Technicians holding historical pay parity with Lighting Assistants are entitled to retrospective arrears upon pay scale upgradation.

The Petitioners, working as Technicians, Senior Technicians, and Engineering Assistants in Prasar Bharati, sought pay parity with Lighting Assistants.

Historically, these cadres enjoyed parity until 1983, when the Supreme Court in Y.K. Mehta v. Union of India upgraded Lighting Assistants' pay to match Assistant Cameramen in the Film Division.

While notional parity for the period 1983–1995 was eventually granted to Technicians following litigation in Madras and the Supreme Court, a new disparity arose post-01.01.1996.

Pursuant to a Delhi High Court order in 2010, Lighting Assistants were granted a further upgraded scale of ₹5000-8000/-.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), via the impugned orders dated 01.04.2015 and 24.05.2016, recognized the Petitioners' right to the ₹5000-8000/- scale but restricted the relief to a "notional basis" only, denying actual arrears of pay.

Whether the Petitioners are entitled to the retrospective fixation of pay in the scale of ₹5000-8000/- along with the consequential relief of grant of arrears of pay from 01.01.1996.

The Court applied the Constitutional principles of Article 14 and 16 regarding "equal pay for equal work" as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the previous round of litigation between these parties (SLP No. 33048/2011), which held that absent a cogent explanation for differentiation, historical parity must be maintained.

It also relied on the precedent in Union of India v. D.G.O.F. Employees Association (2023), which affirms that courts may rectify discriminatory pay scales resulting from historical similarity.

Furthermore, the Court considered the principle from Union of India v. Sanjoy Kor (2025:DHC:10661-DB), which establishes that granting only notional benefits when other categories receive actual benefits is discriminatory.

The Court observed that the Respondents did not challenge the CAT's finding that Technicians and Lighting Assistants must be treated at par.

It rejected the Respondents' argument that arrears should be denied simply because they were waived in previous 1983–1995 litigation, noting that a past factual concession does not create an "immutable rule".

The Court found that since the Respondents had already extended the ₹5000-8000/- scale and paid arrears to Lighting Assistants—supported by a "due and drawn" statement—denying the same to the Petitioners would be "manifestly unjust".

As the Petitioners had approached the Tribunal promptly and had not waived their rights, there was no legal or equitable justification to limit the relief to a notional fixation.

The High Court set aside the "notional" restriction in the CAT orders and directed the Respondents to extend the pay scale of ₹5000-8000/- to the eligible Petitioners effective 01.01.1996, including all consequential benefits and the payment of actual arrears of pay to be cleared within three months.