Unreasoned denial of Sixth Pay Commission arrears is arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional.

The 36 petitioners were employees who had worked in different posts under the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC).

They challenged the State Government’s decision dated 2 March 2012 denying them arrears arising from the revision of pay scales under the Sixth Pay Commission for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011.

The respondents contended that the benefit had already been extended to State Government employees and corporate bodies with effect from 1 November 2011, and that the petitioners’ claim had been forwarded to the State Government for consideration.

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar Mishra, (2019) 5 SCC 110, and Union of India v. Satya Brata Chowdhury, (2008) 16 SCC 383.

The Court also noted that the same issue had previously been decided in WPS No. 697 of 2013 and connected matters, whose decision had been affirmed in WA No. 622 of 2024.

Whether the State Government’s decision dated 2 March 2012 denying the petitioners the benefit of revised pay scales and arrears for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011 was legally sustainable.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission pay revision and payment of consequential arrears for the aforesaid period.

The Court applied Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, holding that an unexplained and discriminatory denial of pay-related benefits may be unreasonable, unfair, and constitutionally invalid.

It relied on Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar Mishra, where the Supreme Court held that employees performing the same or similar work could not be denied corresponding pay benefits and that a corporation could not withdraw or reduce pay scales previously offered as a condition of service; the decision also recognized entitlement to Sixth Pay Commission benefits while employees continued to work in the corporation.

It further relied on Union of India v. Satya Brata Chowdhury, which reaffirmed that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently without lawful justification.

The Court followed its earlier decision in WPS No. 697 of 2013, affirmed in WA No. 622 of 2024, under which the Circular dated 2 March 2012 had been quashed and the employees were held entitled to revised pay and arrears from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011.

The Court found that the State’s decision dated 2 March 2012 denied the revised pay-scale arrears without assigning any reason.

In light of the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination recognized in the cited Supreme Court authorities, and the binding effect of the Court’s earlier decision on the identical issue, the denial could not be sustained.

The Court therefore treated the petitioners’ claim as governed by the prior judgment, which had already invalidated the impugned circular and recognized entitlement to Sixth Pay Commission and other salary revisions for the relevant period.

The petitioners were held entitled to the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission and other salary revisions from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011.

The State authorities were directed to calculate and pay the arrears, subject to verification of the amounts claimed, and to decide the petitioners’ representation preferably within 150 days from receipt of a copy of the order.