Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 477

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
Kali Ram Kaushik S/o. Late Sh. Subh Ram Kaushik - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7796 of 2008, CM APPL. 46598 of 2022
Decided On : 01-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Serawat, Mr. U. Srivastava and Mr. M.K. Gaur.
For the Respondent: Mr. T.P. Singh, SPC, Mr. Arjun Mitra and Ms. Jayanti Jha, Advs. for IIT, Delhi.

Fixation of pay scales and promotional structures are matters of executive policy; courts adopt judicial restraint, refusing to interfere with professional determinations unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, hostile discrimination, or illegality in the exercise of executive authority.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Institutes of Technology Act, 1961 - Sections 31 and 33(2)(b) - Service Law - Pay fixation and promotional structure - Petitioner sought higher pay scale after career advancement - Court held that pay fixation, equation of posts, and determination of service conditions primarily fall within the domain of the Executive Government and expert bodies - Courts should refrain from interfering unless a decision is shown to be made on extraneous considerations or manifests hostile discrimination - (Paras 20, 21, 41 and 42).

(B) Promotion - Definition of - Mere salary advancement under a career progression scheme does not equate to promotion to a distinct higher post or cadre - Absence of formal appointment to a higher hierarchical position precludes a claim for corresponding replacement pay scales - (Paras 30 and 33).

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a member of the technical staff, claimed entitlement to a higher pay scale following a promotional advancement under a specific career development scheme. The petitioner argued that this advancement, coupled with subsequent pay structure revisions, entitled them to a higher replacement scale and designation. The respondent contended that the petitioner never held a substantive higher post, and the previous salary revisions were merely provisional measures for anomaly removal subject to higher governing body approval.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the technical hierarchy did not contain a distinct higher post/cadre corresponding to the claimed pay scale. It found that the grant of the previous pay scale was merely an interim measure for anomaly removal and did not confer a vested right for further escalation, noting that boards of governors lack the authority to independently alter service conditions or pay structures involving financial implications without central government approval.

Issues: Whether advancement to a selection grade within an existing cadre constitutes a promotion to a distinct higher post entitling one to enhanced pay scales, and whether interim pay fixation measures conferred a permanent vested right.

Ratio Decidendi: Pay fixation and the creation of higher promotional avenues are matters within the expert domain of the executive and designated statutory bodies. Judicial restraint is mandated unless a violation of constitutional rights is demonstrated. An advancement within an existing hierarchy does not equate to appointment to a distinct higher cadre, and provisional pay benefits do not confer a vested right to future higher scales in the absence of valid statutory and executive approval.

Result: Writ petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. historical factual background of petitioner's service and initial pay fixation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. petitioner's contentions regarding entitlement to higher pay grade based on promotion claims. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 22 , 23 , 24)
3. respondent's position on non-existence of higher cadre and statutory limitations of pay scales. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. court's interpretation of cadre hierarchy and judicial restraint regarding executive pay policy. (Para 20 , 21 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
5. analysis of provisional pay fixation and limitation of authority for boards of governors. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 45 , 46 , 53 , 54)
6. final determination that petitioner holds no vested right to higher scales absent government approval. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 55 , 56)

JUDGMENT :

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.

1. The present Writ Petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of appropriate writs/directions for grant of pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 in place of Rs.7500-12000, allegedly arising from the Petitioner’s promotion/ upgradation under the Recruitment & Career Development Scheme (R&CDS), along with consequential financial benefits.

2. The brief facts are that the Petitioner was initially working in the Technical Cadre in the Respondent Institute, namely Indian Institute of Technology Delhi. He was granted promotional advancement from the post of Senior Technical Assistant (STA) in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200 to the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Selection Grade) [STA (SG)] in the higher pre-revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500, under the Recruitment & Career Development Scheme (R&CDS), notified by IIT Delhi, vide Notification dated 06.12.1994. The promotion was granted after completion of 8 years in service in terms of Office Order No. IITD/Estt.II/98/644 dated 18.02.1998, with retrospective effect from 01.08.1996.

3. The Recruitment & Career Development Scheme (R&CDS), notified by IIT Delhi vide Notification dated 06.12.1994, governed recruitment, promotion and career progression of non-academic technical and administrative staff. Under this Scheme, the Petitioner progressed through the technical hierarchy, to the post of Senior Technical Assistant (Selection Grade) [STA (SG)]. This post was higher than Technical Assistant, and the post of Senior Technical Assistant, which constituted a higher promotional grade, within the same cadre structure.

4. Pursuant to the implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission and the directions issued by the Ministry of Human Resource Development [MHRD] vide Letter No. F.No.19-7/98-TS.1, dated 29.04.1998, regarding revision of pay scales of non-faculty employees of IITs, the pre-revised pay scales, underwent restructuring and revision.

5. Consequently, vide Office Order No. IITD/Estt.II/98/3982 dated 30.06.1998, the pay of the Petitioner, who had already been promoted as STA (SG) in the pre-revised scale of Rs.2000-3500, was revised and fixed in the corresponding revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 with effect from 01.01.1996, along with consequential increments admissible thereunder.

6. Subsequently, IIT Delhi issued Office Order dated 12.06.2001 pursuant to Board Resolution No. BG/43/2000, whereby employees who were earlier in the pre-revised scale of Rs.2000-3500, were extended the revised scale of Rs.7500-12000 to remove anomalies arising from merger of the scales Rs.2000-3200 and Rs.2000-3500, after implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The benefit was granted notionally from 01.01.1996 and financially from 01.07.2000. However, the Office Order specifically stipulated that the grant of the revised scale of Rs.7500-12000 was purely provisional and subject to the final decision of the Standing Committee on Executive Matters (SCEM) of the IIT Council.

7. The Petitioner exercised the requisite option/under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 477

Fixation of pay scales and promotional structures are matters of executive policy; courts adopt judicial restraint, refusing to interfere with professional determinations unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness, hostile discrimination, or illegality in the exercise of executive authority.

Cases Referred (2)