Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1054

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar Suman – Respondent
W.P(S) No.5864 of 2023 | W.P(S) No.5823 of 2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Prashant Pallav, Shivani Jaluka, Ravi Prakash
For the Respondents: Niladri Shekhar Mukharjee, Sandhya Singh, Shree Krishana Pandey

Administrative Tribunals and courts cannot use judicial review to grant pay parity between employees of distinct cadres or bypass established promotional hierarchies. Such 'one-time exercises' that disregard legal reasonable classification exceed judicial jurisdiction.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 226 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 14(5) - Service Law - Pay parity - Claim for equal pay scale by employees of one cadre with employees of a different cadre - Jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunal - Whether Tribunal can grant pay parity by way of a one-time exercise in absence of statutory entitlement - Tribunal, while exercising powers of judicial review, cannot act as an appellate authority to create pay scales or bridge cadre differences not supported by service rules - Judicial review is limited to checking illegality, arbitrariness, or patent errors, consistent with Article 14 - Principles of reasonable classification must be respected; unequal pay for unequal posts in distinct cadres does not violate constitutional equality. (Paras 17, 19, 36, 42, 44)

(B) Writ of Mandamus - Scope of Judicial Review - A Court or Tribunal cannot exceed its jurisdiction to grant judicial relief that is contrary to established service rules or policy - Directing pay scale enhancement for a specific cadre, which is otherwise reserved for promoting to a distinct promotional post, constitutes an excess of jurisdiction. (Paras 47, 48)

Facts of the case:
Employees recruited as personnel in a specific pay scale claimed parity with others recruited in a different cadre who eventually obtained a higher pay scale via promotion. They sought a directive for equal pay and potential cadre merger, arguing that previous recruitment processes were similar and the distinction in posting was arbitrary. The lower tribunal rejected the merger claim but granted the requested higher pay scale as a one-time exercise, prompting the employer to approach the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The Court held that the tribunal erred in granting the higher pay scale. It recognized that the two groups belonged to distinct cadres with separate promotional hierarchies. The tribunal's decision to grant a higher pay scale, effectively bypassing the designated promotional path for the applicants' cadre, was an exercise of power beyond its jurisdiction.

Issues: Whether the tribunal had the jurisdiction to grant pay parity between different cadres through a one-time exercise under Article 226, despite finding no legal entitlement for such parity or merger.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts and Tribunals exercising powers of judicial review cannot ignore rational, legal classification of cadres. Granting financial benefits to employees in positions where they are not entitled, under the guise of an equitable one-time order, is a nullity as it transcends the court's jurisdiction of correcting legal errors or arbitrariness.

Result: Petitions allowed; impugned order of the tribunal set aside.

Table of Content
1. summary of facts and grievances regarding pay scale disparity. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments concerning tribunal jurisdiction and scope of judicial review. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
3. analysis of distinct cadre structures and administrative policy limitations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. article 14 application: rational classification vs. hostile discrimination. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
5. tribunals cannot exceed jurisdiction through 'one-time' remedies. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)

Order No.10/Dated:9^th February, 2026 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing since the common issues are involved in these writ petitions and these are preferred against the common order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi) [in short, the learned Tribunal].

2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the common order dated 19.05.2023 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00343/2021 and the second one in O.A No. OA/051/00346/2021 by the learned Tribunal whereby and whereunder direction has been given to grant same pay as Sachin Kumar Gupta and Anurag Kumar to the respondent-applicants from the date they were promoted as Chief Commercial Inspector and the order dated 29.04.2021 passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi Division, Ranchi has been quashed.

3. The brief facts of the case as per the impugned order and the pleadings made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated reads as under:

(i) The Grievance of the applicants(respondents herein) is that they were selected for the post of Commercial Apprentice, after due process, pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice of year 2010 and after training they were appointed to the post of Chief Commercial Clerk/Commercial Inspector in year 2015 but are being given GP @ Rs 4200/- P.M. whereas some of their junior selected for the same post of Commercial Apprentice pursuant to similar Employment Notice of subsequent year and after training were appointed to the post of Chief Commercial Clerk/Commercial Inspector are being given GP @ Rs 4600/- P.M..

(ii) The case of the applicants, as is emerging from their respective OA is that they presently are manning the post of Chief Commercial Clerk (Goods), that they are selectee of Batch No2/13 for the post of Commercial Apprentice and were selected pursuant to Centralised Employment Notice No. 02/2010 dated 13/2/2010 (Annexure A/1 in OA No. 343/2021 and offer of appointment dated 07.01.2013 and dated 13.09.2012, respectively for the post of Commercial Apprentice was given to them and after recruitment to the post of Commercial Apprentice they were sent for requisite training.

(iii) They underwent three years training successfully and on completion of training were appointed as Chief Commercial Clerk/Commercial Inspector, in the Pay band of Rs. 9300-34800+ Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-, vide office order dated 18.05.2015 (Annexure A/8 in OA No. 343/2021).

(iv) Thereafter on reporting the Division, they vide order dated 04.06.2015 (Annexure A/9 in OA No. 343/2021) were posted as Chief Commercial Clerk.

(v) Further averment of applicant is that in subsequent year, after appointment of applicants, similar Employment Notice for appointment of Commercial Apprentice (Batch 4/14) was given and after due process of selection & on completion of training said selected candidates, like applicants were appointed as Chief Commercial Clerk/Commercial Inspector in the Pay band of Rs. 9300- 34800+ Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-and some of them were posted as Chief Commercial Clerk and some other as Commercial Inspector. Sachin Kumar Gupta and Anurag Kumar were posted as Commercial Inspector in December, 2016.

(vi) Sachin Kumar Gupta and Anurag Kumar who

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 1054

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHANDSujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJUnion of India – AppellantVersusSanjeev Kumar Suman – RespondentW.P(S) No.5864 of 2023 | W.P(S) No.5823 of 2023

Administrative Tribunals and courts cannot use judicial review to grant pay parity between employees of distinct cadres or bypass established promotional hierarchies. Such 'one-time exercises' that disregard legal reasonable classification exceed judicial jurisdiction.

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Sujit Narayan Prasad, Arun Kumar Rai, JJ
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar Suman – Respondent
W.P(S) No.5864 of 2023 | W.P(S) No.5823 of 2023