Mr. O P Singh Kushwah & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr.

Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J) :

This matter has come up on revival. Earlier, the present OA was dismissed vide order dated 30.03.2017 with liberty to the applicants to seek revival after disposal of the proceedings pending before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, after dismissal of Civil Appeal No.4852/2015 and connected matter by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 06.11.2024, the applicants filed the MA No. 211/2025 seeking revival of the Original Application, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.03.2025 and accordingly the Original Application stood restored for adjudication on merits. The detailed facts of the present matter have already been narrated in the order dated 30.03.2017, therefore, the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity.

The applicants, who were working as Superintending Engineers in the National Water Development Agency (NWDA), an autonomous body functioning under the administrative control of the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India at the time of filing of the OA, initially joined NWDA as Assistant Engineers during the years 1985-1986. Prior to implementation of the recommendations of the 5^th Central Pay Commission, parity in pay scales was maintained between the engineering cadre of NWDA and the Central Water Commission (CWC), both functioning under the same Ministry. According to the applicants, the duties, responsibilities, technical hierarchy and nature of work in NWDA are substantially similar to those in CWC and therefore the applicants are entitled to the same scale of pay as is being drawn by their counterparts in CWC. The applicants filed OAs in earlier rounds of litigation being OA No.1588/2009 and OA No.3902/2010, however, their grievance had not been redressed. Being aggrieved the present OA was filed in the year 2015 seeking the following relief(s) :-

On 05.02.2026, the following observations were recorded by the Tribunal :-

Learned counsel for the applicants referred to the order dated 30.03.2017 passed in the present OA and drew attention to paragraphs 2.6, 6, 11, and 12 thereof. The same are extracted herein below:-

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants and their counterparts in CWC had historically enjoyed complete parity in pay scales till implementation of the 5^th CPC. It was argued that both NWDA and CWC function under the administrative control of the same Ministry and discharge similar, technical and engineering functions and, therefore, denial of parity is arbitrary and discriminatory. It was further submitted that the duties, responsibilities, qualifications and technical hierarchy in NWDA are substantially similar to those prevailing in CWC and therefore the applicants are entitled to grant of the scale of Rs.14300-18300/- after completion of the requisite qualifying service. Learned counsel emphasized that the Governing Body of NWDA itself, in its 56th meeting held on 08.04.2011, had recommended grant of the higher scale corresponding to Rs.14300-18300/- to Superintending Engineers and Directors and, therefore, the respondents cannot now deny the said benefit.

It was further argued on behalf of the applicants that the respondents themselves had earlier requested withdrawal of the pending litigation on the assurance that the matter regarding upgradation of pay scale was under active consideration before the Governing Body and therefore the subsequent rejection of the claim is arbitrary and unjustified.

Learned counsel for the applicants relied upon judgments relating to ministerial staff of NWDA as well as the judgment in T.M. Sampath to contend that the applicants are seeking “pay parity” based upon long-standing historical parity and not merely “equal pay for equal work”. It was finally submitted that after dismissal of Civil Appeal No.4852/2015 and connected matters by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the applicants are entitled to revival and adjudication of their claims on merits and therefore the reliefs prayed in the OA deserves to be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that NWDA is an autonomous society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is distinct from the Central Water Commission, which forms part of an Organized Group „A‟ Engineering Service under the Government of India. According to the respondents, employees of NWDA are governed by separate service conditions and the pay structure in NWDA is subject to approval of the Government of India in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and Department of Personnel & Training. Learned counsel further submitted that the Office Memorandum dated 06.06.2000 applies only to Organized Group „A‟ Engineering Services, recruitment to which is made through the Combined Engineering Services Examination conducted by UPSC and since recruitment in NWDA is not made through such examination, the applicants cannot claim the benefit thereof. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that there are substantial differences in the cadre structure, promotional hierarchy and service conditions of NWDA and CWC.

During hearing on 05.02.2026, this Tribunal directed conditions, method of recruitment, promotional hierarchy and comparative pay structure in NWDA and CWC. Pursuant thereto, the respondents filed an affidavit on 02.04.2026 indicating a detailed comparison chart in order to demonstrate that the cadre structure, recruitment process and service conditions in NWDA are materially different from those prevailing in CWC. However, this fact may not have much significant. On the basis of the said comparison, the respondents emphasized that technical posts in NWDA do not form part of any Organized Group „A‟ Engineering Service and that recruitment is not made through the Combined Engineering Services Examination. Accordingly, the applicants are not entitled for any reliefs sought in the OA.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record, including the impugned communications dated 29.10.2014 and 01.12.2014, the recommendation made in the 56^th meeting of the Governing Body of NWDA held on 08.04.2011, the comparison chart filed by the respondents by way of affidavit dated 02.04.2026, and the judgments relied upon by both sides.

It is understood that parity in the pay scale was maintained between the engineering cadre of NWDA and CWC prior to implementation of 5th C.P.C. recommendation.

NWDA & CWC are functioning under the administrative control of M/o Water Resources. Applicants are seeking grant of the scale of Rs.14,300–18,300/- at par with the counterparts in CWC.

Officers/officials of NWDA are drawing salary from the consolidated fund of India. However, NWDA is a fully funded society of Government of India and paying salary through a budgetary support of the Government. Thus, ultimately the financial burden for either situation lies on the Government itself.

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 03.03.2017 has dismissed the OA with a liberty to the applicants to seek leave of the Tribunal for reviving the OA, after final outcome of SLP No 7365/2015 in the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Subsequently, after dismissal of Civil Appeal No.4853/2015 and connected matters by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on 06.11.2024, the applicants filed MA 211/2025 seeking revival of the OA, which was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 12.03.2025. The order passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 4853/2015 is as under :-

After dismissal of the Civil Appeal No 4853/2015 by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) 8740/2014 has acquired its finality. The order dated 12.12.2014 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi is reproduced below :-

The short question that falls for consideration is whether the applicants, who were working as Superintending Engineers in the National Water Development Agency, are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.14300-18300 at par with the Superintending Engineers of the Central Water Commission, and whether the rejection of their claim by the impugned communications is legally sustainable.

At the very outset, it is necessary to appreciate the true nature of the claim set up by the applicants. The applicants are not seeking equation of two unconnected posts on the principle of "equal pay for equal work", which would have cast upon them the burden of establishing identity of duties, responsibilities and mode of recruitment, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148. What the applicants assert is the restoration of a pre-existing parity in pay scales between the engineering cadre of NWDA and that of CWC, which admittedly subsisted uninterrupted until the implementation of the recommendations of the 5^th Central Pay Commission. The distinction between "equal pay for equal work" and "pay parity" is well recognized, and has been applied by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the context of this very organization while dealing with the case of its Ministerial staff. The claim of the applicants is, therefore, required to be examined on the anvil of parity, and not on the higher threshold of equal pay for equal work.

It is not in dispute that prior to 01.01.1996 the Superintending Engineers of NWDA and their counterparts in CWC were drawing identical pay scales. It is equally borne out from the record that the disturbance in this parity is directly relatable to the adoption by NWDA of the revised scales incorporated in Part 'A' of the First Schedule to the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, in terms of the Ministry of Finance letter dated 02.12.1997, whereupon the Superintending Engineers of CWC came to be placed in the scale of Rs.14300-18300, while those of NWDA continued in the lower scale of Rs.12000-16500. The parity claimed by the applicants is thus not a benefit newly conceived, but one which was historically enjoyed and thereafter lost on account of an administrative measure, and not by reason of any conscious re-evaluation of the two cadres.

The principal objection of the respondents is that NWDA is an autonomous society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, distinct from CWC, which forms part of an Organized Group 'A' Engineering Service, and that the employees of NWDA are governed by their own service conditions. We are of the considered view that the autonomous character of NWDA does not, in the facts of the present case, conclude the issue against the applicants. NWDA is a fully funded body of the Government of India, functioning under the administrative control of the very Ministry that controls CWC. In real terms, there is no material difference between salaries met directly out of the Consolidated Fund of India and those met through budgetary support extended by the Government, for the financial burden in either event ultimately falls upon the Government. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in T.M. Sampath v. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, (2015), which held that the Office Memorandum dated 01.05.1987 relating to the pension option was not applicable to NWDA, turned upon the existence of NWDA's own CPF Rules, 1982, which occupied the field on that subject. That decision does not govern a case such as the present, where no independent norm displaces the historically recognised parity, and where the employer's own Governing Body has itself recommended restoration of that parity.

In this context, the recommendation made by the Governing Body of NWDA in its 56^th meeting held on 08.04.2011 assumes considerable significance. The Governing Body, which was chaired by the Secretary to the Ministry of Water Resources, resolved that officers who had completed regular Class-I service and were holding the post of Superintending Engineer or Director be granted the revised scale corresponding to the pre-revised scale of Rs.14300-18300, and the said recommendation was forwarded to the Ministry on 17.09.2014 for approval. The claim of the applicants, therefore, carries the considered endorsement of the competent body entrusted with their service conditions. The rejection of that recommendation by the impugned communication dated 29.10.2014 proceeds solely on the ground that the Superintending Engineers of CWC belong to an Organized Group 'A' Service, whereas those of NWDA do not. On the basis of material placed before us, we find this to be an inadequate answer to a claim founded upon admitted historical parity and supported by the recommendation of the employer's own Governing Body.

We have given our anxious consideration to the comparison chart filed by the respondents, which seeks to demonstrate differences in the method of recruitment, eligibility criteria and cadre structure of the two organizations across the 5^th, 6^th and 7^th Central Pay Commissions, and in particular to the contention that the scale of Rs.14300-18300 corresponds, in the hierarchy of NWDA, to the post of Director (Technical) and not to that of Superintending Engineer, so that the applicants are seeking to compare unequal posts. We are unable to accept this contention. The equivalence of the scale of Rs.14300-18300 to the post of Director (Technical) within the NWDA structure is itself a consequence of the very anomaly of which the applicants complain, inasmuch as it was the placement of the NWDA Superintending Engineer in a scale lower than that of his CWC counterpart, upon adoption of the Part 'A' scales, that had the effect of pushing the corresponding scale one stage higher in the NWDA hierarchy. The parity claimed by the applicants is a parity of the post of Superintending Engineer of NWDA with the post of Superintending Engineer of CWC, being the relationship that historically obtained, and the same cannot be defeated by pointing to the internal re-designation of scales that the loss of parity itself brought about. The differences in the mode of recruitment, including the fact that recruitment in NWDA is not made through the Combined Engineering Services Examination, are relevant to an enquiry under the principle of "equal pay for equal work", which, for the reasons already recorded, is not the enquiry before us.

The authorities cited on behalf of the respondents do not carry their case any further. In Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 10 SCC 62, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that fixation of pay scales is a function of the Government acting on the recommendations of the Pay Commission, and that Tribunals ought not to interfere with such fixation unless a clear case of hostile discrimination is made out. We are conscious of this salutary principle, and we do not propose to fix any pay scale by our own assessment. The present case, however, is not one where the Tribunal is substituting its own opinion for that of the expert body. On the contrary, it is a case where the expert body, namely the Governing Body of NWDA, has itself recommended the parity, and the recommendation has been declined on a ground which does not meet the case of historical parity. As regards Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala, (2000) 6 SCC 359, the principle that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition attracts neither the doctrine of merger nor Article 141 of the Constitution bears only upon the effect to be given to the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the connected proceedings, and does not detract from the persuasive value of the reasoning of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matters concerning the Ministerial staff of NWDA.

It is understood that this Tribunal while passing its order dated 30.03.2017 duly examined the merits of the case after hearing arguments of both sides and after careful consideration of facts and issues involved therein, arrived on the following conclusion :

For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the denial to the applicants of parity in pay scale with their counterparts in the Central Water Commission, being a parity which admittedly subsisted until the 5^th Central Pay Commission, which the Governing Body of NWDA has itself recommended for restoration, and which the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has recognized in the cognate case of the Ministerial staff of NWDA, is arbitrary and discriminatory, and cannot be sustained in law. The impugned communications, to the extent indicated, are accordingly liable to be set aside.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the Original Application is allowed in the following terms:

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.