Unreasoned denial of Sixth Pay Commission arrears violates Articles 14 and 21.

The petitioners were employees working in various posts under the Chhattisgarh Infrastructure Development Corporation (CIDC).

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

The respondents submitted that the Sixth Pay Commission benefits had been extended to State Government employees and corporate bodies only with effect from 1 November 2011, and that the petitioners’ claim had been forwarded to the State Government for consideration.

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

Whether the State Government’s decision dated 2 March 2012 denying revised pay-scale arrears to CIDC employees for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011 was unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of the Sixth Pay Commission and other salary revisions from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011, together with consequential arrears.

The Court applied the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-arbitrariness under Article 14 and the protection of life and personal liberty under Article 21, holding that denial of legitimate pay benefits without a reasoned basis may be unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory.

It relied on Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar Mishra, (2019) 5 SCC 110, which recognised that employees performing similar work in the same corporation should not be subjected to unequal pay structures and that a corporation cannot deny Sixth Pay Commission benefits on an erroneous or non-applicable finance-department interpretation.

It also relied on Union of India v. Satya Brata Chowdhury, (2008) 16 SCC 383, affirming that similarly situated employees cannot be treated differently and that pay-revision benefits cannot be denied on an arbitrary basis.

The Court further followed its earlier decision in WPS No. 697 of 2013 and connected matters, affirmed in WA No. 622 of 2024.

The Court found that the State’s decision dated 2 March 2012 denied revised pay-scale arrears for the period from 1 January 2006 to 31 October 2011 without assigning any reasons.

Applying the principles of equal treatment, non-arbitrariness and the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning pay parity and implementation of pay revisions, the Court held that such unexplained denial was unreasonable, unfair, discriminatory and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21.

Since the identical issue had already been decided in favour of similarly situated employees and that decision had been affirmed by the Division Bench, the Court adopted the operative directions issued in the earlier case.

The circular/decision dated 2 March 2012 was treated as quashed, and 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 after verifying the amounts claimed and to decide the petitioners’ representation preferably within 150 days from receipt of a copy of the order.