Equal pay claims must consider job responsibilities, qualifications, and institutional functions; mere similarity in designation does not suffice.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :-

The applicants, five in number, are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in not granting them the parity of pay in respect of Grade Pay in accordance with Item No.XII(1) of Section II in the First Schedule-Part B of the CCS (RP) Rules.

2. The factual matrix of the case, as narrated by the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were initially appointed as direct recruit Staff Nurses and are presently working in the National Institute of Health and Family Welfare (NIHFW). Since the applicants were not granted the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- following the implementation of the 6th CPC, applicants No.1 to 4 submitted their identical representation(s) to the Respondent No.3 on 10.08.2009 and the applicant No.5, who joined the service of the Institute on 18.09.2009, submitted her representation to Respondent No.3 on 08.05.2015. In the meantime, the Applicant No.4 received a communication from the Respondent No.3, intimating her that their request has been forwarded to the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, for consideration and approval. Thereafter, the representations of the applicant Nos.1to4 were rejected by way of order dated 18.10.2014, and since the representation of respondent No.5 has not been responded to, it is presumed that her representation is also having a same fate. An appeal was also preferred by applicants No.1 to 4 on 25.10.2011 before respondent No.1, however, the same has also been rejected by way of impugned order dated 16.04.2015. Aggrieved, the applicants have filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief(s) :-

“a) To quash and set aside the impugned orders Annexure A-1 Series dated 18.10.2011 and Annexure A-2 Series dated 16.04.20f5.

b) To direct the Respondents to fix the pay of the Applicants No. 1 to 4, in accordance with the Item No.Xll (1) of the Annexure A-3 Section II First Schedule-Part B of the CCS(RP) Rules, and accordingly to allow them a GP of Rs.4,600/- with retrospective effect from the date 01.01.2006 when the CCS(RP) Rules deemed to have come into force and to fix the pay of the Applicant No.5, in accordance with the Item No.XII (1) of the Annexure A-3 Section II First Schedule-Part B of the CCS(RP) Rules, with retrospective effect from the date of her appointment on 10.08.2009 and the including the difference of pay, arrears of pay, etc,etc.

c) To direct the Respondents to pay the Applicants interest at the rate of 9% on their arrears of pay.

d) To direct the Respondents to implement the orders of this Hon'ble Tribunal in a time bound manner specifying the period of time, this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit, just and proper in the facts and the circumstances of this case.

e) To direct the Respondents to award the Applicants the exemplary cost for this application.

f) To Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that when the category of the Applicants is already specifically included in the Annexure A3 Part 8 of the CCS(RP)Rules, in order to determine their pay structure following the 6th CPC, the act of the Respondents to allow them a lesser GP, by illegally including them in the Annexure A-7 Part A of the CCS(RP) Rules, is deliberate, malafide, irregular and unconstitutional.

4. In the meantime, the Applicants No.1 and 2 were promoted as the Nursing Sisters in the year 2013 and 2012 respectively.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitt