The tribunal's refusal to grant pay parity was upheld, emphasizing that pay structure decisions lie within the domain of the Pay Commission, highlighting the non-enforceable nature of pay parity claims.

JUDGMENT :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner who is the applicant in O.A. No.1421 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), Thiruvananthapuram, filed this original petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.08.2024 whereby the Tribunal dismissed that original application filed by the petitioner claiming parity in the scale of pay with that of Dy.S.P (Senior Grade), Deputy Commissioner Excise, Senior Joint Director (Factories and Boilers), Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, DIG of Prison, Senior Deputy Transport Commissioner, Additional Director, Mining and Geology, Deputy Director (Information and Public Relations), which according to him are identical posts as that of the post of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) in that Fire and Rescue department, held by the petitioner at the time of his retirement.

2. Going by the averments in the original petition, the petitioner was promoted as Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) as on 28.06.2001, and he was granted the pay scale of Deputy Director (Administration) in the Fire Force Department till the 9^th Pay Revision Order, as he was the senior-most Senior Grade Divisional Officer. The pay scale of the senior-most Senior Grade Divisional Officer in Fire Force was equal to the pay scale of Deputy Director (Administration) in Fire Force, Dy.S.P (H.G.), Deputy Excise Commissioner, Senior Joint Director in Factories & Boilers, Deputy Commissioner in State G.S.T, D.I.G. of Prison. Even though one level hike was given to the above posts in the 9^th Pay Revision, only a normal revision was recommended for the posts of Senior Grade Divisional Officer. The petitioner retired from service as Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) on 31.07.2001. Despite submitting repeated representations before the anomaly committee, the grievance of the petitioner was not resolved. The Government rejected the claim of the petitioner by Annexure A24 order dated 11.07.2022. Hence, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the original application. The claim of the petitioner for parity of pay is dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned Ext. P4 order dated 19.08.2024. Hence the petitioner filed the original petition.

3. In the original application, on behalf of the 1^st respondent, a reply statement dated 10.10.2022 was filed, opposing the relief sought by the petitioner. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of that reply statement read thus:

“5. In 8^th pay Revision order, the post of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) and the posts of Deputy Director (Administration), Deputy Superintendent of Police (Higher Grade), Deputy Excise Commissioner, Senior Joint Director, Factories & Boilers, Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Services Taxes, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons were placed in same scale of pay i.e. Rs.20700 - 26600. In 9^th Pay Revision, one level hike was given to the above posts except Divisional Officer (Senior Grade). Hence the above posts were placed in the scale of pay of Rs.40640-57440 against the normal revision of Rs.36140-49740. But the Commission recommended only normal revision to the post of Senior Grade Divisional Officer and thus it was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.36140-49740. The scale of pay of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) has been revised normally in subsequent pay revisions also. Since the post is given corresponding revision in all pay revisions, no erosion in scale of pay has occurred to this category due to pay revision

6. Government revised the pay and allowances of the empl