The central legal point established in the judgment is the shift in the principle of law from 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' to 'Equal Pay for Equal Work of Equal Value' and the presumption of validity in a government decision.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The writ petitioners, 14 in number, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.1903/2010 praying that All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) be directed to pay salary to them in pay scales equivalent to those of Dieticians and Senior Dieticians working under the Central Government as per the pay scales recommended by the 4th Central Pay Commission w.e.f. January 01, 1996.

2. Some applicants before the Tribunal who are writ petitioners before us were working as Assistant Dieticians and some as Dieticians with AIIMS and suffice would it be to state that Asstt. Dieticians were claiming entitlement to receive pay in the scale in which Central Government was placing Dieticians, and the Dieticians working in AIIMS were claiming equivalent scales in which Senior Dieticians were being placed by the Central Government.

3. The basis of the claim was that whereas Asstt. Dieticians recruited by AIIMS required same Educational Qualifications as also experience as was required for appointment as Dietician under the Central Government where the post of Asstt. Dietician does not exist. Alleging further that the nature of work performed was similar, claim was predicated on equivalence between the post of Asstt. Dietician under AIIMS and that of Dietician under the Central Government. Equivalence between Dietician working under AIIMS and Senior Dietician under the Central Government was claimed on the principle of parity being Asstt. Dieticians being promoted as Dieticians in AIIMS and Dietician appointed under Central Government being promoted as Senior Dieticians, each having three years regular service in the feeder cadre.

4. Vide impugned order dated March 24, 2011 the Tribunal has declined to grant relief holding that the claim made in the year 2010 would be barred by limitation, and for which we may note that though not recorded by the Tribunal, w.e.f. January 01, 2006 the entire field has changed inasmuch as the 6th Pay Commission’s recommendations were implemented from the said date with large scale cadre restructuring and merger of pay scales into pay bands with differential grade pays. Thus, we would have appreciated pleadings with reference to the rules of the game and the play field with reference to what existed post January 01, 2006 and indeed with respect to a claim before the judicial fora made in the year 2010 it would be impressible to grant back wages on the differential of pay scales for a period preceding three years reckoned backwards because this would be the limitation period to institute a suit.

5. We thus make a caveat: if the writ petitioners could make out a case with respect to the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission before the Tribunal the issue could be revisited by the Tribunal in the context of the fact that on an entirely cause of action a claim was being made for the first time.

6. Thus, the reason of the Tribunal to hold that the instant claim was hit by limitation is prima facie correct.

7. The Tribunal has also held against the writ petitioners on merits and thus in the context of the recommendations of the Pay Commissions recommendations w.e.f. January 01, 1996, we have to consider whether the view taken by the Tribunal is correct.

8. The Tribunal has opined that issues of equivalence have to be determined on various parameters and not as a mechanist. The Tribunal has noted that the lowest post in the cadre of Dieticians under AIIMS was that of an Asstt. Dietician and the higher posts in the ladder were that of > Dietician > Sr. Dietician > Chief Dietician and that under the Central Government the lowest entry level post was that of Dietician > Sr. Dietician > Chief Dietician. Thus, the Tribunal has concluded that if claim was allowed it would amount to jumping the ladder.

9. The Tribunal has noted, and in our opinion correctly, the law declared by the Supreme Court in the opinion reported as (2006) 9 SCC 321 State of Haryana & Ors. v. C