SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1070

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member, Ram Mohan Johri, Administrative Member
Mushtaq Ahmad – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
Transfer Application No. 3597/2020|SWP/WP(C) No. 424/2018|T.A. No. 61/3597/2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. O. P. Thakur
For the Respondents: Mr. Sudesh Magotra, ld. AAG, Mr. Rajesh Thapa, ld. AAG

Equal pay for equal work mandates parity for similarly situated employees; prior discriminatory denial cannot be validated by subsequent service rules.

Headnote:The judgment addresses claims under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, invoking the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Essential facts involve petitioner appointed as Computer Operator in Forest Department in 1998, senior to respondents appointed as Programmers in Finance Department same year, both through same recruitment process with identical pay scales and duties. Respondents 5-9 granted upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 12.06.2006 via Government Order No. 176-F of 2006 and later gazetted status under 2016 IT Service Rules (SRO 343, 344), while petitioner redesignated EDP Supervisor. Court found no rational basis for differential treatment, holding denial discriminatory. Key issues: (i) Whether petitioner similarly situated to respondents for upgraded scale w.e.f. 12.06.2006; (ii) Whether 2016 IT Service Rules defeat parity claim. Ratio: Article 14 prohibits unequal treatment of equals without rational classification; prior upgradation to juniors cannot be perpetuated by later rules; binding precedent from T.A. No. 4178/2021 mandates parity where duties identical and appointments contemporaneous. Transfer Application allowed: Respondents directed to grant upgraded pay scale w.e.f. 12.06.2006, re-fix designation/seniority in IT Service per 2016 Rules, with arrears limited to three years prior to filing, exercise within 12 weeks.

Table of Content
1. transfer from high court and petitioner's prayers for pay parity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. respondents deny parity based on recruitment rules. (Para 4)
3. summary of claims and issues on discrimination. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. equal pay for equal work under articles 14/16. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. seniority protects against junior-favoring benefits. (Para 17 , 18)
6. prior discrimination not cured by later rules. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
7. binding precedent mandates parity relief. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
8. directions for upgradation, placement, arrears. (Para 28 , 29)

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The SWP/WP(C) No. 424/2018 was transferred from the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu and was registered as T.A. No. 61/3597/2020 by the Registry of this Tribunal.

2. The present matter was filed before the Hon’ble High Court with following prayer:

a) “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the writ petition may kindly be accepted by issuing an appropriate writ, direction or order including in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to sanction and grant the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 (revised) with effect from 12-6- 2006 which has been given to the respondents 5 to 9 and designate him as Programmer and include him in the Gazetted service in terms of the Recruitment Rules with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and fixation of seniority as Programmer above the respondents 5 to 9. In the alternative, the respondents may kindly be commanded to place the petitioner against the post of Assistant Programmer in as much as he is already carrying the pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 + 4600 GP with effect from 1-4-2016 i.e before coming into force the Recruitment Rules with all consequential benefits With ,

b) A further writ of mandamus and prohibition restraining the respondents from finalizing the seniority of respondents 5 to 9, without redressing the grievances of the petitioner.

c) Such other additional or alternate relief, which this Hon'ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the case deem fit and proper, be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

3. The facts of the case as averred by the petitioner in his pleadings are as follows:

a) The petitioner is a permanent resident of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir and a citizen of India. He possesses the requisite academic qualifications, having passed B.Com. in the year 1995, M.Com. in the year 1998, and thereafter acquired a Diploma in Computer Applications from Government College of Commerce, Jammu.

b) During the mid-1990s, with the introduction of Information Technology in Government departments and the large-scale computerization of official work, the State Government faced an acute shortage of technically trained personnel. In the absence of any structured IT cadre or recruitment rules at the relevant time, different departments created technical posts under varying designations such as Computer Operators and , Programmers, though these posts carried identical pay scales and involved substantially similar duties.

c) In order to absorb educated unemployed youth, the State Government issued Government Order No. 129-PD of 1996 dated 04.12.1996, whereby 23,297 posts were created across various departments. These included posts of Computer Operators in the Forest Department and Programmers in the Finance Department. Since no recruitment rules were in force for IT-related posts, appointments were made through direct recruitment by the J&K Service Selection Board against non- gazetted posts.

d) Pursuant thereto, the J&K Service Selection Board advertised posts of Computer Operators in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 (pre-revised). The petitioner, being fully eligible and possessing qualifications superior to the prescribed minimum, participated in the selection process and was selected. He was appointed as Computer Operator in the Forest Department vide Order No. 502 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top