The Library Assistant–School Librarian pay-parity anomaly must be referred to the Eighth CPC for reasoned recommendation.

The applicant was appointed as a Library and Information Assistant under the National Research Laboratory for Conservation of Cultural Property with effect from 31 August 2006.

He claimed that Library and Information Assistants had historically enjoyed pay parity with School Librarians under the Fourth and Fifth Central Pay Commissions, both cadres carrying the pay scales of ₹1,400–2,600 and ₹5,500–9,000 respectively.

However, under the Sixth Central Pay Commission, Library and Information Assistants were placed in Pay Band-2 with Grade Pay of ₹4,200, whereas School Librarians were granted Grade Pay of ₹4,600.

The alleged anomaly was considered by the National Anomaly Committee and referred by the Department of Personnel and Training to the Ministry of Culture and thereafter to the Department of Expenditure.

Although the Ministry of Culture recommended upgradation of the Grade Pay to ₹4,600, the Department of Expenditure rejected the claim by letter dated 19 March 2014.

The applicant challenged the rejection and subsequent decisions and sought Grade Pay of ₹4,600 with effect from 1 January 2006, consequential refixation, arrears and interest.

The respondents relied on the view of the Seventh Central Pay Commission that the existing placement of the posts was appropriate and that no upgradation was justified.

1. Whether the disparity in Grade Pay between Library and Information Assistants and School Librarians, despite their historical pay parity, constituted an anomaly warranting reconsideration.

2. Whether the applicant was entitled to Grade Pay of ₹4,600 in Pay Band-2 with effect from 1 January 2006 and consequential monetary benefits.

3. Whether the alleged pay anomaly should be referred to the Eighth Central Pay Commission for fresh, objective and reasoned consideration.

The Tribunal considered the principle that similarly situated employees should not be subjected to arbitrary differential treatment and that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” may require preservation of pay parity where comparable cadres have historically been treated alike.

It referred to Union of India & Ors. v. DGOF Employees Association & Anr., Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 1663 of 2016, decided on 9 November 2023, and All India Naval Clerks Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., SLP(C) No. 29204 of 2019, decided on 27 July 2022, in support of these principles.

The Tribunal also recognised that recommendations of Pay Commissions are relevant to pay fixation, but that an unexplained departure from historical parity may require reasoned examination.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s cadre and the cadre of School Librarians had remained on identical pay scales under the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions, but were placed in different Grade Pay categories under the Sixth Pay Commission.

Although the respondents relied on the Sixth and Seventh Pay Commissions, no reasoning supporting the continued differential treatment or rejecting the claimed parity was placed on record.

Given the wider implications of the issue, the need for an in-depth examination, and the constitution of the Eighth Central Pay Commission, the Tribunal considered it inappropriate to finally adjudicate the entitlement on merits.

It therefore directed that the alleged anomaly be placed before the Eighth Pay Commission for fresh and reasoned consideration.

Respondent No. 4, the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, was directed to consult the Ministry of Culture and place the alleged pay anomaly between Library and Information Assistants and School Librarians before the Eighth Central Pay Commission within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order, requesting an objective and reasoned recommendation.

The associated miscellaneous applications were also disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.