$~9 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 234/2019 ASHOK SAGAR BHAGAT .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Maharishi Kaler and Ms. Rajni Suchita L., Advocates.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Archana Gaur, CGSC with Ms.

Ridhima Gaur and Mr. Deepu Kumar, Advocates for R-1/ UOI.

Ms. Tamali Wad, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ayushi Singhal, Mr. Varyam Pandey and Ms. Palak Garg, Advocates for R-2/ NSD.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 17.02.2026

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by an Associate Professor (Theatre Architecture) of the National School of Drama (“NSD”), seeking a direction to extend to him the pay revision granted to Respondent No. 3 (Suresh Sharma), who served as Chief of the Repertory Company (advertised as “Associate Professor”).

2. The foundation of the claim is two-fold. First, an office order dated 9^th March, 2005, revising the pay scale of the Chief of the Repertory Company to Rs. 12,000-375-16,500/- with effect from 24^th February, 2005. Second, the order dated 16^th August, 2018, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) 9169/2017, titled Suresh Sharma v. Union of India & Ors., where NSD stated that it had no objection to treating Suresh Sharma as a faculty member, leading to a direction to that effect.

3. The short question is whether the Petitioner can, as a matter of law, claim pay parity with Respondent No. 3, merely because Respondent No. 3 came to be treated as a faculty member after 16^th August, 2018, and because he has enjoyed the 9^th March, 2005 pay scale revision.

Background

4. NSD advertised three Associate Professor vacancies in 1999: one each in Acting and Theatre Architecture, and one post described as Chief of the Repertory Company (advertised as “Associate Professor”). The Petitioner joined on 20^th August, 1999 in Theatre Architecture. Respondent No. 3 joined on 26^th August, 1999 as Chief of the Repertory Company.

5. The Petitioner’s case proceeds on the assertion that, at inception, recruitment rules and pay were the same. He also asserts that the Theatre Architecture post is a faculty post involving teaching, whereas the Chief of the Repertory Company is an administrative post which did not form part of the faculty.

6. He states that a seniority list published in the NSD Annual Report (1999-2000) reflects the Petitioner as part of the academic faculty. The Petitioner emphasizes that Respondent No. 3 was not included at that stage because he was on contract.

7. The Petitioner asserts that Respondent No. 3 was regularised as Associate Professor (Chief of the Repertory Company) by letter dated 16th October, 2001, with effect from 26th August, 1999.

8. On 9^th March, 2005, the Ministry of Culture revised the pay scale of the Chief of the Repertory Company to Rs. 12,000-375-16,500 with effect from 24^th February, 2005, bringing it at par with Professor in NSD. The Petitioner pleads that Respondent No. 3 receive the same benefit.

9. Years later, Respondent No. 3 approached the Court in W.P.(C) 9169/2017, challenging NSD’s refusal to treat him as a faculty member. The petition was disposed of on 16^th August, 2018 on NSD’s statement that it had no objection to treating him as faculty member, and directions were issued accordingly. The order reads as follows:

“1. The prayers in this writ petition read thus:

“A. Issue writ certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the letter/order dated 22.01.2016 issued by the Registrar, NSD.

B. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 to place the petitioner in the category of Faculty member in terms of appointment letter dated 20.08.1999.”

2. Ms. Tamali Wad, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, submits that her client has no objection in treating the petitioner as a faculty member. She, however, further submits that, even if the petitioner were to be treated as a faculty member, it may not result in any substantial benefit to him, inter alia, as regards his age of superannuatio