Revised recruitment rules cannot retroactively divest employees of accrued rights.

The applicants were appointed as Lab Technicians in Group 'C' posts by the 2nd Respondent, the Central Council for Research in Siddha (CCRS), on August 19, 2016, with a pay scale of Pay Band-1 (GP Rs. 2400/-).

They possessed the essential educational qualifications stipulated in the recruitment rules existing at the time of their appointment.

Subsequently, the Ministry of AYUSH, with the approval of the Ministry of Finance, issued a letter dated April 28, 2020, upgrading the pay scale of Lab Technicians to Pay Band-2 (GP Rs. 4200/-) and redesignating the post as "Medical Laboratory Technologist," effective January 27, 2020.

This revision was subject to changes in recruitment rules as per the norms of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, and a condition that incumbents not meeting the stipulated essential educational qualification (Bachelor’s degree in Medical Laboratory Science with 2 years relevant experience) would not be entitled to the upgraded pay scale until they acquired the requisite qualifications.

The 2nd Respondent then issued an order dated September 3, 2020, to implement these revised rules and pay scales.

This order contained a clause stating that incumbents not possessing the stipulated essential educational qualification and experience would not be granted the revised pay scale and redesignation, but would continue to draw their existing pay scale.

The applicants, who did not possess the revised qualification of a Bachelor's degree in Medical Laboratory Science, were denied the redesigned post and upgraded pay scale, while their co-appointees and juniors (appointed as late as 2017 or 2019) who held the Bachelor's degree, performing the same duties, were granted the benefits.

The applicants contended that these revised rules were prospective, and their accrued rights should not be impaired, leading to pay disparity and discrimination.

Whether the revised recruitment rules and the condition imposed by the 2nd Respondent, which deny redesignation and upgraded pay scale to existing Lab Technicians not possessing the new qualifications, are arbitrary, unjust, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Whether the applicants, having been appointed under previous rules and performing identical duties, are entitled to pay parity with their co-appointees and juniors who received the upgraded pay scales.

Statutory provisions, including recruitment rules, are prospective unless expressly or by necessary implication stated to be retrospective, and thus cannot impair or take away existing rights.

Revised recruitment rules without retrospective effect cannot alter conditions of service or advantage of employees appointed under prior rules.

Posts are to be filled as per rules in force at the time of vacancy unless retrospectively amended.

The constitutional goal of "equal pay for equal work" as deducible from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, allows for interference when government decisions are patently irrational, unjust, and prejudicial, or ignore material factors.

Conditions of service cannot be altered to the disadvantage of employees.

The revised recruitment rules, which introduced new educational qualifications for the redesignated post of Medical Laboratory Technologist, were explicitly prospective, taking effect from January 27, 2020.

Therefore, these rules could not retrospectively impact the applicants who were appointed under the pre-existing rules on August 19, 2016, and possessed the qualifications then required.

The redesignation of 'Lab Technician' to 'Medical Laboratory Technologist' pertained to the same post, and not a promotional post, thus the applicants continued to hold the redesignated position.

Denying them the upgraded pay scale attached to this redesignated post, based on a new qualification criterion introduced prospectively, constituted a selective discrimination.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's clarification on a similar upgradation in CGHS specifically applied to all employees holding the erstwhile posts irrespective of their current qualifications, to avoid pay anomaly.

The 2nd Respondent's inclusion of a condition in its September 3, 2020 order—denying benefits to incumbents not possessing the new qualifications—was unauthorized, as no such condition was present in the *approved* recruitment rules by the Ministry of AYUSH.

This arbitrary denial resulted in a situation where juniors with the new qualification, performing identical duties, were drawing higher pay than seniors (the applicants), violating the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and creating an irrational pay anomaly.

The court distinguished the respondent's reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. R. D. Sharma & Anr. and State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association by stating those related to determination of pay scales, whereas this case involved denial of an already determined pay scale.

The impugned order was set aside.

The respondents were directed to redesignate the applicants' posts as Medical Laboratory Technologist and upgrade their pay scale to Pay Band-2 with Grade pay of Rs. 4200/- (Level 6), effective from January 27, 2020.

The respondents were further directed to complete this process, and grant all dues and arrears with consequential benefits under the old recruitment rules, within three months from the date of the order.