Employees are entitled to equal pay for equal work, and arbitrary reductions or recoveries without due process violate principles of natural justice.

Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J):-

1. In the present Original Application, filed under Section 19of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):

“a. issue an order/direction to the respondents to grant the Applicants the grade pay of Rs.5400/-on completion of thirty years of service and to the Applicants and considering grade pay of the Applicant as Rs.5400/- as their last drawn pay and accordingly revise their salary, pension and terminal dues and release the arrears accordingly with interest.

b. issue an order/direction to impose exemplary cost on the respondent.

c. and pass such other or further order(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the present case.”

2. Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is the third round of litigation. The applicants are three in number. The applicant no. 3 is stated to be represented by LRs. She impugns the office orders dated 03.05.2016 in respect of the applicants herein. The applicants admittedly are working as Public Health Inspectors (PHI)/ Vaccinators. She submits that Sh. Rajender Prasad Sharma, S/o. Sh. Sukh Ram and Sh. Yad Ram Vashist, S/o. Sh. Shanker Lal, who were supposed to be junior to applicants, were accorded the Grade pay of Rs.5500/-.

3. She further submits that she has moved an Misc. Application No.3039/2023 where she seeks to rely upon the direction issued by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 10.01.2019 in W.P.(C) No.13934/2018 in the matter of Jai Bhagwan Vashist vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation , where the following directions were issued:

“The respondent has moved this application to seek waiver of costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed by us by our last order dated 21.12.2018. In the said order, we have recorded the facts and circumstances of the case leading to imposition of costs on the respondent. Though, the petitioner's Original Application was allowed as early as on 06.11.2011, and the said decision was also premised on an earlier decision of this Court in W.P. (C.) No. 2259/2012 , Narendra & Ors. V. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, decided on 31.10.2014, the payment was not made within 90 days as directed by the Tribunal. In fact, the recovery was sought to be made from the petitioner of Rs. 5, 60,828/-, contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) & Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334 .

It is in this background that we issued a direction to the respondent tomake payment to the petitioner of the entire dues of the petitioner, failing which we directed the Commissioner, South Delhi Municipal Corporation to personally remain present in Court. We also imposed costs. Before we passed the order, on 12.12.2018, only the arrears of Leave Encashment of Rs. 1,79,309/- were released. The following substantial amounts have been released only from 27.12.2018.

It is clear to us that without our order, the petitioner would have been running from pillar to post even now, to receive his just dues after retirement. It is only on account of stern directions that the amounts have now been released to the petitioner. In these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no justification to recall our direction imposing costs on the respondent. The application is dismissed.

The cost of Rs. 50,000/- has been tendered to the petitioner through counsel vide a cheque No.644193, drawn on Corporation Bank.

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.”

4. She submits that the respondents vide order dated 26.12.2018 implemented th