The court confirmed that decisions addressing employee pay scales that establish parity are binding on employers to rectally apply to similarly situated employees.

ORAL ORDER

Per : Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

The applicants 30 in number have challenged the order dated 02nd March, 2023 thereby rejecting the relief of pay scale of Rs.5500 – 9000/-.

2. The grievance of the applicants is that they were working in the technical cadre in Naval Dockyard. On 01st January, 1996 the applicants were working as Senior Chargeman. The post of Senior Chargeman is entitled to draw pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-. At the time of recommendations of fourth CPC, the Senior Chargeman were drawing the pay scale of 400 to 700 which was increased to 1400 to 2300 consequent upon the acceptance of the fourth CPC. The recommendations of Fifth CPC were accepted and the pay scale of Senior Chargeman came to be enhanced to Rs.5000-8000/- in Naval Dockyard. Whereas in respect of Senior Chargeman in Naval Armament Supply Organization (NASO), the pay scale is Rs.5500-9000. The applicants being Senior Chargeman are claiming the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this very question had arisen before Ernakulam Bench of this Tribunal. The applicants in that OA failed to get any relief that was challenged before the Kerala High Court. Kerala High Court in OP (CAT) No.271 of 2016 (Z) granted the relief by making following observations:

“From the above, it is clear that the issue was correctly dealt with by the Directorate then, with proper application of mind and they arrived at a finding that there was an anomaly which required to be rectified. There is also a finding to the effect that the Charge men in the other organizations NAIO and the NSRY were similarly situated like their counterparts in NASO and that the parity in the scale of pay was in force for several decades, which came to be disturbed without any rationale. This made the Directorate to arrive at a finding that the Charge men of the NAIO and the Naval Dock Yard might also be granted the upgraded scale of pay, on par with the Charge man of NASO with effect from 01.01.1996. The Ministry examined the said proposal and it was accordingly, that the IHQ-MOD (Navy) was requested by a communication dated 16.01.2014 to intimate the 'financial implication involved, as specifically stated In Ext. P6. The particulars in this regard were required by all the four different addressees shown in Annexure A11 (Heads of the Western Nayal Command, Eastern Naval Command, Southern Naval Command and also the Commandant in Chief of the Andaman Nicobar Island, Port blare), to forward the relevant particulars and also the financial implications along with the calculation sheet, to reach the destination by. 29.01.2014 for necessary action. The question is whether this direction was given effect to, in the further course and proceedings.

8. On going through the contents of Annexure A10 declining the relief sought for, it is seen that there is absolutely no mention by the Directorate, to their own findings and proceedings as 'covered by Annexure A11. The fact remains that, there was no doubt in the mind of the Directorate as to the similarity of the posts, the pay parity which was being enjoyed by the persons in the different organizations, existence of anomaly and the necessity to have it rectified at the earliest opportunity. The only point remained was with regard to the 'financial implication' and it was for moulding the relief, that the particulars in this regard were called for. As such, the only exercise which remained to be completed was to have the matter finalized with reference to the 'finding' already arrived at in Annexure A11 and based on the 'financial implications' to be furnished by the authorities concerned. [It is seen that such particulars were furnished by the Flag Officer, Commanding in Chief, Kochl; as per Annexure A12]. This Exercise obviously has not been