Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1745
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Mr. Manish Garg, J, Dr. Anand S. Khati, A
C P Meena – Appellant
Versus
M/o Finance – Respondent
O.A./1707/2019
Mr. Amit Anand, Mr. U. Srivastava, Mr. Anoop Kumar
Historical pay parity must be maintained across similar posts in different organizations, and arbitrary denial of such parity is unjust.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Pay fixation - Applicants sought higher grade pay based on historical parity with Armed Forces Headquarters and Central Secretariat Services - The impugned order dated 09.01.2019 was quashed as discriminatory and arbitrary, directing the grant of grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2 and Rs. 5400/- in PB-3 for Private Secretaries, and Rs. 4600/- in PB-2 for Assistants and Personal Assistants, effective from 01.01.2006. (Paras 1, 11, 12)
(B) Historical Parity - The court emphasized that historical parity must be maintained between similar posts in different organizations, and the denial of such parity was found to be arbitrary and unjust. (Paras 9, 10)
(C) Recruitment Rules - The court noted that the Recruitment Rules and Pay Commission recommendations support the claim for parity in pay scales among similar posts across different services. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The applicants, working as Assistants, Personal Assistants, and Private Secretaries in the Indian Coast Guard, challenged the denial of higher grade pay based on historical parity with their counterparts in the Armed Forces Headquarters and Central Secretariat Services. The respondents argued against the claim, citing differences in organizational structure and functions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the denial of parity was arbitrary and upheld the applicants' claims for higher grade pay, directing the respondents to implement the pay fixation accordingly.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the impugned order denying higher grade pay and the applicability of historical parity in pay scales.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that historical parity must be preserved, and the denial of such parity to the applicants was unjustified, as similar posts in different organizations should receive equivalent pay.
Result: The O.A. was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed.
ORDER
Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)
The present O.A. has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i) hold that the OM No.10(10)/E.IIIB/2016 dated 09.01.2019 issued by Respondent No.1 as discriminatory, arbitrary, nonest and set aside/strike down as not binding on the Applicants, (ii) Direct the Respondents to give to the Applicants (Private Secretaries) Grade pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2 and Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- in PB-3 on completion of four years of service as per the provisions of Part-B, Section-II, Serial No. (1) of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with consequential pay fixation benefits at par with Private Secretaries of CCS/AFHQ and the benefits of arrears accrued as per their respective entitlements;
(iii) direct the Respondents to give to the Applicants (Assistants/Personal Assistants) Grade pay of Rs. 4600/- in PB-2 as per the provisions of Part-B, Section-II, Serial No. (1) of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with consequential pay fixation benefits at par with Assistant/Personal Assistant of CCS/AFHQ and the benefits of arrears accrued as per their respective entitlements;
(iv) quash and set aside the order dated 09.01.2019 rejecting the claim of the applicants;
(v) treat the services of the applicants rendered in the pre-revised scale (5th CPC scale) as qualifying service for pay fixation and other consequential benefits pursuant to the quashing of the communication dated 09.01.2019; and (vi) any other order that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.”
2. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are working as Assistants, Personal Assistants (PAs) and Private Secretaries (PSs) under the Respondent No.3 - Indian Coast Guard. He drew historical parity qua Armed Forces and similarly situated persons, and submitted that the applicants are governed by the same Recruitment Rules (RRs) and performing the same nature of duties. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.116/2013 dated 06.09.2013 in the matter of Sh. Kaushik Paik and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.
3. It is the case of the applicants that the feeder cadre has not been granted the pay parity at par with those in AFHQ. Learned counsel for the applicants also submitted that there is an element of direct recruitment for which historical parity has also been pointed out. A detailed synopsis has been placed on record by the learned counsel for the applicants relying upon various case laws, more specifically, the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1663 of 2016 in the matter of Union of India & Ors. vs D.G.O.F. Employees Association and Anr. 4. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents, placing reliance upon the counter affidavit, averred that the applicants in the instant O.A. include Indian Coast Guard employees who were holding the post of Assistant, Personal Assistant (PA) and Private Secretary (PS) at the time of implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations on 01.01.2006 and also those who have became Assistant, PA and PS after 01.01.2006. On implementation of 6th CPC recommendations w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the Ministry of Finance (MoF), Department of Expenditure (DoE) had extended the pay structure of grade pay (GP) of Rs. 4800/-, PB-2 and GP of Rs. 5400/- in PB-3 on completion of 04 years of regular service to Private Secretary (PS) and GP of Rs. 4600/- in the PB-2 to Assistants belonging to Central Secretariat Service (CSS), Armed Forces Headquarters Service (AFHQS), Indian Foreign Service 'B' & Railway Board Secretariat Service and Personal Assistants (PAs) in their counterpart Stenographer Services and such organizations/ services which have a historical parity with CSS. A different pay structure have been recommended for the office s
