The tribunal upheld that historical pay parity claims must align with established recommendations, acknowledging that justified pay disparities exist based on functional differences.

ORDER

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

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

"8.1 Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 07/01/2022 passed by Under Secretary (E III/(B)), Branch to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure the Respondent No. 2 (Annexure A-1) whereby the claims of the Applicants for and on behalf of Private Secretaries / Personal Assistants for grant of revised pay scales placing reliance on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as described in (Annexure-A- ) for the post of Private Secretaries/Senior Private Secretaries w.e.f 01/01/2006 in line with the CSSS Cadre has been rejected relying upon the office note dated 28/05/2020; and

8.2 Declare that the Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries of Income Tax Department, (Ministry of Finance) have always had a historical parity with its counterparts-CSSS of the Central Secretariat and that the Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries are entitled to pay scales at par with those of CSSS cadre of the Central Govt. in terms of the recommendations made by the 6^th CPC onwards; and, 8.3 Grant such other reliefs as are deemed fit, just, fair and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case, including consequential benefits with cost of the litigation and the interest @ 18% per annum on the delayed payments from the date(s) on which the aforesaid relief becomes due."

2. Highlighting the facts of the present case, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicant No.1 is a recognised association by the Govt. of India and applicant Nos. 2 to 7 are working as Sr. Private Secretaries/Private Secretaries with Income Tax Department across the country. The applicants are aggrieved by arbitrary and discriminatory act of pay anomaly in cadre of Private Secretary viz-a-viz Central Secretariat Stenographer Services (CSSS) in Income Tax Department in clear violation of the recommendation of the Central Pay Commission for creating a pay parity amongst the different Divisions of the respondent organization / Ministry.

2.1 It has been submitted on behalf of the applicants that despite undergoing the process of recruitment initiated by the same recruiting agency, i.e. Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and having identical job profile, the respondents have created pay anomaly with the Private Secretaries of CSSS, without any basis.

2.2 The applicants have relied upon the Full Bench decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs Union of India and Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 618 , wherein while dealing with the aspect of ‘Equal pay for equal work’, the Apex Court has opined as under:

“8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional right. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the state not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality