Breaking the Cycle of Inequity: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Arbitrary Pay Fixation

In a significant verdict aimed at upholding the principle of equality in service jurisprudence, the Rajasthan High Court has ruled that the state cannot discriminate in salary fixation for employees recruited through the same selection process. Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma declared that using arbitrary cut-off dates for joining as a basis for denying annual increments is a direct violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

The Backdrop: A Tale of Two Joining Dates

The dispute arose from the recruitment of School Lecturers (Sanskrit) initiated under a 2015 advertisement. While all petitioners—Shrutika Chauhan, Vijay Singh, and their colleagues—were successfully selected under the same process, the issuance of their appointment orders was staggered.

The petitioners received their appointment orders between June 28 and June 30, 2017. While they joined their respective schools after June 30, 2017, they strictly adhered to the mandatory cut-off date for joining, which was July 10, 2017. However, the state government applied a restrictive policy: those who joined on or before June 30, 2017, were granted an additional annual grade increment, while those who joined shortly thereafter were denied the same benefit.

Arguments in the Courtroom

Representing the petitioners, Mr. M.L. Deora argued that the state’s classification was arbitrary and unreasonable. He contended that because all candidates were part of the same recruitment drive for the same post, there was no intelligible differentia to justify unequal pay. He emphasized that the state’s duty is to treat the recruitment batch as a single unit, ensuring that no employee is penalized due to internal processing delays in issuing appointment orders.

The respondents, represented by the state, relied on a circular issued by the Department of Finance. They argued that the grant of increments was strictly in accordance with administrative guidelines which tether financial benefits to specific joining date thresholds.

The Court’s Reasoning

Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma did not mince words when addressing the circulars issued by the Department of Finance. The Court held that administrative circulars cannot override the fundamental guarantees provided by the Constitution.

The Court noted that the "unequal pay fixation" was a result of an arbitrary dichotomy created by the respondents. By allowing internal delays to dictate financial outcomes, the government failed to uphold the essence of equality of opportunity.

Key Observations

The judgment offers a scathing critique of the state's inconsistent approach:

• On Legislative Spirit: "A perusal of the Circular makes it clear the same is contrary to the settled/established principles of law and also against the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India."
• On Arbitrary Classification: "There cannot be two different dates of joining for the purpose of granting of increments to the employees selected and appointed in the same recruitment process."
• On Consistent Application: "This Court is of the view that the respondents should have adopted either the first date of joining or the last date of joining with regard to the same recruitment process so as to extend the benefit of annual grant of grade increments."
• On Administrative Duty: "The action of the respondents in adopting two different joining dates for fixation of salary by giving annual grade increment to one and not to another is, in such circumstances, illegal and unsustainable."

Final Verdict: A Path to Rectification

The High Court has allowed the writ petition, effectively quashing the discriminatory pay fixation. The state has been directed to treat all candidates from the same recruitment process as a single unit.

The authorities must now undertake a corrective exercise to rationalize the pay scales for the affected lecturers. This involves identifying anomalies created by the reliance on the June 30, 2017, deadline and ensuring that all eligible employees receive the same financial benefits they would have been entitled to had the policy been non-discriminatory. The Court has mandated that this exercise be completed within one month after providing an opportunity for hearing to the affected parties.

This ruling stands as a testament to the fact that when administrative convenience clashes with constitutional rights, the latter must—and will—prevail.