$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 26.02.2026 Judgment pronounced on: 20.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.03.2026 + W.P.(C) 1144/2026 and CM APPL. 5589/2026 ITGOA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Mr.

Mangesh Nayak & Mr.

Devender Singh, Advs.

versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:

1. Through the present Writ Petition the Petitioners assail the order dated 28.08.2025 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 1705/2022 [hereinafter the „Impugned Order‟], whereby the Petitioners‟ claim for pay parity between Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries serving in the Income Tax Department under the Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance and their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Stenographers‟ Service [hereinafter referred to as „CSSS‟]

came to be dismissed.

2. The Petitioners‟ case advanced on behalf of Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries serving in the Income Tax Department is that the cadre represented by them had historically been treated at par with its counterpart in the CSSS and that, despite the asserted similarity in recruitment and duties, it thereafter came to be subjected to differential pay treatment.

3. The learned Tribunal, however, declined relief. It observed that while parity may have existed historically, the divergence in pay scales affirmed by successive Pay Commissions was rooted in the distinction between Secretariat and non-Secretariat establishments. Finding that such classification was based on expert recommendations and lacked any illegality, the Tribunal upheld the Department of Expenditure‟s order dated 07.01.2022, whereby the representation of the Petitioners seeking pay parity with their counterparts in the CSSS was rejected.

4. The controversy traces its origin to the claim that the stenographic cadre in subordinate offices had, for a considerable period, been placed on a footing of parity with the corresponding cadre in the CSSS. According to the Petitioners, this position came to be altered in the course of successive Pay Commission revisions, beginning with the Fourth Pay Commission, and the divergence became more pronounced upon the grant of higher pay scales to CSS/CSSS with effect from 15.09.2006.

5. A central plank of the Petitioners‟ case is that recruitment to the relevant stenographic posts is conducted through a common competitive examination by the Staff Selection Commission. It is their case that candidates selected through this process may thereafter be appointed either in Secretariat establishments or in field offices, and that the subsequent divergence in pay scales amounts to an impermissible post-recruitment classification unsupported by any material functional dissimilarity.

6. Seeking restoration of parity, the Petitioner-association addressed representations to the competent authorities, relying upon the asserted historical equivalence, the common source of recruitment, the overlap in duties, and the observations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission regarding the role of field offices. These representations culminated in the order dated 07.01.2022 issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, whereby the claim was rejected on the ground that the pay scales applicable to Secretariat/Headquarters establishments of the Government of India were not applicable to offices functioning outside the Secretariat.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection, the petitioners approached the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 1705/2022. The challenge before the learned Tribunal was founded principally on the common source of recruitment through the Staff Selection Commission and the asserted similarity in duties. The petitioners contended that the continuance of differential pay treatment between the stenographic cadre i