Pay disparity between CSS and lower formation Assistants is discriminatory.

The applicants are retired employees of the Military Engineer Services (MES) under the Ministry of Defence, who were initially joined as LDC on various dates.

Applicant Nos. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 & 17 were promoted as UDC and were granted 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 after the implementation of the ACP Scheme on August 9, 1999.

The remaining applicants (Nos. 3, 4, 5, 11, 12 & 18) received both 1st and 2nd ACP.

Subsequently, some were promoted to Assistant/Office Superintendent/Administrative Officer–II without financial benefits and later retired.

They sought pay parity with Assistants/Stenographers in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS), who were granted a pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 by the 5th Pay Commission, while MES employees received Rs.5000-8000.

This disparity was challenged in O.A.No.314/2010, which was allowed by the Tribunal on October 21, 2011.

The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala quashed this order in O.P.(CAT) No.1597/2012 on August 8, 2019.

However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in SLP No.29204/2019, upheld the Tribunal's order on July 27, 2022, declaring the denial of similar pay scales to Assistants in lower formations of the Indian Navy discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Despite this, the respondents, who had initially filed a compliance affidavit, later argued that the applicants were not entitled to pay parity due to differences in recruitment rules and duties between MES and CSS posts.

The Ministry of Defence had also directed the Navy via letter dated August 13, 2024, to extend benefits at par with AFHQ cadre to applicants, subject to the outcome of a review petition, which the applicants contended was a tactic to deny benefits.

1. Whether the applicants, as retired employees of the Military Engineer Services (MES), are entitled to pay parity with Assistants/Stenographers in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and consequently a pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 from the dates they were placed in the Rs.5000-8000 scale?

2. Whether the respondents' contention that differences in recruitment rules and duties justify denying pay parity is valid in light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in SLP No.29204/2019?

The court primarily applied the principle of non-discrimination articulated in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates equal treatment for similarly situated individuals.

It relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in SLP No.29204/2019, which affirmed the finding that denying similar pay scales to Assistants in lower formations of the Indian Navy, compared to those in CSS, is discriminatory.

The judgment also gave weight to the Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission's report, which recommended removing pay disparity between Assistants in CSS and other lower formations, a recommendation accepted by the Union of India.

Furthermore, the Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on treating similarly situated persons similarly, as established in *Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Association (Direct Recruit) vs. State of U.P.* [(2006) 10 SCC 346] and *State of Karnataka vs. C.Lalitha* [(2006) 2 SCC 747].

The Tribunal noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had explicitly held that it would be discriminatory to deny similar pay scales to Assistants in other lower formations, including the Indian Navy, as compared to Assistants in CSS.

This conclusion was buttressed by the Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission's report, which was constituted to address this disparity and whose recommendation for parity was accepted by the Union of India.

The Supreme Court emphasized that unless there was a change in circumstances regarding the quality and quantity of work, different pay scales for similarly placed Assistants would be discriminatory and violate Article 14.

The Tribunal found the High Court's reasoning, which relied on surmises regarding the 5th Pay Commission's study, to be flawed, especially given the specific purpose and acceptance of the Justice D. Bhaskaran Commission's report.

The Tribunal also referenced its prior order in O.A.No.180/990/2018, which recognized pay parity up to the level of Office Superintendent and extended it to the next promotion level of Administrative Officer, asserting that the duties of Administrative Officers in lower formations were identical to those in Headquarters organizations.

The respondents' argument regarding differences in recruitment rules and duties was explicitly considered and rejected by the Supreme Court.

The Tribunal further noted that orders implementing the Supreme Court's judgment had been issued in Western and Eastern Naval Commands and for Ordinance Factory employees, undermining the respondents' claim of a pending review petition as a basis for denial.

The respondents are directed to grant the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 to the applicants from the respective dates they were placed in the Rs.5000-8000 pay scale, along with consequential benefits and arrears of pay within three months.

However, the payment of arrears is restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of filing the O.A., in accordance with *Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh* [(2008) 8 SCC 648].