MOHAMMED NOWSHAD P M vs THE SECRETARY MINISTRY OF REVENUE on 14 October 2026

1. Mohammed Nowshad.P.M., Aged 33 Years, S/o Late Cheriyakoya.K, Puthiya Madom House, Amini Island, Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Revenue Sub.Divisional Office, Kavaratti Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 555.

2. Smt. Safiya Hassam Babegothi, Aged 44 years, D/o Late Idris Mauikfan, Furakkad Hassam Babegothi House, Minicoy Island-682 559. Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Office of the Deputy Collector, Kavaratti Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 555.

3. P.Sainul Hameed, Aged 58 years, S/o Muhammed Haji.K, Pattiniyoda House, Kavaratti Island, Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Office of the Deputy Collector, Kavaratti Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 555.

4. Shamsudeen Mukriyammakada, Aged 42 years, S/o Abdulla Musliyar Pallam, Kadamat Island. Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Sub Divisional Of. Mobile No.9496753390

5. Aboothurab Biggathechetto, Aged 45 years, S/o Syed Musliyar Maidanapura, Kandalath Island. Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Sub Divisional Office Kdamat Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 556.

6. P.P. Nooral Ameen, Aged 38years, S/o M.P. Sayed Mohammad Koya, Pallichappura House, Amini Island P.O. Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Deputy Collector Office, Agatti, UT of Lakshadweep-682 553.

7. Muhammed Shafi H.M, Aged 52 years, S/o Sayed Mohammed, Hydermadam House, Chetlat Island. Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Sub-Divisional Office, Chetlat Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 554.

8. Kunnhi Koya M.P, Aged 49 years, S/o Abdul Khader.P, Monappurathu House, Androth Island, Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Revenue Department, Androth Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 551.

Deepa S

9. Mariyath P.P., Aged 32 years, D/o Muhammed.T, Amini Island, Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Deputy Collector Office-Minicoy Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 559.

10. Haseena B.V, Aged 35years, D/o Hussain E.A, Amini Island, Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Deputy Collector Office -Minicoy Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 559.

11. Badarunissa P.C, Aged 45 years, D/o Late Hamza.C, Pathumme Chetta House, Amini Island, Now working as Amin/Gummastha, Revenue Department, Amini Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 552.

12. Koya M.C, Aged 47years, S/o Late Pookoya.P, Melacheri House, Amini Island, Now working as Amin/Gummastha,Revenue Department, Amini Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 552.

13. P.P.Hameed, aged 45 years, S/o pookunji, Puthiyapura House, Now working as Amin/Gumastha, Revenue department, Androth Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682 551. Mobile No.9496316536.

-Applicants [By Advocates : Mr. P.P.Biju, Ms.M.P.Shyni] V e r s u s

1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

2. The Ministry of Finance, Represented by Secretary to the Government of India, North Block, Raisina Hill, New Delhi-110001.

3. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Represented by Secretary to government, North Block, New Delhi-110001.

4. The Administrator, Kavaratti Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682555.

5. The The District Collector, 1 Floor, Collector's Block Kavaratti Island, UT of Lakshadweep-682555.

-Respondents [By Advocates : Mr. M.N.Manmadan,SCGSC for R1 to R3, Mr.Prenjith Kumar K.S. for R4 and R5]

Deepa S

The application having been heard on 16.09.2026, the Tribunal on 14.10.2026 delivered the following order: O R D E

R Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member Applicants 13 in number are working as Amin/Gumasta in different islands of Lakshadweep Administration under the Revenue Department. They are aggrieved by denial of granting parity in grade pay and other monetary benefits as envisaged in 6th and 7th CPC vis-a-vis identical category of employees like Patwari, Talati employed under other Union Territories. Thus they contend that they have been discriminated against and seek the following reliefs: “I. To direct the respondents to grant grade pay and other monitory benefits envisaged as per 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission in the light of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble supreme court in Union of India & other Vs. Dineshan.K.K.

II. Issue an order or direction to declare that the applicants have been entitled to get pay parity as par with the other post like Patwari, Talati, Amin and Gumastha etc., in the other Union Territory and other states.”

2. In the case of Patwari, Talati etc. who hold identical posts in Union Territories like Daman Diu and Andaman Nicobar islands have been given grade pay of Rs.2000/- whereas Amin/Gumasta in Lakshadweep, though are in the same pay band, PB-1 and the same pay scale of Rs.5200-20200,

Deepa S

have been given grade pay of Rs.1800/-only. In the 7th CPC, though the pay scale of Amin/Gumasta is shown in level-1 in the scale of pay of Rs.18000- 56900 with grade pay of Rs.2000/- that has not been implemented in Lakshadweep whereas in Daman, Diu and Nagar Haveli, officers in identical cadre are given grade pay of Rs.2000/-.

3. Referring to Annexure-A3 it is submitted that the Deputy Collector had sought copies of Recruitment Rules of the post of Patwari in the Union Territory of Dadra Nagerhaveli and Silvasa. From Annexure-A5 reply to Annexure-A4 information sought under the Right to Information Act it is clear that grade pay of the applicants is lesser compared with the other employees in the Union Territories.

4. Further, it is submitted that duties and qualifications for the post of Patwari, Talati, Amin and Gumasta are one and the same. No technical qualifications are required for the post. So, according to them, directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. K.K.Dineshan [(2008) 1 SCC 586] is applicable to the facts of the case.

5. Aggrieved by the gross discrimination meted out to the applicants, the 13th applicant filed representation to the 4th respondent, which has not been responded.

6. Thus it is submitted that there is no difference of duties and

Deepa S

qualifications between Patwari and Talati in other Union Territories and Amin/Gumasta in Union Territory of Lakshadweep and therefore, disparity in the pay is illegal. Qualifications are also identical and therefore, basing in K.K.Dineshan, quoted supra, doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable. Hence the Original Application.

7. The Administrative Officer of the Lakshadweep Administration, Kochi filed reply on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 challenging the very maintainability of the O.A. According to them, the O.A. is filed without incorporating proper pleadings and proper reliefs. Referring to a comparative table incorporated in paragraph 4 of the reply, it is submitted that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Amin/Gumasta in Union Territory of Lakshadweep are different from Patwari, Talati etc. of Union Territory of Dada Nagarhaveli Revenue Department. At the same time, it is submitted that designation of Amin/Gumasta under the Revenue Department of Lakshadweep and Patwari, Talati etc. of Union Territory of Dadra Nagarhaveli is identical and duties and responsibilities are one and the same. Referring to Anneuxure-R4(a) it is submitted that consequent to the implementation of the recommendations of the 7th CPC, Group-D posts are abolished and existing Group-D posts are transferred to Group-C.

8. According to the respondents, entry level scale of Amin/Gumasta

Deepa S

as per the various Pay Commission recommendations are as below: 4th CPC 775-12-871-12-1025 5th CPC 2610-60-3150-65-3540 6th CPC 5200-20200 + 1800 7th CPC Pay Matrix-1 (ie. pre-revised Pay Band + Grade Pay 5200-20200 + 1800 as per 6th CPC

9. Thus is submitted that the post of Patwari and Talati etc. under the Revenue Department of Union Territory of Dadra Nagarhaveli cannot be equated with the pay scale prescribed for the post of Amin/Gumasta in Union Territory of Lakshadweep and the O.A. is sought to be dismissed.

10. We heard Sri.P.P.Biju, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri.M.N.Manmadan, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri.Prenjith Kumar K.S., learned Standing Counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

11. The trump card of the learned counsel for the applicants is the decision in K.K.Dineshan, quoted supra. Referring to paragraph 5 of the reply statement, the learned counsel submitted that after having admitted that the posts of Amin/Gumasta in Lakshadweep and Patwari, Talati in Union Territory of Dadra, Nagarhaveli are identical and duties and responsibilities are one and the same, the respondents 4 and 5 cannot oppose the reliefs sought by the applicants.

12. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 4 and 5

Deepa S

submitted that the reply statement has to be taken in its entirety. Having regard to the qualifications, minimum qualification is required for the posts in Lakshadweep and Dadra, Nagarhaveli, it is evident that posts of Patwari and Talati require higher qualifications. Both the posts carry the same scale of pay but Amin/Gumasta in Lakshadweep are given grade pay of Rs.1800/- in level-1 whereas Patwari and Talati are in level-3 with higher grade pay of Rs.2000/-.

13. The learned Standing Counsel also submitted that the decision in K.K.Dineshan is not applicable to the facts of the case. He has placed reliance on the following decisions:

1. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya [(2011) 11 SCC 122];

2. Union of India and others v. Pradip Kumar Dey [(2000) 8 SCC 580];

3. Punjab State Electricity Board and another v. Thana Singh and others [(2019) 4 SCC 113];

4. Union of India and others v. All India Naval Clerks Association and others [2019 (4) KHC 369];

5. Union of India and others v. Hiranmoy Sen and others [(2008) 1 SCC 630];

Deepa S

6. State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [(2002) 6 SCC 72];

7. Hukam Chand Gupta v. Director General, I.C.A.R. and others [(2012) 12 SCC 666] and

8. Union of India and another v. P.V.Hariharan and another [(1997) 3 SCC 568]

14. Applicants are admittedly Amin/Gumasta employed in Lakshadweep islands. They are governed by Annexure-R4(a) Recruitment Rules, namely, Lakshadweep Administration Staff Car Drivers (Group-C and B non-gazetted, non-ministerial) Recruitment Rules, 2009. Schedule-IV of the Rules deals with Amin/Gumasta. Number of posts in each category is 9, subject to variation depending on work load. Essential educational qualifications are SSLC or equivalent and certificate course in computer not less than three months with the desirable qualification of Chain Survey (lower) Certificate from a Government/State recognised institution. It appears that prior to promulgation of Annexure-R4(b) Annexure-A7 notification dated 27.03.2003 was in force, which is the Lakshadweep Administration Revenue and Survey Department (Group C and D Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2003. Schedule-IV of the Rules deals with Amin. Number of posts in 2003 was 9, subject to variation depending on work load. Method

Deepa S

of appointment was absorption from Senior Gumasta having 10 years experience in the grade. It is stated that Gumasta studied up to SSLC or more will be preferred. Schedule-V deals with recruitment of Gumasta. Number of posts in 2003 was 9 subject to variation depending on work load. Scale of pay of both posts was 2610-60-3150-65-3540 that of 5th CPC. The educational qualifications are 'studied upto SSLC or equivalent, good knowledge of customary practices and local customs prevailing in the islands'.

15. From a reading of Annexures-A7 and R4(a) it is clear that before the promulgation of Annexure-R4(a) on 12.10.2009, following Annexure-A7, a person studied upto SSLC or equivalent with good knowledge of customary practices and local customs prevailing in the island could be appointed as Gumasta and on completion of 10 years experience as Gumasta could be appointed as Amin. In other words, even a minimum educational qualification of matriculation was not necessary till the promulgation of Annexure-R4(a) on 12.10.2009. It was only after Annexure-R4(a) minimum qualification of SSLC or equivalent.

16. It is also evident that a pattern has been followed in the grant of pay to Amin and Gumasta from 4th CPC onwards. During the 4th CPC, pay was 775-12-871-12-1025 and corresponding replacement scales have been given, till the 7th CPC.

Deepa S

17. On the other hand, on their own showing, Annexure-A2 indicates that for appointment to the post of Talati in Dadra Nagarhaveli in the scale of PB-1 Rs.5200-20200 +grade pay of Rs.2000/- required an essential qualification of standard 12th pass from recognised Board with desirable qualifications of knowledge of Gujarathi language. In other words, from Annexures-R4(a) and A2 it is clear that the minimum educational qualifications prescribed for the posts are essentially different. A person having SSLC and certificate course in computer and desirable Chain Survey certificate can aspire to become Amin/Gumasta whereas pass in 12th standard is required as the basic educational qualification for becoming a Talati. That itself is the differentiation between the posts.

18. As rightly submitted by the learned Standing Counsel, on reading the reply in its entirety it is clear that the respondents 4 and 5 have oppposed the claim of the applicants that both the categories are identical. As noticed earlier, essential educational qualifications are also different.

19. We do not think that the dictum in K.K.Dineshan can be extended to the benefit of the applicants. There the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the case of Havildar (Radio Mechanic) in Assam Rifles; Guwahati High Court held that they should be re-designated as Warrant Officer as recommended by the Ministry of Home Affairs and same payscales admissible

Deepa S

to their counter parts in CRPF and BSF shall be granted to them. However, the Union of India challenged the same before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

20. On the question whether parity of pay can be given to the officers like the applicant, Full Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dibyendu Bhattacharya held as follow: “26. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity, must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal between the concerned posts. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties. The onus to establish the discrimination by the employer lies on the person claim- ing the parity of pay. The expert committee has to decide such issues, as the fixation of pay scales etc. falls within the exclusive domain of the executive. So long as the value judgment of those who are responsible for administration i.e.

Deepa S

service conditions etc., is found to be bonafide, reasonable, and on intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus of objective of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is not prohibited in law to have two grades of posts in the same cadre. Thus, the nomenclature of a post may not be the sole determinative factor. The courts in exercise of their limited power of judicial review can only examine whether the decision of the State authorities is rational and just or prejudicial to a particular set of employees. The court has to keep in mind that a mere difference in service conditions does not amount to discrimination. Unless there is complete and wholesale/wholesome identity between the two posts they should not be treated as equivalent and the Court should avoid applying the principle of equal pay for equal work.”

21. Regarding the application of principle of 'equal pay for equal work', in Pradip Kumar Dey, quoted supra, the Apex Court held as follow: “11. Para 18 of the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and others vs. J.P. Chaurasia and others, 1989(58) FLR 381: JT 1988(4) SCC 53: 1989 I LLJ 309 SC: 1988(2) SCALE 827: 1989 (1) SCC 121 reads:

18. The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot

Deepa S

be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts of equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept it. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.

12. Yet, again this Court, having referred to its earlier decisions including of Randhir Singh and J.P. Chaurasia aforementioned, in para 5 of its judgment in State of Haryana and others vs. Jasmer Singh [1997 II LLJ 667 SC : 1996(11) SCC 79] and others has stated thus:

5. The principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. The principle was originally enunciated as a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India, however, this Court said that this was a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies and held that the principle had to be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In that case a Driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration claimed equal salary as other Drivers and this prayer was granted. The same principle was subsequently followed for the purpose of granting relief in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. [(1986) 1 SCC 637] and Jaipal v. State of Haryana [(1988) 3 SCC 354]. In the case of Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise

Deepa S

Stenographers (Recognised) v. Union of India [(1988) 3 SCC 91], however, this Court explained the principle of equal pay for equal work by holding that differentiation in pay scales among government servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. In that case different pay scales fixed for Stenographers (Grade I) working in the Central Secretariat and those attached to the heads of subordinate offices on the basis of a recommendation of the Pay Commission was held as not violating Article 14 and as not being contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work. This Court also said that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the court.

13. In Union of India and another vs. P.V. Hariharan and another JT 1997(3) SC 569 : 1997(2)SCR 1050 this Court observed, it is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realize that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is also being misunderstood and misapplied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board.

Deepa S

14. In this background as to the position of law touching the controversy raised in this appeal, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment and order are unsustainable. The learned counsel for the appellants placed before us a chart showing difference in pay scales, facilities, other allowances, leave period, providing accommodation, etc. for the purpose of comparison between the pay scales and other facilities of the respondent and similar other employees working in Directorate of Coordination Police Wireless and other Central Government agencies. The learned counsel for the respondent reiterated that the nature of duties and responsibilities of the respondent are not only similar when compared to other employees similarly placed, but on the other hand they are more hazardous. It is an indisputable fact that the pay-scales now claimed by the respondent are those prescribed for the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector. As already noticed above, it is once again a promotional post for a Naik. Acceding to the claim made by the respondent would not merely result in change in the pay-scales but may also lead to alteration of the pattern of hierarchy requiring re-orientation and restructuring of the other posts above and below the post of respondent. Added to this, such consequences are likely to be felt in the various other Central Police Establishments as well. All these which are likely to have a chain-reaction, may require further consideration afresh by expert body like the Pay Commission or the Government itself at an appropriate time in an appropriate manner. Courts should normally leave such matters for the wisdom of administration except the proven cases of hostile discrimination. But in the case on hand, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the position of law stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court

Deepa S

was not right in granting the relief itself, straightaway to the respondent; that too, without examining the implications and impact of giving such directions on other cadres. However, we make it clear that the rejection of the claim of the respondent need not be taken as an issue closed once and for all. It is always open to the Government to consider the issue either by making reference to the Pay Commission or itself once again as to the grant of pay-scales to the respondent. It is open to the respondent to make further and detailed representation.”

22. Regarding the parity claim by the applicants, the Supreme Court in Thana Singh, quoted supra, has held thus: “12. In S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2007) 8 SCC 279, observing that the grant of pay scales is a purely executive function and the court should not interfere with the same, this Court held as under:- “33. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the court should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive function vide Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408. ………..

35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the

Deepa S

matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay).”

13. Observing that granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts, this Court, in SAIL, held as under:- “30. ……….. the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity, must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal between the posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties.”

23. In All India Naval Clerk Association and others, quoted supra, relying on the authorities of the Supreme Court, the High Court has given a note of caution that 'it is the domain of executive or legislature in fixation of pay, unless there is disparity and injustice, the Court cannot, without conducting a study, direct revision of pay scales'.

24. In Hiranmoy Sen, quoted supra, the Supreme Court held as

Deepa S

follow: “4. This Court in S.C. Chandra and Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. JT 2007(10)4 SC 272 has held that the Court cannot fix pay scales as that is the purely executive function. In the aforesaid decision one of us (Markandey Katju, J.) has discussed in detail the principle of equal pay for equal work and has observed that the said principle has been considerably watered down in recent decisions of this Court, and it is not applied unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups, and even there the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting the higher pay scale. The entire case law on the subject has been discussed in the said decision. Following the aforesaid decision in S.C. Chandra#s case (Supra) this appeal has to be allowed. It cannot be said that there is a complete and wholesale identity between the Senior Auditors in the office of Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya and Assistants in the Central Secretariat.”

25. Regarding equal pay for equal work, in Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, quoted supra, the Supreme Court held as follows: “10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the

Deepa S

decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay, It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the State Government. In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the far reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration :of the State Government courts have taken the view that ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the government. The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the government is patently irrational unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the State Government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the government to implement the same. As noted earlier, in the present case 'the High Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two sections of the employees, one in the State Secretariat and the other in the Central Secretariat. It has

Deepa S

also ignored the basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and executive instructions issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre,”

26. P.V.Hariharan and another, quoted supra deals with a case in which this Tribunal had held that Tool Room Assistants in Integrated Fisheries Project (IFP) are entitled to get higher pay in the 4th CPC. In appeal, Supreme Court took exception to the decision and reversed the order with the following observations: “4.............The Tribunal's order is, in our opinion, wholly unsustainable in law. The reasons given in support of the impugned order are ambiguous and vague. The impugned order of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside., Sri Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondents. however, submitted that the respondents had also raised the plea of "equal pay for equal work" on the basis of the pay scale granted to Tool Room Assistants in the CIFNET, but that the Tribunal has not dealt with it. We, therefore, remit the matter to deal with the said ground according to law and pass final orders in the Original Application.”

27. On an over all survey of the authorities on the point and having regard to the Recruitment Rules, necessary essential basic educational qualification required for the post and also pattern being followed from 4th CPC onwards, it is obvious that the applicants are not entitled to get a higher grade pay like that of Patwari/Talati of Union Territory of Dadra Nagarhaveli.

Deepa S

Resultantly, the Original Application fails and is dismissed. No costs. (Dated, this the 14th day of October, 2026) BRAJ MOHAN AGRAWAL

JUSTICE K.HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER ds 2026.10.16 16:55:20+05'30' Deepa S

List of Annexures Annexure A1. A true copy of the office memorandum issued by the office of the Deputy Secretory, Ministry of Personal Public Grievances &Pensions, Department of personal & Training Establishment A-IV Desk F.No.31011/12/2015-EsttA-IV dated 24.04.2018 Annexure A2. A true copy of the notification dated 10.08.2016 issued by the Secretary(Revenue), Dadra & Nagar Haveli Annexure A3. A true copy of the letter No. F No. 2/3/2017- LR/Esst. Dated 24-10- 2017 sent by the Deputy Collector (HQ), Kavarati. Annexure A4. A true copy of the application dated 12.10.2020 submitted by the applicants through the counsel. Annexure A5. A true copy of the Reply dated 15.12.2020 issued by the Central Assistant Information Officer & Superintendent, Collectorate, Kvarathi, UT Of Lakshadweep. Annexure A6. A true copy of the representation dated Nil by the 13th applicant Annexure A7. A true copy of the notification No. F No.1/18/2002-LR/Estt dated 25.3.2003 issued by the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Annexure A8. A true copy of the notification No.4/Khse.Stha.SewaNeeti-(Amin)- 02/2011 Ra604(4) 210 Patna-15 dated dated 13.12.2013 issued by the Government of Bihar. Annexure R4(a): True copy of the Recruitment Rule 2009 for the post of Amin/Gumastha Annexure R4(b): True copy of the office memorandum DOP & Τ Ο.Μ.ΝΟ.ΑΕs 14017/6/2009-Estt (RR) dated 30.4.2010. *************

Deepa S