Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Megh) 85
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Revati Mohite Dere, CJ, W. Diengdoh, J
Union Of India – Appellant
Versus
Vinod Kumar Nautiyal – Respondent
WP(C) No. 346 of 2023
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Pay Parity and Service Benefits
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Judicial review - Decisions regarding service conditions that are based on an organization's own admissions and established domestic circulars require no interference - Courts shall not interfere when the lower adjudicatory body’s finding is based on clear, admitted evidence of equivalence in functional roles. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
Employees of a subordinate agency sought pay parity with those performing similar language-related duties in a central service. Despite multiple rounds of litigation involving administrative orders and adjudication, the agency challenged the directive to grant pay parity on the grounds of differing organizational structures and recruitment rules.
Findings of Court:
The court found that, despite arguments regarding organizational differences, the agency had previously admitted in legal pleadings that the qualifications, duties, and responsibilities of the employees were equivalent to those in the central service. Consequently, based on government circulars mandating parity for similarly designated posts in subordinate offices, the employees were held entitled to the upgraded salary structure.
Issues: Whether the employees are entitled to salary parity with counterparts in a central service based on the similarity of roles and government administrative directives, and whether the employer's admission regarding duties constitutes sufficient grounds for such parity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that where an employer acknowledges the similarity in recruitment standards and workload compared to another service, they cannot deny the benefits of government pay-revision circulars, as doing so would be inconsistent with principles of parity and lack a rational basis for differentiation.
Result: Petition dismissed.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Debnath
For the Respondents: M. Chanda, M.L. Nongpiur, K. Abhinav
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history and factual genesis of service pay-parity dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions regarding applicability of equal pay for equal work. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. evidentiary analysis of office memoranda and official admissions of role equivalence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. granting of pay parity based on binding government circulars and judicial findings. (Para 9 , 10) |
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble, the Chief Justice)
By this petition, the petitioners have impugned the order dated 21st March, 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 043/00215/2017, by which the Tribunal set aside the fresh speaking order dated 19th December, 2016 passed by the Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong. The Administrative Tribunal vide the impugned order dated 21st March, 2023, held that the respondents were entitled to the upgraded pay scales and as such, directed the petitioners herein, to pass necessary order after verifying individual cases, as the respondents were on different posts and had joined service on different dates, and to make payments from the respective dates of entitlement, within six months from the date of receipt of the order.
2. The factual matrix of the case in brief is as under:
The core issue in the petition is a service dispute between the Directorate General of Assam Rifles and a group of its Hindi Translators and officers. According to the respondents, they are entitled to pay parity with their counterparts serving in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (hereinafter referred to, for the sake of brevity as ‘CSOLS’).
The dispute dates back to 2010, when the respondent filed O.A. No. 295 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘CAT’), Guwahati Bench alleging that although their duties were similar to those performed by CSOLS Translators, their pay scale was significantly lower. Relying on the Ministry of Finance Office Memorandum (OM) dated 27th November, 2008, the respondents herein, sought revised and upgraded pay scale. In 2011, the Tribunal i.e., CAT allowed the respondents’ claim, however, this triggered multiple rounds of litigation, including review petitions, fresh speaking orders and writ petitions before the Gauhati and the Meghalaya High Courts. The Writ Petition, being WP(C) No. 226 of 2012 filed by the respondents before the Gauhati High Court was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 1st April, 2014, directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to take appropriate decision in the matter in consultation with the Government of India (Finance Department). Pursuant thereto, the Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Finance examined the matter and laid down their observations vide U.O. Note No. 19(7) E.III(B)/2014 dated 30th June, 2014. Accordingly, The Directorate General of Assam Rifles issued speaking orders dated 17th July, 2014 refusing pay parity, based on the said note. The speaking order emphasised that the cadre structure, recruitment rules, promotional hierarchy, and pre-revised pay scales of Assam Rifles were significantly different from those of CSOLS.
The respondents however, continued to pursue their claim by filing successive original applications (O.A. No. 379 of 2014 and O.A. No. 215 of 2017). The Tribunal i.e., CAT, Guwahati Bench quashed the speaking order dated 17th April, 2014 vide judgment and order dated 30th May, 2016 and held that the respondents were entitled to upgraded pay scales. The Tribunal accordingly directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to issue a fresh speaking order in the matter. Pursuant thereto, a fresh speaking order dated 19th December, 2016 was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs. The respondents challenged the said speaking order before the CAT, Guwahati Bench. The Tribunal again vide judgment and order dated 15th March, 2019 directed that the respondents be granted pay parity as sought by them and as ordered by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 295 of 201
