‘Wholesale Identity’ With Compared Cadre Necessary To Claim Equal Pay For Equal Work, Similarity In Designation Insufficient: Delhi High Court
The Court also said that MCD is not bound to mechanically adopt Central Government pay scales without due consideration of its own service rules and requirements.
The Delhi High Court has observed that to successfully claim equal pay for equal work, the person must establish a ‘wholesale identity’ with the compared cadre.
It said that mere overlap in job functions is insufficient if there exists a fundamental difference in the recruitment criteria.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan observed, “To successfully claim equal pay for equal work, the Petitioners must establish a ‘wholesale identity’ with the compared cadre. Mere similarity in designation or a broad overlap in job functions is insufficient if there exists a fundamental difference in the recruitment criteria or the minimum educational standards prescribed by the Recruitment Rules.”
Advocate Ramesh Rawat appeared for the Petitioners, while CGSC Monika Arora appeared for the Respondents.
Factual Background
A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (“Impugned Order”), was preferred by the Petitioners. The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application and Review Application.
The Petitioner association, which represented Laboratory Technicians working in hospitals under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), claimed entitlement to a pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 effective from January 1, 1996. They based this claim on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (5th CPC). Their primary argument rested on the principle of parity, as they sought the same pay grades as Laboratory Technicians working under the Central Government in institutions like the National Institute of Communicable Diseases and AIIMS.
This legal grievance began with a writ petition filed before the Court in 2005. The matter was later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in 2017. In November 2018, the Tribunal issued an order declining the relief sought by the Petitioners. A subsequent Review Application was also dismissed in April 2019, as the Tribunal found no new grounds to overturn its previous decision.
In dismissing the original application, the Tribunal noted that the Petitioners did not provide sufficient material to justify the conferment of the 5th CPC pay scale. It suggested that any issues regarding pay anomalies should be handled by the appropriate Anomalies Committee. Furthermore, the Tribunal pointed out that the recruitment rules had not been amended to align with the 5th CPC recommendations, even though the process remained pending for a significant period.
Contention of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the denial of the 5th CPC pay scale to MCD Laboratory Technicians was arbitrary and discriminatory. They argued that this was especially true since similarly designated employees under the Central Government already received that scale. The Petitioners further urged that the 5th CPC recommendations regarding qualifications were prospective and only applied to future direct recruits, rather than existing staff.
In contrast, counsel for the MCD submitted that the recommendations of the Central Pay Commissions did not automatically apply to MCD employees unless the corporation specifically adopted them. They further argued that the educational qualifications for Laboratory Technicians in MCD hospitals differed materially from those required for Central Government technicians. Because of these differences, the MCD maintained that the Petitioners could not claim parity.
Observations of the Court
The principal issues which arose for the consideration of the Court were: (i) Whether the Petitioners can claim parity in pay scales with Laboratory Technicians under the Central Government, notwithstanding the admitted difference in educational qualifications governing recruitment; and (ii) Whether the orders passed by the Tribunal suffer from any jurisdictional error, perversity, or illegality warranting interference.
“It is well-settled that the scope of judicial review in matters of pay fixation and parity is extremely circumscribed. The determination of pay scales is a complex exercise involving a delicate balancing of factors, including the nature of duties, responsibilities, and, crucially, educational qualifications”, the Court said.
The Court observed, “In the present case, the difference in the minimum educational qualifications between Laboratory Technicians employed by the MCD and those employed under the Central Government is admitted. While the MCD’s Recruitment Rules prescribe Matriculation as the minimum educational qualification, the Central Government mandates a Bachelor of Science (B.Sc.) degree. Such a distinction in the entry-level academic requirements constitutes an “intelligible differentia”. It is well-settled that a difference in prescribed minimum qualifications is a valid ground for classification.”
The Court said that the Petitioners’ reliance on parity based on nomenclature or broadly similar duties cannot override the aforesaid settled principle of service jurisprudence, and as such, pay parity cannot be claimed where the underlying recruitment criteria and the prescribed qualifications for a post are fundamentally distinct.
It said, “The contention that the recommendations of the 5th CPC regarding qualifications were only prospective also does not advance the Petitioners’ case. The implementation of Pay Commission recommendations is a matter of policy, subject to adoption by the competent authority and alignment with existing recruitment rules and cadre structures. The MCD is not bound to mechanically adopt Central Government pay scales without due consideration of its own service rules and requirements.”
To the argument of the Petitioner that MCD had in its previous affidavits admitted that the process of amending Recruitment Rules was underway, the Court found that a mere administrative intent or proposal to amend rules does not crystallize into an enforceable legal right until the statute is actually amended.
“While a stagnant pay hierarchy is an administrative anomaly that requires correction, the remedy does not lie in the Court granting a specific higher scale. As correctly observed by the Tribunal, such anomalies fall within the exclusive domain of the Anomalies Committee or the Pay Commission”, it said.
The Court concluded that the Tribunal’s decision to refrain from issuing directions in the absence of amended recruitment rules does not disclose any infirmity.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Impugned orders.
Cause Title: Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association (Regd.) & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. [Neutral Citation:2026:DHC:839-DB]
Appearances:
Petitioners: Advocates Ramesh Rawat and Rohit Bhardwaj
Respondents: Monika Arora, CGSC with Advocates Subhrodeep Saha, Prabhat Kumar, Anamika Thakur and Abhinav Verma.