Past Trajectory and Conduct Justify Pay Disparity; Parity Claims Cannot Overlook Performance-Based Benefit Deferments.

The applicant, a retired driver of the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC), was appointed on May 18, 1981

While the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme was introduced in 2002, the applicant’s first financial upgradation was deferred until July 1, 2006, due to adverse entries in his ACRs

He retired on May 31, 2008, with a salary of ₹13,170/-

In 2018—ten years post-retirement—the applicant claimed his pay and pension should be at par with a contemporary, Sh. Bhoop Singh, who retired with a basic pay of ₹15,760/-

The respondent rejected his claim via order dated December 31, 2018, stating his pay was correctly fixed based on his specific service record and the deferred ACP

1. Whether an employee is entitled to pay parity with a batchmate or contemporary irrespective of individual service trajectories, such as deferment of financial upgradations due to performance

2. Whether the applicant can challenge the denial of financial benefits (ACP) and subsequent pay fixation after a lapse of 11 years from retirement

The court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of applications by aggrieved persons

financial upgradations under schemes like ACP are subject to eligibility criteria, including clean service records (ACRs)

the court emphasized the doctrine of finality and laches, noting that a failure to challenge administrative actions (such as the denial of ACP in 2002) at the material time prevents subsequent claims for parity after significant delay

The Tribunal found the applicant’s claim for parity logically and legally flawed. It noted that Sh. Bhoop Singh was not junior to the applicant but had joined earlier (February 7, 1981) and, more importantly, had a different service trajectory

Unlike the applicant, Bhoop Singh received his 1st ACP on the due date (August 12, 2002), whereas the applicant's upgradation was deferred to 2006 due to adverse ACRs

The court reasoned that since the applicant never challenged the original denial of ACP in 2002 or the deferred grant in 2007, those decisions attained finality

The Tribunal observed that pay fixation is individual-specific and dictated by performance and penalties; therefore, an employee cannot claim automatic parity with a batchmate after a decade of silence

The court answered that the applicant’s pay and pension were correctly fixed based on his actual service record and the valid deferment of his ACP benefits

Although the Tribunal found the plea "frivolous" and "absurd," it refrained from imposing exemplary costs only because the applicant was a retired Group-C/D employee . . . All pending MAs were disposed of