Tribunal granted liberty to raise pay-parity grievances before the Eighth Pay Commission and Railway Board.

The applicant, an Operation Theatre Assistant/Dresser-II at K.G. Hospital, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works, claimed pay parity and promotional avenues comparable to Operation Theatre Assistants/Technicians in institutions such as AIIMS, JIPMER and PGIMER.

He had earlier pursued similar reliefs in O.A. No. 350/2028/2015, which was disposed of with a direction to consider the claim; the claim was subsequently rejected by the Railway Administration.

In O.A. No. 350/996/2017, the Tribunal directed the Railway Authorities to constitute an Expert Committee to examine the duties, functional responsibilities and alleged discrimination concerning the pay and promotional structure of Railway OTAs vis-à-vis comparable institutions.

An Expert Committee comprising Railway Board officers submitted its report dated 07.09.2020, concluding that there was no relevant comparison between Railway OTAs and OTAs in AIIMS/JIPMER and that the existing cadre restructuring was justified.

The applicant challenged the Committee’s report and consequential orders, alleging that he and similarly situated employees were not given a hearing, that relevant institutions and unions were not consulted, and that the restructuring deprived them of meaningful promotion to the posts of OT Technician and OT Lecturer.

Whether the Expert Committee’s report dated 07.09.2020 and the consequential Railway orders concerning the pay and promotional structure of Railway OTAs should be rescinded or set aside for failure to properly examine the applicant’s claim for parity?

Whether the respondents should be directed to constitute a fresh Expert Committee including members from departments or institutions outside the Railway Ministry, including institutions such as AIIMS, JIPMER or PGIMER?

Whether the applicant should be permitted to place his pay-parity and promotional-grievance claim before the forthcoming Eighth Pay Commission and the Railway Board?

The application was brought under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which permits an aggrieved public servant to seek redress before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal recognised that questions concerning pay fixation, pay parity and promotional structure involve expert and administrative assessment, and that judicial review does not ordinarily permit substitution of the Tribunal’s view for that of a duly constituted expert body unless legal infirmity is established.

In this context, the respondents relied on Prabhat Kiran Maithani & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., 1977 SCC (L&S) 279, and State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., (1989) 1 SCC 121, in support of the limited scope of judicial interference in matters of pay classification and expert determination.

The Tribunal recorded the applicant’s objections that the Expert Committee was composed exclusively of Railway Board officers, did not afford the affected employees or their unions an opportunity of hearing, and failed to consult comparable institutions.

However, it did not finally invalidate the Committee’s report or undertake an independent determination of pay parity.

The respondents maintained that the Committee had examined the relevant responsibilities and qualifications and had correctly found no equivalence between Railway OTAs and the corresponding staff of AIIMS and JIPMER.

In view of the specialised nature of pay fixation and cadre restructuring, and the limited scope of judicial review over expert conclusions, the Tribunal adopted a facilitative course rather than substituting its own assessment.

It granted the applicant liberty to submit his grievance to the Eighth Pay Commission and the Railway Board through a recognised and registered union.

Instead, it granted the applicant liberty to place his demand and grievance in writing before the forthcoming Eighth Pay Commission and the Railway Board through a recognised and registered union, and requested those authorities to examine and attempt to resolve the issue appropriately.

The Original Application was accordingly disposed of without costs.