IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that pay fixation must adhere to applicable rules, and claims for parity must consider distinct recruitment modes.

JUDGMENT :

VIJAY BISHNOI, C.J.

1. The instant writ appeal is preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3272/2018.

2. The appellant approached the Writ Court with a prayer to issue direction to the respondents to fix his pay in the Pay Band-3 and grant him Pay Scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- along with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- with effect from March, 2009. The appellant also prayed to issue a direction to the respondents to pay the arrear of the salaries to him in the revised Pay Scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/-and grade pay of Rs.5,400/- from March, 2009.

3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has dismissed the writ petition vide impugned judgment and order dated 03.01.2023.

4. Assailing the impugned order dated 03.01.2023, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in concluding that the respondents have rightly fixed the Pay Band of appellant/writ petitioner at Rs.9,300-34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.4,800/- at the time of absorption as a Central Government employee i.e. from 09.03.2009.

5. It is contended that the appellant was an employee of the Assam Government and with the enactment of Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Rules of 2010”), which came into force from 01.01.2006, the pay structure of the appellant on 09.03.2009 ought to have been considered in the revised pay of Rs.12,000-40,000/- with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- and he is liable to be fixed in the corresponding Pay Band and Grade Pay provided in the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 2008.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that at the time of his absorption as a Central Government employee, i.e. on 09.03.2009, the appellant was fixed in Pay Band-2 i.e. Rs.9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs.4,800/- and as such the respondents have fixed the appellant in the pay scale which was two steps lower with regard to his earlier pay scale. It is contended that the appellant was also entitled for pay protection though the said benefit was not granted to him.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that with the introduction of the Rules of 2010 which came into force on 01.01.2006, the appellant ought to have been fixed in the Pay Band-3 in the Pay Scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- along with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-.

8. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has failed to take into consideration the fact that the Pay Scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- with grade pay of Rs.5,400/- is in fact at par with the scale of pay given to other similarly situated Central Government employees holding the post of Technical Officer Grade -II at Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Guwahati, IIT, Kharagpur and other Institutes and looking to these facts also, the appellant is entitled for equitable relief on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge, without considering the above aspects, has illegally dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant and has illegally denied relief to the appellant as prayed in the writ petition.

10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in denying relief to the appellant and in dismissing the writ petition. It is contended that the claim of the appellant/writ petitioner to fix him in Pay Band-3 in the Pay Scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- along with Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-is not tenable. It is contended that the said claim of the appellant was based on the revision in the Pay Scale of the Assam Government employees with the introduction of the Rules of 2010. It is submitted that though the said Rules of 2010 brought into force on 01.01.2006, but as a ma