Principle of Parity Bars Recovery Against Similarly Situated Employees Despite Undertakings and Differences in Employer Status

The petitioners (Union of India and ESIC) challenged orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which held that the respondents, Laboratory Assistants in various hospitals, were entitled to a revised pay scale of ₹4000-6000 effective January 1, 1996

Similar writ petitions involving the same pay scale issue had previously been disposed of by Coordinate Benches of the High Court after the petitioners stated they had complied with the Tribunal’s orders and would not seek recovery of payments, even though the question of law remained open

In the present case, the UOI argued that unlike previous cases involving ESIC, the Union should not be bound by such concessions and sought to enforce recovery based on undertakings signed by the respondents

1. Whether the Union of India can be permitted to recover excess pay from Laboratory Assistants in UOI hospitals when it had waived recovery for similarly situated Laboratory Assistants in ESIC hospitals

2. Whether the existence of an undertaking to refund excess payments justifies recovery after a lapse of nearly two decades, in light of previous judicial disposals of identical matters

The Court primarily applied the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment

It relied upon the doctrine of parity and non-discrimination, ensuring that similarly situated employees (Laboratory Assistants) are treated uniformly regarding pay scale benefits and recovery of dues

The Court also followed the precedents set by Coordinate Benches in UOI v. Kirat Ram (W.P.(C) 3136/2006) and Director General (ESIC) v. Rakesh Saini (W.P.(C) 6414/2015), which disposed of similar disputes by leaving the question of law open while prohibiting recovery

The Court rejected the Union's attempt to distinguish between ESIC Laboratory Assistants and UOI Laboratory Assistants, noting that allowing recovery from one group while waiving it for the other would constitute a "clear violation" of constitutional equality

Although the petitioners argued that the respondents had signed undertakings allowing for recovery and that some were still serving rather than retired, the Court observed that similar undertakings existed in the previously disposed cases where the UOI/ESIC had already conceded

The Court emphasized that the payments in question were made between 2006 and 2009—nearly twenty years ago—and that maintaining consistency with earlier judicial orders was essential to ensure equal treatment

The writ petitions were disposed of by prohibiting any recovery of the revised pay scale amounts from the respondents, while keeping the underlying question of law open for future determination, in alignment with the orders dated February 2, 2026, and February 4, 2026