No Pay Parity for Promotee PAs in Railways Absent Direct Recruits: CAT - 2025-03-27

CAT Denies Pay Parity for Promotee Personal Assistants in Railways, Citing Absence of Direct Recruitment

New Delhi, March 25, 2025 – The Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in New Delhi has dismissed a petition filed by 68 Personal Assistants (PAs) working in the Ministry of Railways, seeking pay parity with direct recruits. The bench, comprising Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi (Member J) and Hon’ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath (Member A), ruled that the applicants were not entitled to the same entry pay as direct recruits because the Railway Board had discontinued direct recruitment to the post of Personal Assistant (Steno Grade-C) since 2006.

Background of the Case

The applicants, all promoted as Personal Assistants after January 1, 2006, argued that their pay should be fixed at ₹17,140 plus Grade Pay of ₹4,600, the same as the entry pay for direct recruits. They contended that they were performing the same duties as direct recruits and any disparity in pay was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The applicants relied on an Office Memorandum (OM) dated September 28, 2018, issued by the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, which provided for entry pay benefits to promotees if their pay upon promotion was lower than the entry pay for direct recruits. They also cited several previous judgments, including Somvir Rana & Ors. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. , which had upheld pay parity between promotees and direct recruits.

Arguments Presented

Applicants' Stand:

The applicants' counsel argued that there should be no distinction in pay between promotees and direct recruits performing the same job. They highlighted previous rulings where tribunals and higher courts had established the principle of equal pay for equal work, irrespective of the mode of recruitment. They asserted that the denial of entry pay parity was an anomaly created by the 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations and that the OM dated 28.09.2018 was meant to rectify this. They emphasized that judgments like Malbika Deb Gupta and Somvir Rana had already set a precedent for granting pay parity in similar situations.

Respondents' Counter-Arguments:

The respondents, represented by the Union of India and the Ministry of Railways, countered by stating that the situation in the Railways was unique. They pointed out that the Railway Board had taken an executive decision on February 21, 2006, to discontinue direct recruitment for Personal Assistants (Steno Grade-C). This decision, they argued, was incorporated into proposed amendments to the Railway Board Secretariat Stenographer Service (RBSSS) Rules, 1971.

The respondents emphasized that since no direct recruits had been appointed after 2006, and consequently, no direct recruits were drawing a higher entry pay, the premise for applying the OM of 2018 and the judgments cited by the applicants did not exist. They argued that the applicants had already benefited from accelerated promotions due to the cessation of direct recruitment, filling vacancies originally meant for direct recruits. They distinguished the cases cited by the applicants, stating that those cases involved situations where direct recruitment was ongoing, and disparities arose between seniors and juniors based on the recruitment mode.

Tribunal's Observations and Decision

The Tribunal sided with the respondents, dismissing the Original Application (OA). The bench observed that the crucial distinguishing factor in this case was the absence of direct recruitment to the post of Personal Assistant in the Railways since 2006.

The judgment highlighted the operative part of the OM dated 28.09.2018, which states that entry pay parity is applicable "in respect of those Posts where entry pay for direct recruits… becomes applicable by virtue of the provision of the element of Direct Recruitment in the relevant Recruitment Rules." The Tribunal reasoned that since direct recruitment had been discontinued, the condition for applying the OM was not met.

> "Having heard the rival contentions, perused the pleadings and after carefully examining the rulings cited by both sides, we have observed that as the recruitment rules are on the verge of amendment and vide Executive order passed by the Railway Board on 21.02.2006 the lateral entry of officials at the level of Stenographer Grade-C has been discontinued w.e.f. 31.01.2006, the question of granting entry pay to the applicants (promotes) before us, does not arise at all."

The Tribunal further noted that in the cases relied upon by the applicants, "Direct recruitment had taken place and therefore the promotes got advantage of the same. However, in the present case element of direct recruitment has not been exercised consciously, therefore there is no discrimination and/or disadvantage to promotees."

Implications of the Judgment

The CAT's decision clarifies that the principle of pay parity with direct recruits, as outlined in the OM of 2018, is contingent upon the existence of direct recruitment for the specific post. In cases where direct recruitment is officially discontinued, promotees cannot automatically claim entry pay parity based on precedents set in scenarios where direct recruits are present and drawing higher pay. The judgment emphasizes that the absence of direct recruits negates the claim of discrimination in pay for promotee Personal Assistants in the Railways under the current circumstances.

The case underscores the importance of the specific context and factual matrix in service law matters, particularly concerning pay fixation and parity claims. It also highlights the significance of executive decisions and service rules in determining the applicability of general principles and OMs.