The judgment establishes that differences in pay scale are justified if the nature of job, responsibilities, experience, method of recruitment, and duties are different, and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in this writ petition by the petitioners is to an order dated July 26, 2019, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (`Tribunal', for short) in Original Application No.1897/2014 (`OA', for short) whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the OA which was filed by the petitioners herein.

2. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that they are serving/retired as Foreign Trade Development Officers (`FTDO', for short) posted at various regional offices of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (`DGFT', for short) which is an attached office under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Government of India. According to them, the post of FTDO is filled up by two streams. The first feeder cadre is 100% by promotional from DGFT staff of LDC, UDC, Licensing Assistant and Sectional Head. The second stream is by officers of CSS cadre.

3. Their grievance is primarily seeking parity qua the Section Officers working in CSS as FTDO (CSS) and other similar organizations. It was their case that the scales of pay of FTDO (Non-CSS) were at par with the Section Officer of CSS and other similar organizations till 5th CPC with both being in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 but with the implementation of the 6th CPC, a difference has been brought in the pay of FTDO (Non-CSS)/FTDO (CSS), inasmuch as the FTDO (CSS) getting higher grade pay. The prayer made by them is that they should be given the grade pay as was being given to the FTDO (CSS). The Tribunal has rejected the OA by stating in paragraphs 14 to 16 as under:

"14. In this case the channel for promotion of Non-CSS FTDO is 100% on promotional basis from LDC/UDC/Licensing Assisatant/Section Head whereas in the category of CSS FTDOs, it is from Assistant to SO which also has direct recruitment component. Both the feeder category and also the promotional post of non-CSS FTDO and CSS FTDOs are also different. The Non-CSS FTDOs are from DGFT and continue to move up as Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade and Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade whereas the FTDOs of CSS have the promotional avenues as Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Joint Secretary. It has also been stated that the CSS FTDOs are only posted in the Headquarters and the Non-CSS FTDOs are posted across the country in the regional offices and thereby their job assignment is different from those from CSS. Pay Commission has also considered in detail, the job description, qualification, experience, promotional avenues, channels of promotion for various services and made recommendation which can not merely be for maintaining the status quo but for deciding and revising existing pay structure as needed and, therefore, the claim of parity herein is not tenable.

15. At the same time, grievance, if any, arising out of the recommendation of the pay commission is taken up through Anomalies Committee. In this case, the applicants' representation has been processed through DGFT to the Anomalies Committee and was not agreed to by the respondents. The proposal was resubmitted for reconsideration and once again after examination, the same was not agreed to.

16. In the instant case, the applicants have already availed of remedies available like Anomalies Committee, not once but twice. 7th Central Pay Commission's recommendations have already been implemented. At this point of time, seeking any parity once again on the basis of recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission and the Government decision is totally misplaced."

4. The submission of Mr. A.K. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioners is primarily that the Tribunal without proper application of mind and in total disregard of factual matrix of the case that is relevant for determination of issue has dismissed the OA. According to him, the 6th CPC recommendation which did not retain the historical parity is based on wrong facts adduced by the respondents, irrel