Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Anjali Arora and others, filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus for grant of pay scale parity as granted by the Supreme Court in Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors. vs. National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration & Ors. (2010) 14 SCC 323. They contended that they were similarly situated as the appellants in that case, working in the National Institute, and were entitled to the benefit of Regulation 4(2) of the National Institute Regulations, which provides for pay scales at par with Central Government employees. The petitioners had been pursuing representations since 2015, which were rejected on 05.02.2018. They argued that the respondents had granted similar relief to four other persons not parties to the appeal, leading to arbitrary discrimination. The respondents denied entitlement, asserting that the petitioners were not similarly situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad. The Court examined the controversy, which related to the grant of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from 01.01.1986 pursuant to the 4th Central Pay Commission recommendation. It noted that the petitioners were appointed as Junior Stenographer/Stenographer Grade-II, a lower post than Senior Stenographer/Stenographer Grade-I held by the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad. The petitioners acquired identical pay scales through ACP/MACP, but the Court held that this did not make them similarly situated. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were promoted to Stenographer Grade-I only in 2017 and 2018, after the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions were operational, and Petitioner No.3 retired as Junior Stenographer without regular promotion. The Court concluded that the petitioners were not similarly situated and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Parity - Similarly Situated Employees - Regulation 4(2) of National Institute Regulations - The petitioners sought mandamus for pay parity under Article 32, relying on Yogeshwar Prasad (2010) 14 SCC 323. The Court held that parity can be granted only if the petitioners are similarly situated as the appellants in that case. Since the petitioners held lower posts (Junior Stenographer/Stenographer Grade-II) and were promoted later, they were not similarly situated. The respondents had already granted similar relief to four other persons not parties to the appeal, but that did not entitle the petitioners to relief as they were not similarly situated. (Paras 1-8) B) Service Law - ACP/MACP - Effect on Pay Parity - The petitioners acquired identical pay scales as those of higher posts by virtue of ACP/MACP, but the Court held that this does not entitle them to parity of pay scales with those holding higher posts. The pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was for Senior Stenographers, and the petitioners were not holding that post during the relevant period. (Paras 6-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners, who were Junior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade-II, are entitled to the same pay scale as granted to Senior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade-I in Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors. vs. National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration & Ors.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners were not similarly situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad and therefore not entitled to pay parity.
Law Points
- Pay parity
- similarly situated employees
- Regulation 4(2) of National Institute Regulations
- mandamus under Article 32
- ACP/MACP not creating parity
