work-charged" employees, a cadre that does not exist in the President’s Secretariat.

The Tribunal emphasized that distinct establishments (President’s Secretariat vs. CPWD) possess separate administrative controls, and a policy decision in one does not automatically create a legal right in the other.

Furthermore, as the applicants were already receiving financial upgrades under the Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) scheme and the 6th CPC recommendations, there was no Evidence of "hostile discrimination".

The court held that pay fixation and the extension of financial schemes are executive policy matters where judicial review is limited.

Consequently, the Original Application was dismissed, and no relief was granted regarding the Selection Grade or arrears.

No order as to costs was made.