Similarity in designation is insufficient for pay parity absent proof of functional identity.

The eight applicants, serving as Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Storeman-Technical) in the Delhi Police, sought parity in pay scales with similarly designated employees in other Central Government departments and Paramilitary Forces

Historically, after the 5th CPC, the applicants were placed in the Rs. 4500-7000 scale, while counterparts in other departments received Rs. 5000-8000

Under the 6th CPC, the applicants were granted a replacement scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay (GP) of Rs. 2800

They contended that because the unrevised scale of Rs. 4500-7000 was generally upgraded to GP Rs. 4200 in other departments, they were entitled to the same

Following a direction from the Tribunal in a previous OA (No. 3903/2012), the respondents issued an order dated 08.09.2014 rejecting the applicants' claim, citing differences in duties and responsibilities

The applicants challenged this rejection in the present OA.

Whether the applicants are entitled to the upgraded pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 with GP Rs. 4200 effective from 01.01.2006 based on the principle of parity with other Paramilitary Forces and Government departments.

The Court relied on the principle that the fixation of pay scales is an executive function primarily guided by Pay Commission recommendations, as established in Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan

It applied the doctrine that "equal pay for equal work" cannot be invoked solely based on designation; it requires a detailed comparison of educational qualifications, nature of duties, and responsibilities, as held in State of West Bengal v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association

Furthermore, the court noted that judicial intervention in pay fixation is only justified in cases of "hostile discrimination" or "irrational consideration," per Union of India v. DGOF Employees Association

The Tribunal found that the applicants failed to provide any evidence comparing their educational qualifications, recruitment methods, or specific job responsibilities with those of the counterparts they claimed parity with

The court observed that mere similarity in designation does not satisfy the legal requirements for "equal pay for equal work"

It accepted the respondents' argument that the duties of Storemen in the Delhi Police were distinct from those in Paramilitary Forces

Citing P.V. Hariharan, the Tribunal emphasized that interfering with pay scales has a cascading effect on other categories and should be avoided by courts unless a clear case of irrationality or discrimination is made out

Since the applicants could not prove historical parity or irrationality in the government's decision, the Tribunal determined the matter was best left to the Executive and the upcoming 8th Pay Commission

The Court held that in the absence of evidence regarding identical duties and qualifications, the court cannot intervene in executive pay fixation

The applicants were advised to present their grievances before the Anomaly Committee or the 8th Central Pay Commission

Pending MAs were disposed of accordingly