Prior litigation is not a bar to pay-scale parity for similarly situated eligible employees.

The applicants, employees appointed as Technician-III and adjusted against various technical posts in the Power Development Department, sought the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 220–430 under the Jammu and Kashmir Power Development Department (Subordinate) Service Recruitment Rules, 1981, notified by SRO 381 dated 26 August 1981.

They claimed that employees in the same category—including some junior employees—had received the scale following earlier High Court judgments, including the judgment dated 11 October 2012 in connected writ petitions and its subsequent affirmation in appeal and dismissal of the SLPs.

The respondents maintained that the applicants had been directly recruited to lower-scale posts, had not been promoted to the posts carrying the higher scale, and could not claim parity merely because others had received the benefit.

They also raised delay and laches and disputed the propriety of some grants.

The applicants challenged rejection orders dated 12 January 2021 and 4 May 2022.

1. Whether the applicants were entitled to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 220–430 by virtue of SRO 381 of 1981 and the earlier High Court judgments, as employees allegedly similarly situated to those who had received the scale.

2. Whether the applicants’ claims could be rejected on the grounds that they were not parties to the earlier proceedings, had been directly recruited rather than promoted, or had raised their claims after delay.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution require the State to treat employees alike where they are similarly situated, unless a material and legally sustainable distinction justifies different treatment.

SRO 381 of 1981 governs the relevant service conditions and specifies the posts, pay scales and recruitment methods; entitlement must therefore be assessed by reference to its provisions, the employee’s appointment or promotion, and any applicable binding judicial determination.

Under State of Uttar Pradesh v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava, (2015) 1 SCC 347, similarly situated employees ordinarily receive similar treatment, but delay, acquiescence and the scope of the earlier judgment remain relevant.

Under Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648, a continuing service-related wrong may justify relief, while monetary arrears may ordinarily be limited to the three years preceding the proceedings.

The Tribunal also treated the earlier High Court judgments, including the decision dated 11 October 2012 and the connected proceedings in State of J&K v. Sanjay Gupta & Ors., as relevant to whether the applicants fell within the class covered by the settled legal principle.

The Tribunal held that non-participation in the earlier litigation did not, by itself, justify denying the benefit if the applicants belonged to the class covered by those judgments.

However, parity could not rest solely on a comparator’s pay scale: the applicants’ appointment orders, applicable rules, posts held and the basis on which comparators received the benefit had to be examined.

The respondents’ direct-recruitment/promotional-post distinction could be material, but required application to the applicants’ actual service circumstances rather than a general reference to the rules.

Given the applicants’ allegations of junior comparators and the benefits granted following earlier judicial proceedings, the rejection orders were inadequate insofar as they failed properly to address that asserted parity.

The Tribunal treated the pay-fixation claim as potentially involving a continuing wrong, but balanced that consideration against delay by limiting arrears.

The rejection orders dated 12 January 2021 and 4 May 2022 were quashed insofar as they rejected the claims without properly addressing the asserted parity.

The respondents were directed to grant the Rs. 220–430 scale, with corresponding revisions and consequential service benefits, only to applicants verified to belong to the same category, satisfy the same statutory eligibility conditions and fall within the principle of the earlier High Court judgments.

Pre-filing pay fixation was to be notional, with actual arrears limited to the three years preceding the filing of each OA; admissible benefits thereafter were also payable.

The exercise was to be completed within three months, without disturbing benefits lawfully granted to other employees.

No order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of.