S BABU RAO vs DEFENCE on 8 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)

By this Original Application, the applicant is seeking the following relief:

“…Therefore it is prayed to this Hon'ble Tribunal in the interest of justice may be pleased to (i) Declare the inaction of the respondents in not extending the benefit of common order of Kerela High court dated 20-7-2017 to non- petitioner in all trades/posts inspite of calling the financial implication from applicants on 27-1-2019 on lapse of 2 years also, which is highly illegal and arbitrary and violation of principle of natural justice, hence direct the 3rd respondent to extend the benefit of the pay scale Rs 5,500-9000 instead of 5000-8000 on par with senior chargeman from 1-1-1996 and consequently direct the respondents to release the arrears amounts after fixation of pay scale and pass such other order and further orders as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice”

2. Ld. Counsel for the applicant draws attention to the order dated 27.02.2020, wherein it has, inter alia, been stated as under:

“The Controller (For Admin Officer) Controllerate of Naval Armament Inspection (East) NAD (Post), Visakhapatnam – 530 009 RE-FIXATION OF PAY IN PAY SCALE 5500-9000 WEF 01.01.1996 INSTEAD OF 5000-150-8000

1. Refer to:

(i) IHQ-MoD(Navy)/DCPS letter No CPT(L)/8000/OP (CAT)/271/2016 & 213/2017 dt 27 Jun 19 (not addressed to all).

(ii) CNAI(East) letter No VI/2006 (i) dt 31 Jan 20 (copy enclosed).

(iii) CNAI(East) letter No VI/2006 dt 31 Jan 20 (copy enclosed).

2. The issue of extending the benefits of Hon’ble High Court of Kerala judgment to the similarly placed employees (non-petitioners) was taken up on file with IHQ MoD(Navy)/DCPS/DCP. Accordingly, IHQ-MoD(Navy)/DCPS vide letter ibid has sought authenticated information from Command Headquarters for similarly

PRACHI BHASKA R

placed employees (non-petitioners) towards progressing consolidated case with MoD. It is evident that matter is being pursued with concerned authorities for early resolution and outcome of the same will be intimated on receipt of information from professional Dte viz IHQ-MoD(N)/DCPS/DCP.

3. The individuals may be informed accordingly. (TP Singh) Cdr Cdr(NAI) – HR Encl: As above. Copy to: The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief (For CCPO) Headquarters, Eastern Naval Command Naval Base, Visakhapatnam – 14”

3. It has been brought to our notice that, at the time of filing of the present O.A., the matter was still pending consideration before the IHQ-MoD(N)/DCPS/DCP and no further action had been taken by the respondents in the matter.

4. Counsel for the applicant further draws attention to page 40 of the paper book, wherein, in similar circumstances, the benefit of the common order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala was extended vide communication dated 18.08.2022, which reads as under: “MOST IMMEDIATE COURT CASE Tele/Fax: 011-21410546 Directorate of Civilian Personnel Services Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence (Navy) Room No 101, Talkatora Stadium Annexe New Delhi – 110001 18 Aug 2022 CPT(L)/8000/OP(CAT) 271/2016 and OP(CAT) 213/2017 The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief (For CCPO) HQ Eastern Naval Command Visakhapatnam-530014

PRACHI BHASKA R

The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief (For CGPO) HQ Southern Naval Command Kochi-682004 EXTENDING THE BENEFIT OF COMMON ORDER OF HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 20 JUL 2017 IN OP(CAT) NO 271/2016 FILED BY SHRI M E UTHAMA KURUP AND OP(CAT) NO 213/2017 FILED BY SHRI K BHASKARAN & OTHERS OF NSRY KOCHI TO ALL SIMILARLY PLACED NON-PETITIONERS IN ALL TRADES/POSTS

1. This is in reference to the matter captioned above.

2. The cases mentioned in the list below have been approved by the Competent Authority in principal for the implementation. However, financial implication is needed in order to sanction the charge expenditure. The list of the cases is as follows:- Sl. No. Case No. Applicant Details CAT Bench Date of

Order

1. CP No. 70/2020 in OA No.

Shri K Mallikarjuna Rao & 39 Others CAT (Hyd) 24 Oct

2. CP No. 68/2020 in OA No.

Shri Wilson John & 39 Others CAT (Hyd) 07 Nov

3. CP No. 109/2021 in OA No. 450/2019 Shri S Pratap Yadav CAT (Hyd) 07 Nov

4. CP No. 69/2020 in OA No.

Shri Pili Dasu CAT (Hyd) 20 Jan

5. CP No. 52/2020 in OA No.

Shri M Kondalaiah & 64 Ors CAT (Hyd) 21 Jan

6. CP No. 88/2021 in OA No.

Shri R Raja Rao & 18 Others CAT (Hyd) 31 Dec

7. CP No. 27/2021 in OA No.

Shri NV Rama Rao & 24 Ors CAT (Hyd) 30 Oct

8. CP No. 18/2022 in OA No.

Shri SM Mouali CAT (Hyd) 30 Mar

9. CP No. 9/2022 in OA No.

Shri Ganta Pandaiah & 46 Others CAT (Hyd) 22 Sep

10. CP No. 2/2022 in OA No.

Shri M Narayana CAT (Hyd) 05 Nov

11. CP No. 13/2022 in OA No.

Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma & 5 Ors CAT (PB), New Delhi 17 Jun 21

12. CP No. 14/2022 in OA No.

Shri Chandra Shekhar & 5 Ors CAT (PB), New Delhi 17 Jun 21

3. The Command HQrs are requested to forward the respective financial implication in respect of the above mentioned cases at the earliest.

4. It is also requested to apprise the Hon’ble Tribunals to dispose of the contempt proceedings in the related cases in the light of the approval of the Competent Authority for implementation of the Orders. The Hon’ble Tribunals may also be requested to grant time of 08 weeks to grant the financial benefits to the applicants.

5. PRACHI BHASKA R

5. The IHQ may please be kept apprised of the progress in the matter and directions of the Hon’ble Tribunals, if any. (Vijay Shankar Pal) Director, DCPS”

5. He further draws attention to the fact that, on 02.07.2025, an order came to be passed in O.A. No. 257 of 2023, wherein the Bombay Bench of this Tribunal, taking into consideration the relevant factors and the implementation of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala, passed the following order: “12. Regarding the relief claimed in para 8(d) that the respondents should be directed togrant all similarly placed persons across the Indian Navy is in the nature of PIL which cannot be entertained by this Tribunal.

13. In view of the above, we direct the respondents to grant the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 to the applicants of this OA within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

14. In the result, the Original Application is partly allowed, Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No costs.”

6. Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents, relying upon the averments contained in the reply statement, has vehemently contended as under: “d. That however, post of Chargeman in AWS wing with pay scale of Rs.1400- 2300 was not existing prior to 1st January 1996 and V CPC has recommended pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 on the misconception that the grade of Chargeman (AWS) in the WS) in the pre-revisedpay scale of Rs.1400-2300 also existed along with that of Senior Chargeman (AWS). Further, granting of different pay scales to Senior Chargeman of Factory and AWS wings i.e. Rs. 5000-150-8000/- and Rs.5500-175-9000/-respectively, led to an anomaly among the staff. Thereforee, the said anomaly was placed before anomaly committee which has identified the anomaly and confirmed that granting the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 to erstwhile Senior Chargeman of Ammunition wing of NASO was due to misconception of factual position. The extract of decision taken by Anomaly Committee is as under "It was also noted that in para 63.302, the Vth CPC have recommended

PRACHI BHASKA R

introduction of a four grade structure for the Technical Supervisor staff in the designations of Chargeman-Gradell Chargeman Gde-I" Assistant Foreman and Foreman in all Naval Establishments. The Commission has also recommended change of the designations existing as on 01-01-96 to fall in line with the aforesaid recommendations for the four grade structure. It was noted that Naval Ammunition workshop under NASO Senior Chargeman (Rs.1400-2300 Pre- revised) has been recommended a higher scale of Rs.1640-2900 with resignation as Chargeman Gde-I as the second ladder in the proposed four grade structure starting from Chargeman Gde-III. It was confirmed by NHQ representatives that the post of Chargeman (Rs.1400-2300) which has been re-designated as Chargeman Grade-II in the higher scale of Rs. 1600-2660 (Pre-revised) does not actually exist in Ammunition workshop under NASO. The Pay commission recommendations to this regard are therefore on misconception of the factual position. It was felt in the committee that this mistake should be rectified. It was decided that the matter will be examined in life and the official side may take appropriate action."

However, this theory of 'Mistaken Identity of the Anomaly Committee has not been accepted by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam under WP 30853 of 2003 (s) and scale of pay of SCM of AWS wing was restored to Rs.5500-175- 9000. As such it is the conclusive position of the Government that the SCM of AWS only need to continue the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 as recommended Further it is humbly stated that Sr. Chargeman (AWS) supervise activities in Ammunition Workshops where majority explosives are handled whereas Sr. Chargeman (Factory) supervise activities of guided weapons workshops where majority non-explosive components of weapons are handled. Hence nature of duties of supervisory staff of AWS and Factory wing are different. Therefore, the contention of the applicant equal pay for equal work' is liable to be rejected.

e. That subsequently, Shri K. Bhaskaran & Shri ME Uthama Kurup (Chargeman of NSRY of Indian Navy who are equivalent to Chargeman (Factory of NA organization) also filed OP(CAT) 213/2017 and 271/2016 respectively before Hon'ble High Court of Kerala for Upgradation of their pay scale for Rs.5000- 150-8000 to Rs.5500-175-9000 inline with Chargeman (AWS) of NA Organisation. Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 20th July 2017 decided the matter in favour of the applicants.

f. That thereafter, the Govt. orders for implementation of above Court order in respect of applicants only, were issued by MoD vide letter dated 16th Oct 18 whereby the sanction of Hon'ble President to implement the common order of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala dated 20-07-2017 in OP(CAT) 271/2016 and

PRACHI BHASKA R

OP(CAT) 213/2017 in respect of applicant's therein only has been conveyed and the pay scale of Applicant's therein (erstwhile Senior Chargeman) of Navel Ship Repair Yard has been revised from 5000-8000 to 5500-9000.

g. That subsequently, a consolidated proposal for extension of similar benefit to the non-petitioners such as SCM of Factory wing of NA organization including the applicant Shri R K Choudhary, who are similarly placed as to the applicants of the OP(CAT) 271/2016 and OP(CAT) 213/2017 was taken up with Ministry of Finance through MoD. Ministry of Finance has not agreed for the same. Therefore without approval of Ministry of Finance, the Pay scale of the 5500- 175-9000 has not been granted to the applicant.”

7. It has been further averred as under: “6. It is submitted that the pay fixation was done on 13-2-2018 and the application was filed on 13-2-2020 after 2 years and hence the same is bared by limitation and liable to be dismiss-in-limine.”

8. Having heard the counsel for the parties, perused the records.

9. It is not in dispute that the applicants herein were working in the pay scale of ₹5000–8000/-. The applicants were posted in the cadre of Chargeman/Senior Chargeman in the Naval Armament Inspection Organisation (NAIO) and formed part of the Technical Supervisory Staff. On implementation of the V CPC, the post of Senior Chargeman in NAIO was redesignated as Chargeman-II and placed in the pay scale of ₹5000–8000/-. This position is not in dispute.

10. It is also not in dispute that the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, in O.P.(CAT) Nos. 213 of 2017 and 271 of 2016, vide judgment dated 20.07.2017, dealt with the matter in detail. The relevant observations made by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala are extracted hereinbelow: “7. From the above, it is clear that the issue was correctly dealt with by the Directorate then, with proper application of mind and they arrived at a finding that there was an anomaly which required to be rectified. There is also a finding to the effect that the Charge men in the organizations NASO and NSRY were similarly situated and that their counterparts in NASO and that the parity in the scale of pay was in force for several decades, which came to be disturbed without

PRACHI BHASKA R

any rationale. This made the Directorate to arrive at a finding that the Charge men of NASO and the Naval Dock Yard might also be granted the upgraded scale of pay, on par with the Charge men of NASO with effect from 01.01.1995. The Ministry examined the said proposal and it was accordingly, that IHQ-MoD (Navy) was requested by a communication dated 16.01.2014 to intimate the “financial implication” involved, as specifically stated in Ext.P6. The particulars in this regard were required by all the four different addressees shown in Annexure A11 (Heads of the Western Naval Command, Eastern Naval Command, Southern Naval Command and also the Commandant in Chief of the Andaman Nicobar Island, Port Blair), to forward the relevant particulars and also the financial implications along with the calculation sheet, to reach the destination by 29.01.2014 for necessary action. The question is whether this direction was given effect to, in the further course and proceedings.

8. On going through the contents of Annexure A10 declining the relief sought for, it is seen that there is absolutely no mention by the Directorate, to their own findings and proceedings as covered by Annexure A11. The fact remains that there was no doubt in the mind of the Directorate as to the similarity of the posts, the pay parity which was being enjoyed by the persons in the different organizations, existence of anomaly and the necessity to have it rectified at the earliest opportunity. The only point remained was with regard to the “financial implication” and it was for moulding the relief, that the particulars in this regard were called for. As such, the only exercise which remained to be completed was to have the matter finalized with reference to the finding already arrived at by the Directorate in Annexure A11 and based on the financial implications furnished by the authorities concerned. [It is seen that such particulars were furnished by the Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Kochi, as per Annexure A12]. This exercise obviously has not been done by the Directorate. The net result is that, the finding in Annexure A11 arrived at by the Directorate has been simply given a “go-by” and a fresh order has been passed in the form of Annexure A10, totally declining the relief sought for.

9. The stand now taken before this Court from the part of the respondents is that, a different “work study” was conducted and it was, accordingly, that different pay scales were provided. We find it difficult to accept the said proposition, in view of the finding on fact arrived at by the Directorate as disclosed from Annexure A11. This being the position, it is not open for the respondents to take a “U-turn” and to say something else now, contrary to the contents of Annexure A11.

10. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, though the matter was caused to be examined by the 6th CPC and also the 7th CPC, they did not go into these aspects, particularly with reference to the contents of Annexure A11 and hence the disparity continues. It is also stated that, pursuant to the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th CPC,

PRACHI BHASKA R

persons who belong to different classes/categories have been brought to a common pool, with a common pay scale; but by virtue of the disparity already resulted, because of the wrong exercise done by the respondents, the gap between the petitioners (in NSRY) and their counterparts (in NASO) has been widened like anything, which requires immediate rectification at the hands of this Court.

11. After hearing both the sides, we find that Ext.P3 order passed by the Tribunal declining interference with Annexure A10 is not correct or sustainable and they are liable to be interfered with. We do so. We find it appropriate to direct the Directorate to reconsider the matter in the light of their own findings as given in Annexure A11 and to pass appropriate orders with reference to the financial implications forwarded to them by the Flag Officer Commanding-in- Chief, Kochi, as per Annexure A12 and pass appropriate orders for rectification of the anomaly at the earliest, at any rate within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Both the Original Petitions are allowed to the said extent. No costs.”

11. The above said order was implemented.

12. It is also to be noted that the ground urged by the respondents that the Ministry of Finance has not acceded to the request cannot, by itself, be a ground to deny the relief sought by the applicants, particularly when the matter has remained pending consideration for a considerable period of time.

13. There is no distinction made out, insofar as the present applicants are concerned, vis-à-vis the cases dealt with in the earlier round of litigation, including O.A. No. 1259 of 2018 before this Tribunal, O.A. No. 257 of 2023, as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala referred to hereinabove. The mere fact that the Ministry of Finance has not acceded to the request cannot, at this stage, be accepted as a valid ground to deny the relief claimed by the applicants, particularly when the issue has already been considered in the aforesaid proceedings. Even the plea of limitation, being essentially a technical plea, cannot be permitted to defeat the substantive rights claimed by the applicants, particularly when such rights have accrued to similarly situated employees pursuant to the aforesaid decisions. The applicants cannot be deprived of the benefit of the relief merely on the basis of such a technical objection.

PRACHI BHASKA R

14. It is also noted that in Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka Vs. C. Lalitha (2006) 2 SCC 747 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava (2015) 1 SCC 347 has held that service jurisprudence, which has evolved by this Court from time to time, postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently. Justice demands that a person should not be allowed to derive any undue advantage over other employees. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit; not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically, as service jurisprudence, which has evolved by this Court from time to time, postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated equally

15. Since the respondents have failed to make out any distinction, much less a valid distinction, between the case of the applicants herein and the cases referred to supra, we have no alternative but to allow the present O.A. in the light of the recent decision rendered in O.A. No. 257 of 2023. Accordingly, the applicants shall be entitled to the relief in terms of paragraph 12 of the said judgment, which shall be extended to them within the stipulated period prescribed therein.

16. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of. All pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are disposed of. No order as to costs.

(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

PRACHI BHASKA R

/pb/

O.A. is disposed of on

: 08.10.2026 Order dictated on

: 08.10.2026

PRACHI BHASKA R