Court rules that formal appointment is mandatory for entitlement to higher pay scale, setting aside Tribunal's earlier judgment
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has quashed the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision that directed the National Institute of Public Co-operation & Child Development (NIPCCD) to grant Tejinder Kaur, a former Research Assistant, the pay scale of a Deputy Director. The court emphasized that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be invoked without formal appointment or evidence of equivalence of duties.
The case centered around Tejinder Kaur, who was appointed as a Research Assistant at NIPCCD. The Tribunal had previously ruled in her favor, asserting that she performed supervisory duties equivalent to that of a Deputy Director and hence deserved the corresponding pay scale. However, the Delhi High Court found that there was no substantial evidence to support the Tribunal's findings.
In its judgment, the High Court clarified that an employee substantively appointed to a specific post cannot claim a higher pay scale without formal appointment or assignment of duties for the higher post. The court highlighted that merely performing functions of a higher post does not confer entitlement to its pay scale under Fundamental Rule 49, which requires a formal order.
Furthermore, the court addressed the Supreme Court's directive, which allowed an ad hoc payment of Rs. 20 lakhs to Kaur, subject to the outcome of the writ petition. With the High Court ruling in favor of NIPCCD, Kaur is now required to repay this amount in ten bi-monthly installments.
This judgment reinforces the legal precedent that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" necessitates formal assignment or equivalence of duties, aligning with previous Supreme Court decisions on the matter.
Bottom line:-
Service Law - Principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be invoked to grant a higher pay scale to an employee who was neither appointed to nor formally assigned the duties of a higher post.
Statutory provision(s):
Fundamental Rule 49, Principle of "equal pay for equal work", State of Punjab v. Rafiq Masih
