Respondents must decide equal-pay representations through reasoned orders within eight weeks, without coercive action meanwhile.

The eleven applicants were working on a contractual basis with the National Institute of Unani Medicine and its establishments from 2022–23 onwards in various posts, including Data Entry Operator/Office Assistant, Accountant, Dresser, Nursing Officer/Staff Nurse, MTS and Ward Attendant.

The applicants contended that they had been selected pursuant to an advertisement dated 25 July 2022 and were working against sanctioned posts while performing duties similar to those performed by regular employees.

Relying on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the applicants sought payment of at least the minimum of the applicable basic pay scale together with Dearness Allowance.

The applicants had submitted representations dated 17 October, annexed as Annexure A-1, but the respondents had not passed any decision on them.

The applicants therefore filed the present Original Application.

M.A. No. 4253/2026 sought permission for the applicants to join together in one application, while M.A. No. 4252/2026 sought certain exemptions.

Whether the applicants’ representations seeking equal pay for equal work and payment of the minimum of the relevant pay scale with Dearness Allowance should be considered and decided by the respondents through a reasoned and speaking order?

Whether the applicants were entitled, at the admission stage, to a direction restraining the respondents from taking coercive action pending disposal of their representations?

Whether the applicants should be permitted to join together in a single Original Application and receive the exemptions sought in M.A. No. 4252/2026?

The Tribunal considered the principle of equal pay for equal work, under which contractual or casual employees performing the same duties and bearing the same responsibilities as regular employees may be entitled to at least the minimum of the applicable pay scale, subject to factual verification.

It relied upon the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 4 September 2019, which refers to the earlier DoPT O.M. dated 7 June 1988 and provides that where casual workers perform the same work as regular employees, they may be paid at the rate of 1/30th of the minimum of the relevant pay scale plus Dearness Allowance for eight hours’ work; where the work is different, minimum wages may apply.

The Tribunal also noted its earlier order dated 17 August 2026 in O.A. No. 2930/2026 concerning similarly placed employees of the same respondents.

However, the Tribunal did not finally adjudicate the applicants’ entitlement on merits.

The applicants asserted that they had been selected through a prescribed process, appointed against sanctioned posts and were performing functions comparable to those of regular employees.

Their claim was supported by the DoPT instructions and the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Since the representations already raising these claims had not been decided, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to direct the competent respondents to examine them rather than determine the disputed factual and legal questions at the admission stage.

The respondents did not oppose such a direction.

Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the Tribunal disposed of the Original Application without expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claim.

M.A. No. 4252/2026, seeking exemptions, was also allowed subject to just exceptions.

The Original Application was disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ pending representations dated 17 October through a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal’s order.

Until disposal of the representations, the respondents were directed not to take coercive action against the applicants.

The Tribunal clarified that it had not examined or expressed any opinion on the merits of the applicants’ claim for equal pay for equal work.

The pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, with no order as to costs.