Delhi HC Draws Line: No Pay Parity for Income Tax Stenographers Despite Shared Roots

In a significant ruling for government service hierarchies, the Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition by the Income Tax Gazetted Officers Association (ITGOA) and others, upholding the denial of pay parity for Private Secretaries (PS) and Senior Private Secretaries (SPS) in the Income Tax Department against their counterparts in the prestigious Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service (CSSS). A Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan emphasized judicial restraint in overriding expert Pay Commission recommendations.

Roots of the Rift: Parity Lost Over Decades

The dispute traces back to a time when stenographic cadres in field offices like the Income Tax Department under the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) enjoyed pay parity with CSSS up to the Third Central Pay Commission. Cracks appeared with the Fourth Pay Commission, widening further when CSSS received upgraded scales from September 15, 2006.

Petitioners, recruited via the Staff Selection Commission's common competitive exam, argued this created an unfair post-recruitment divide. Their representations to the Department of Expenditure were rejected on January 7, 2022, citing inapplicability of Secretariat scales to non-Secretariat offices. The Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) affirmed this in OA No. 1705/2022 on August 28, 2025, prompting the writ petition (W.P.(C) 1144/2026), reserved February 26, 2026, and decided March 20, 2026.

Petitioners Push Back: 'Same Exam, Same Skills, Same Pay'

Counsel for ITGOA, including Nitesh Kumar Singh, Mangesh Nayak, and Devender Singh, built a multi-pronged case:

• Historical Equivalence : Parity held for years, disturbed without justification.
• Unified Entry Point : Common SSC exam with identical qualifications; placement alone shouldn't dictate pay.
• Duty Overlap : Substantially similar roles, backed by job profile comparisons.
• Sixth Pay Commission Support : Its nod to field offices' "cutting edge" role bolstered their claim.

They invoked Supreme Court precedents like Union of India v. D.G.O.F. Employees Association (2023) and Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar Gond (2014) to argue long-standing parity can't be arbitrarily upended.

Respondents' Stand: Pay Commissions Set the Rules

The Union of India defended the divergence as deliberate policy, rooted in distinctions between elite Secretariat setups and field formations. Successive Pay Commissions—from the Fourth onward—affirmed higher scales for CSSS, considering hierarchy, career progression, and broader relativities. The Tribunal had rightly deferred to these expert views, rejecting parity beyond entry levels.

Bench's Balancing Act: Expertise Trumps Assumptions

The Court dissected " equal pay for equal work " not as a mechanical formula but a nuanced doctrine hinging on recruitment mode, duties' nature, responsibilities, promotions, and administrative context. Burden lay on petitioners to prove posts' " substantial identity "—a bar they couldn't clear.

Key to the ruling: The Sixth Central Pay Commission's explicit stance that parity holds absolutely only up to Assistant grade, beyond which it's "neither possible nor justified" due to structural differences. Courts can't cherry-pick favorable snippets while ignoring qualifications, as this would usurp expert domains.

Dismissing common recruitment as non-determinative, the Bench noted it doesn't erase post-appointment variances in deployment and responsibilities. Historical parity, while relevant, doesn't freeze structures against evolution.

Precedents fortified this: In Union of India v. Manoj Kumar (2021), the Supreme Court barred judicial parity where Commissions drew lines; State of Bihar v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee (2019) stressed non-mechanical application. Cases like D.G.O.F. were distinguished as Headquarters-specific, not field-wide.

Key Observations from the Bench

"The equation of posts for the purposes of pay determination depends upon a constellation of factors, including the source and mode of recruitment, qualifications prescribed, the nature and quality of duties performed, the degree of responsibility attached to the post, avenues of promotion, hierarchical placement, and the larger administrative setting in which the post operates." (Para 16)

"While field establishments operate at the cutting edge of administration, parity between Secretariat and field offices would remain absolute only up to the grade of Assistant, and that beyond that level, complete parity might neither be possible nor justified..." (Para 22, quoting Sixth CPC)

"The existence of a common recruiting agency and common examination cannot, in law, be treated as a determinative test for pay parity." (Para 27)

"Historical parity cannot be invoked to fossilize a pay structure or to preclude a conscious re-evaluation by an expert body..." (Para 20)

Final Call: Petition Dismissed, Status Quo Holds

"The present Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending application also stands disposed of."

This upholds the Tribunal, reinforcing that pay disputes belong to Pay Commissions and executives, not courts—unless arbitrariness is patent. For thousands in field stenographic roles, it cements the Secretariat premium, signaling future claims must grapple with Commission distinctions head-on. No immediate relief, but a blueprint for representations to upcoming panels.