MRS ANJALI DARSHAN YERAM vs DEFENCE on 2 November 2026

ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

Applicant, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, has filed this application for direction to the respondents to grant her higher pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- on par with similarly situated Radiographers.

2. Facts in nutshell are that pursuant to the advertisement published in November, 2003 for the post of Radiographer in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000/-, the applicant applied for the said post. The qualification necessary for this post, as per advertisement, was Intermediate in Science with Diploma in Radiographer or Degree in Science with Physics as one of the subjects from a recognized University with 2 years’ experience which was as per the Recruitment Rules then in force.

Munarshi

3 OA No.293/2023

2.1 The applicant possessed Degree in Science (B.Sc.) with Physics as one of the subjects and has done 2 years Diploma in Radiographer from Tata Memorial Hospital. After selection, she was appointed to the post of Radiographer in the pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000/- w.e.f. 05th August, 2004 on regular basis.

2.2 It is further alleged that as per the recommendations of the 5th CPC (Central Pay Commission), which came into effect from 01st January, 1996, the pay scale of Radiographer in the Naval Hospital was upgraded and placed in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-. Vide order dated 22nd October, 1998, pay scale of Radiographer was upgraded and placed in the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- with effect from 01st January, 1996 (Annexure-A/5). In view of this, in the advertisement published for the post of Radiographer in the year 2003, the pay scale ought to have been Rs.5,000-8,000/- instead of Rs. 4,500-7,000/- Realizing this mistake, the respondents issued order dated 24th August, 2004 placing her in the pay scale of Rs.5,000- 8,000/- from the date of her appointment i.e. 05th August, 2004. She continued to draw this pay scale till 2013.

Munarshi

4 OA No.293/2023

Thereafter, Respondent No.2 issued an order dated 13th August, 2013 informing her that the pay scale of Rs.5,000- 8,000/- granted to the Radiographers is not in consonance with the recommendations of the 5th CPC and she was again placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.4,500-7,000/- w.e.f. 01st January, 1996 vide order dated 12th August, 2004 (Annexure-A/6). Before revising her pay scale to Rs.4,500-7,000/-, she was not put to notice.

2.3 The applicant contends that she possessed qualification as prescribed in the advertisement. In other departments also, similar issue had arisen and those employees were paid grade pay of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- when they approached the Tribunal. She has, therefore, filed this application seeking following reliefs:- “(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to call for the records and proceedings pursuant to the issuance of the impugned order dated 06.01.2022 and after going through the legality and validity of the same quash and set aside the same.

(b) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to direct the Respondents to grant the higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- to Applicant on par with the similarly and identically placed Radiographers.

(c) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to hold and declare that the

Munarshi

5 OA No.293/2023

Applicant is eligible and entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/- with effect from 05.08.2004 and direct the Respondents accordingly.

(d) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to direct the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits including appropriate benefits under VI & VII Central Pay Commissions with effect from 01.01.2006 and 01.01.2016, respectively and allowances due and admissible to the Applicants.

(e) This Hon’ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to pass such other and further orders as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(f) Cost of this application be awarded to the applicants.”

3. Respondents filed their reply. They contend that the scale of pay of Rs.4,500-7,000/- was granted strictly in accordance with the recommendations of 5th CPC. As per recommendations contained in para 52.107, the higher pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- is to be granted only to such of the post of Radiographers, for which minimum qualification of 3 years diploma has been prescribed. However, as per NHQ RR, minimum qualification for the said post is Intermediate or equivalent with Diploma in Radiography or Matriculation with Diploma in Radiography and 1 year’s experience in the field or Degree in Science. Hence, higher

Munarshi

6 OA No.293/2023

pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- could not have been extended to Radiographers working in NHQ.

3.1 They further contend that the Pay Commission is an expert body who decides the pay grade/scale of different posts after detailed analysis. This proposal was also examined by Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure and intimated vide its letter dated 10th March, 2005 (Exhibit-EX2) that it has not been found feasible to agree to the instant proposal, in view of the fact that higher pay scale of Rs.1,600-2,660/-(Revised to Rs.5,000-8,000) could only be extended to such of the posts of Radiographers, for which, minimum qualification is 3 years Diploma in Radiological Technology. The applicant did not possess that, therefore, higher pay scale of Rs.5,000- 8,000/- could not be extended to Radiographers working in NHQ. As per own showing of the applicant, she has done only two years diploma and, therefore, she was not entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-. The representation of the applicant dated 06th January, 2022 was rejected as the judgement of court cases are specific and are applicable

Munarshi

7 OA No.293/2023

only to those who have been granted relief by the court. They, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the respondents.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Bhatkar submitted that Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1030/2009 relying on the judgment of Delhi High Court, held that there would be discrimination if the Radiographers holding 2 years diploma are not granted the benefit of 5th Pay Commission’s recommendations. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (C) Nos.10645/2016 & C.M. Application No.34498/2019 Amar Chand & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors, in support of this contention that the applicant is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Dube submitted that the 06th Pay Commission recommendations clearly stipulate that the Radiographers having 3 years diploma in Radiography will be entitled to higher pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. He submitted that the applicant does

Munarshi

8 OA No.293/2023

not possess this qualification. She possesses Degree in Science i.e. B.Sc. and two years diploma in Radiography. Since it did not meet the requirements of 5th Pay Commission recommendations, this pay scale wrongly granted to her, was rightly withdrawn. He further submitted that there is inordinate delay in approaching the Tribunal, for which, no explanation is forthcoming. On the ground of delay alone, the application needs to be dismissed. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the case of Surinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. 2025 (5) SLR 266 (Pb. & Hry.). He further submitted that this Tribunal cannot consider stale claims. For this purpose, he has placed reliance on the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. M K. Sarkar (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 59.

11. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for respective parties.

12. Admittedly, the applicant holds B.Sc. Degree and 2 years diploma in Radiography. As per requirements of 5th

Munarshi

9 OA No.293/2023

Pay Commission, higher pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/- is admissible only to the Radiographers who hold 3 years diploma course. This very question had come up for consideration before Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.1030/2009 dated 11th January, 2010 All India Ordnance Factories Para Medical Staff Association Vs. H. N. Srivastava, in which it is held thus:- “2. In the above view of the matter, the only impediment or the grounds which have not been found apt in law to entitle applicants to the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- are non- possession of three years diploma course and recommendations of the 5th CPC. A discrimination would be invidious if identically situated are treated differently. One wing of the Govt., i.e., Ministry of Health and Family Welfare when in true letter and spirit of the direction of the Tribunal having accorded the Radiographers the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, denial by another wing, i.e., Ministry of Defence, without any justification on overreaching the decision and observations of the Tribunal would not be allowed to infiltrate into an arena occupied by judicial dicta.

3. In the above view of the matter, we do not find reconsideration apt in law as per the directions of the Tribunal. Accordingly, OA is partly allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Respondents are directed to re- examine the claim of applicant strictly in the light of the orders passed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, extending to their Radiographers, without stipulation of requirement of diploma, the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, keeping in mind the contentions of applicants and the observations made by us, within a period of

Munarshi

10 OA No.293/2023

three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.”

13. Similar question had arisen before Delhi High Court in the case of Amar Chand & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Supra). Delhi High Court held thus:- “31. In the present case, it is seen that there was already a Pay Committee that recommended the grant of the revised pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- to Radiographers, accepting the recommendations of the 5th CPC. There was no justification for the withdrawal of the said revised pay scale on the ground of difference in educational qualifications. As far as the education qualifications for the post of Radiographers in the ESIC is concerned, they differ very slightly from the qualifications for the post of Radiographers in the CGHS and other Government Hospitals. While the qualification for the post of Radiographers in the ESIC is matriculation or equivalent qualification from a recognised board and a two years' diploma course in Radiography, the corresponding qualification in the CGHS is different only to the extent that a three years' diploma course is required. This difference of a year in the lengths of the required diploma courses cannot be used to justify not giving the pay scale of Rs.5,000- 8,000/- to Radiographers working in the ESIC. This is made all the more significant when it is seen that the requirement of experience is the same for either Radiographers working in the CGHS, or with the ESIC.”

14. Thus, the Delhi High Court has held that the difference of a year in the lengths of the required diploma courses cannot be used to justify the denial of pay scale of

Munarshi

11 OA No.293/2023

Rs. 5,000-8,000/- to Radiographers working in the ESIC. The Delhi High Court has also held that this is made all the more significant when it is seen that the required of experience is the same for either Radiographers working in the CGHS, or with the ESIC.

15. It is pertinent to note that in the case of Amar Chand (supra), the requirement of experience was one year in Radiography, whereas, in the case at hand, the requirement of experience is 2 years. In this view of the matter, the case of Amar Chand (supra) can be squarely applied to the facts of the case at hand.

16. So far as delay is concerned, it is settled law as held in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648, the pay fixation is a continuous cause of action. Therefore, delay is immaterial. However, the arrears will have to be restricted to three years preceding the date of application.

17. Having regard to what is discussed hereinabove, we find that the applicant is entitled to pay scale of Rs. 5,000-8,000/-. The respondents rejected the representation

Munarshi

12 OA No.293/2023

of the applicant only on the ground that the court cases are specific and, therefore, applicant is not entitled to the pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/-. We do not find any substance in this contention. Judgment of the Delhi High Court in Amar Chand (supra) and judgment of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in All India Ordnance Factories Para Medical Staff Association Vs. H. N. Srivastava (supra) are in rem. It is settled law that judgments in service jurisprudence are in rem unless it is specifically stated that they are in personam.

18. The Original Application is allowed as under:-

(i) The order dated 06th January, 2022 is set aside.

(ii) Respondents are directed to grant pay scale of Rs.5,000-8,000/- to the applicant with arrears which are restricted to 3 years preceding the date of the application.

(iii) Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.

Munarshi

13 OA No.293/2023

19. This exercise shall be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice M.G.Sewlikar)

Member (A)

Member (J)

A* Deepti Ganesh Munarshi