Govt cannot pick and choose on pay parity: DB

20/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 19: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by the Union Territory Government challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order granting a higher pay scale to a Draftsman, holding that the Government cannot selectively deny parity to an employee after extending the same benefit to similarly situated employees without establishing a legally sustainable distinction.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Rajesh Sekhri upheld the CAT order in favour of Sandeep Kumar Sharma, a Draftsman in the Public Works (R&B) Department, and directed the authorities to comply with the Tribunal's directions in accordance with law.
The UT had challenged the CAT's July 11, 2025 order in O.A. Nos. 976/2024 and 1006/2024, which had set aside Government Order No. 214-PW(R&B) of 2021 dated June 28, 2021, to the extent it denied Sharma the benefit of the higher pay scale.
Sharma, appointed as a Draftsman between 2004 and 2008, had contended that several similarly placed Draftsmen were subsequently granted the higher pre-revised scale of Rs 5,150-8,300 following judicial pronouncements and consequential Government orders.
The Government argued that Sharma had accepted his appointment on the pay scale prescribed under the applicable Recruitment Rules and could not claim a higher scale years later. It also relied on the principle that an erroneous benefit granted to another employee could not create a right to "negative equality".
Additional Advocate General Ravinder Gupta, assisted by advocate Nirmal Kotwal, represented the UT, while advocate N.D. Qazi appeared for Sharma.
The Government further sought to distinguish Sharma's case on the ground that he had been appointed on compassionate grounds under SRO-43 of 1994, unlike some employees who had entered service through regular selection.
Rejecting the challenge, the Bench noted that several Draftsmen who had initially joined in a lower scale were subsequently granted the higher scale pursuant to judicial proceedings and Government orders.
The Court said the CAT had examined the record and found Sharma similarly situated to those employees, while the Government had failed to establish any rational basis for treating him differently.
The Bench acknowledged that Article 14 does not permit "negative equality" and that an illegal benefit granted to one employee cannot ordinarily be claimed by another. However, it distinguished an isolated illegal benefit from a consistent course of treatment adopted by the Government pursuant to judicial and administrative decisions.
The Court observed that in the present case, the higher pay scale had been extended to a number of Draftsmen and was therefore not an isolated or accidental benefit.
The Bench also rejected the argument based on Sharma's compassionate appointment, observing that no statutory provision or Recruitment Rule had been shown which made the mode of initial appointment a disqualification for claiming a pay scale attached to a post once the employee had been appointed and continued to hold it.
The Court further held that mere acceptance of an initial pay scale could not defeat a subsequent claim to a higher scale already extended to similarly situated employees.
It also observed that if the Government believed the earlier grant of the higher scale was contrary to the Recruitment Rules, it was open to it to challenge the relevant judicial orders in appropriate proceedings.
Having implemented such orders and extended the benefit to several employees, the Government could not subsequently describe those benefits as illegal merely to deny parity to Sharma without establishing a lawful distinction, the Bench held.
The Court also rejected the Government's reliance on the dismissal of an earlier Special Leave Petition by the Supreme Court through a non-speaking order, observing that Sharma's claim was based not solely on that dismissal but on the consistent treatment extended to similarly situated Draftsmen.
On delay and laches, the Bench agreed with the CAT that Sharma had continuously pursued his grievance through representations and that the delay in responding to them could not be attributed to him.
It further held that financial implications or the burden on the public exchequer could not, in the circumstances, defeat an otherwise established entitlement arising from a continuing wrong.
The Court clarified that although revision of pay, pay fixation and equation of posts ordinarily fall within the domain of the executive and expert bodies, the present case did not involve creation of a new pay scale.
The Tribunal had only directed extension of a scale already granted to similarly situated Draftsmen pursuant to judicial pronouncements and consequential administrative action, it said.
Finding no patent illegality, jurisdictional error or perversity in the CAT order, the Division Bench dismissed the UT's petition and upheld the relief granted to Sharma.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty