The court affirmed that public sector employees are entitled to parity in pay scales with government employees based on educational qualification, steering clear of arbitrary administrative distinctions.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 28^th day of January, 2026 Petitioners have approached this Court challenging Ext.P11 which rejected the request of the 5^th respondent in Exts.P6, P7 and P10 to rectify the anomalies in the scale of pay of LD Clerk, LD Accountant, LD Typist, UD Clerk, UD Accountant, UD Typist and equated posts. Petitioners have also sought for other consequential reliefs.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:-

1^st petitioner is a trade union of the employees of SIDCO who is the 4^th respondent herein. 2^nd petitioner is working as a Junior Accountant in raw material division of the 4^th respondent Corporation, and 3^rd petitioner is working as UD Clerk in the marketing division of the 4^th respondent Corporation. The 4^th respondent SIDCO has been following the Government pattern of pay scales and dearness allowances etc., to its employees since its inception. The pay scale of the employees are also revised based on the pay revision orders issued by the 3^rd respondent with approval of the Government. The 3^rd respondent sanctioned the revision of pay and allowances to State Government employees with effect from 01.07.2009 as per Ext.P2 Government order dated 26.02.2011. It is specified in Clause 40 of Ext.P2 Government order that Public Sector Undertakings, Statutory Corporations etc. where State scales of pay are allotted to the employees, formal approval/sanction of Government will have to be obtained for extending the new scale to them. Pursuant to Ext.P2 the Board of Directors of the 2^nd respondent Corporation vide resolution No.8/245 dated 30.05.2011 approved the proposal to implement the revision of pay ordered as per Ext.P2 pay revision order. Accordingly the Managing Director of the 4^th respondent Company addressed the 2^nd respondent as per Ext.P3 letter requesting to accord sanction to implement the pay revision to the employees of SIDCO with effect from 01.07.2009 in the same manner as sanctioned by the Government to the Government employees as per Ext.P2. Along with this letter, a statement showing the various categories of posts in SIDCO with existing scales of pay and revised scales of pay as per Ext.P2 Government order was also incorporated.

3. Petitioners would submit that in the statement enclosed along with Ext.P3 request the 5^th respondent committed a mistake in showing the corresponding revised scales with regard to the aforesaid categories. Petitioners would submit that as per Annexure 12 in Ext.P2 schedule of posts and scales of pay (common category) the existing scales of pay and revised scales of UD Clerk, LD Clerk and their equated posts are as follows:-

The 6^th respondent as requested in Ext.P3 accorded sanction as per Ext.P5 order for implementing the pay revision 2009 to the employees of the 4^th respondent Corporation. But the revision was incorporated in the revised scales of pay which are mistakenly shown in the statement enclosed along with Ext.P3, whereas the scale of pay ought to have been revised based on the schedule of posts and scales of pay in common category in Annexure 12 in Ext.P2 pay revision order. Realizing the mistake the 5^th respondent submitted Ext.P6 request in this regard. In Ext.P6 the mistake which has occurred while preparing the statement produced along with Ext.P3 was clearly explained. Petitioners also contended that the scale of pay earlier sanctioned by the Government in the SIDCO was in consonance with scale of pay in corresponding posts as per the pay revision order of 2006.

4. Petitioners would contend that in Ext.P4 it is specificall