Similarly situated employees are entitled to pay scale parity subject to outcomes of pending litigation.

The applicants are Group C Paramedical staff (Junior Radiographers) who filed this Original Application (OA) to challenge an order dated 12.11.2018 passed by Respondent No. 1

They sought a direction for the grant of the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and the corresponding revised Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400, including all consequential benefits and arrears

The applicants claimed parity with similarly situated employees whose claims had been allowed by other Benches of the Tribunal

During the proceedings, it was noted that the Director General of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) had issued an office order dated 24.04.2025 to implement similar judicial directions provisionally

1. Whether the applicants are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 (pre-revised) and Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 based on judicial precedents involving similarly situated paramedical staff

2. Whether the OA remains maintainable for adjudication in light of the respondents' administrative decision to implement the Principal Bench's orders in related matters

The Tribunal relied on the principle of judicial consistency and parity among similarly situated employees.

It followed the precedents established in OA No. 645/2015 (Jaipur Bench) and OA No. 2946/2018 (Principal Bench)

The court also applied the administrative directions contained in Office Order No. 119 of Admin-II dated 24.04.2025, which adopted the findings of the Principal Bench for implementation subject to the outcome of pending litigation in the High Court

The Tribunal observed that the controversy regarding the pay scale and Grade Pay for Junior Radiographers had been squarely covered by multiple coordinate bench judgments, specifically those from the Jaipur and Principal Benches

The court noted that the respondents had already issued an implementation order (Office Order No. 119) dated 24.04.2025, which granted approval for fixing the pay in the requested scale of Rs. 5200-20200 with a Grade Pay of Rs. 2400

The Tribunal reasoned that since the applicants were similarly situated to the litigants in the preceding cases, and the department had already decided to implement those orders provisionally, there was no further requirement for a detailed adjudication on the merits

The implementation, however, was explicitly made subject to the final outcome of Writ Petitions pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

The respondents were directed to grant the applicants the sought relief within three months of receipt of the order

This relief is provisional and subject to: (i) the final outcome of pending Writ Petitions in the High Court of Delhi, and (ii) the submission of individual undertakings by the applicants to refund any excess payments should the High Court rule in favor of the department

No order as to costs was made