Discriminatory denial of higher entry pay scale to similarly situated employees violates Arts. 14 & 16 once granted selectively to others.

ORDER

Per: - Rajinder Singh Dogra, Judicial Member

1. The applicants have filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: -

a) The instant application be allowed.

b) The respondents be directed to place the petitioners in the initial higher pay scale of Rs. (1600-2600) pre-revised, Rs. (5150-8300) revised, instead of Rs. (1200-2040) pre-revised, retrospectively, with all consequential benefits, at par with their colleagues, pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of J&K, who have already been placed at initial higher pay scale of Rs. (5150-8300) revised.

c) The respondents be directed to remove the pay anomalies in their cadre as has been removed in other cadres vide Govt. Order No. 296-F of 2010, dated 21-12-2010

d) And any other writ, command, order or direction which this Hon'ble court/forum may consider just, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicants in their pleadings, are as follows: -

a) The applicants, nine in number, were appointed as Draftsmen in the Power Development Department (PDD), Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir, pursuant to Government Order No. 226- PDD of 2008 and formal appointment Order No. 281-DCP of 2008 dated 09.07.2008. Upon appointment, they were placed in the entry pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 (pre-revised), which on revision corresponded to Rs. 1200-2040, with progression to the higher scale of Rs. 5150-8300 only upon completion of eight years of service, in terms of SRO-18 of 1998.

b) The grievance of the applicants is founded on the assertion that, notwithstanding the stipulation under SRO-18 of 1998, the Government itself had, in several departments, appointed newly recruited Draftsmen at the entry level directly in the higher pay scale of Rs. 5150-8300, thereby bypassing the condition of eight years’ qualifying service. According to the applicants, this selective grant of higher entry-level pay scale resulted in unequal treatment amongst similarly situated employees holding identical posts, qualifications, and duties, thereby offending Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

c) The applicants further contend that such disparity was judicially examined and rectified by the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in several writ petitions, including Sham Lal Randhawa v. State of J&K (SWP No. 2047/2003), Gurvinder Singh v. State (SWP No. 432/2004), and Parvinder Kour v. State (SWP No. 1674/2004). The said judgments, according to the applicants, attained finality after being upheld by the appellate courts, whereupon the Government implemented the directions by granting the higher entry-level pay scale to several Draftsmen similarly placed.

d) It is the specific case of the applicants that despite such judicial pronouncements and consequential government orders issued in compliance thereof, they were denied the same benefit on extraneous and unjustified grounds. The applicants assert that once the Government itself corrected the anomaly and extended the higher entry-level scale to other Draftsmen pursuant to court directions, denial of the same benefit to them amounts to hostile discrimination.

e) In addition, the applicants have challenged Government Order No. 296-F of 2010 dated 21.12.2010, whereby the recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Committee were implemented for several cadres, including Junior Engineers, but the cadre of Draftsmen was excluded. They submit that historically, Draftsmen and Junior Engineers enjoyed parity in pay scales, and the selective removal of anomalies only in favour of Junior Engineers, while igno