Shri Ramesh Chander & Ors. vs New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) & Ors.

By Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

The instant Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:

The present applicants belong to the teaching cadre of employees of the Education Wing of the Respondent Organisation, i.e. New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). All the applicants were recruited by following due procedure. The applicants were granted various pay scales as granted by the respondents from time to time. The Respondent - NDMC has granted higher pay scales than what were initially granted to various categories of employees of respondents except a few employee categories like the education cadres of NDMC. The higher pay scales were granted to such other categories of employees based on the recommendations of the Shiv Shankar Committee (SSC) which submitted its report in 1973. Based on the said Report and Resolution of the NDMC, higher scales of pay were granted to these categories of employees in 1973 and 1974. However, the Apex Court in its judgment dated 07.08.1987 in Civil Appeal No. 2969/1983 held that:

The Respondent - NDMC, after prolonged agitation by certain categories of employees set up a committee under the chairmanship of its Secretary and some settlement was arrived at in favour a sub-group of aggrieved categories. Some of the left-out categories again approached the law courts (High Court of Delhi and/or Central Administrative Tribunal) and ultimately the Apex Court in R.L. Gautam and Ors. Vs. NDMC in SLP No.1114/004. The NDMC again set up a committee called Bharat Bhushan Committee, which recommended to pay the Shiv Shankar Committee pay scales to other left out categories. The Respondent NDMC issued an office orders dated 02.06.2014 and 05.09.2016 agreeing to pay such pay scales to the left-out category of employees. As per the office order dated 05.09.2016, the present applicants made representations to the respondents requesting to grant Shiv Shankar Pay scales. The respondents have not acceded to the prayers of the present applicants. Being aggrieved they have filed the present OA seeking afore mentioned relief.

Final hearing took place on 15.09.2026 and the respondents were directed to submit written submissions which were submitted on 25.09.2026 and taken on record.

The learned counsel for the applicant states that nearly 98% of the employees were granted the pay scales recommended by the Shiv Shankar Committee following the Apex Court judgments on 07.08.1987 in Civil Appeal No. 2969 of 1983, Resolution No. 1 by the NDMC dated 26.02.1988, the report of the committee of the NDMC dated 19.04.1991, and dismissal of SLPs vide orders dated 14.02.2005 and 16.07.2008 filed by the Respondents against orders of the High Court of Delhi, and office orders by Respondents on 02.06.2014 and 05.09.2016. However, the Respondents have discriminated against the present applicants by declining to grant such higher pay scales as recommended by the Shiv Shankar Committee’s report. The respondents could not have created a class within a class amongst its employees by declining such higher pay scales as granted to other categories of employees. It also violates the principle of equal for equal work. He referred to Resolution No. 1 of the NDMC dated 26.02.1988 which reads as follows:

The learned counsel for the applicant refers to the judgment of High Court of Delhi in NDMC vs. Kaneya Lal and ors. in WPC No. 11841/ 2004 decided on 17.09.2004. He specifically referred to Paragraphs 4 to 6, which is reproduced below:

Referring to the above observation by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, the learned counsel for the applicant points out that the non-technical staff of NDMC have also been granted higher pay scales as per the recommendations of Shiv Shankar Committee. It is the teachers under the education department who have been discriminated by the Respondents.

Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the respondents (particularly Paragraphs 9 and 10 of the affidavit dated 27.11.2015 filed by the respondents), the learned counsel for the applicants states that the present applicants are not seeking higher pay scales as per the Chattopadhyay Committee recommendation (instituted by the Central government for recommending higher pay scales to the teaching cadre of the central Educational institutions, but as per the Shiv Shankar Committee’s recommendations for cadres who had equivalent pay scales before acceptance of said recommendations. He further mentions that 26 categories of employees of NDMC have been granted the SSC pay scales, leaving aside the employees of the Education Wing of the NDMC. The respondents could not discriminate the teachers who have not been granted higher pay scales as granted to employees who were similarly placed in terms of pay scales as the teachers, prior to acceptance/granting of SSC pay scales.

The following sections are taken from the written submissions by the learned counsel for the respondents.

At the outset it is submitted that the claim of the applicants for grant of the Shiv Shankar Pay Scales with all consequential benefits is misconceived and is contrary to the applicable statutory/regulatory framework as well as the pay scales already extended to the Applicants. The Respondent Council has notified the NDMC (Conditions of Service of Municipal Officers) Regulations, 2016 under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, governing the conditions of service of its employees. In terms thereof, the pay of NDMC employees is governed by the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules. Thus, the Applicants cannot claim a pay scale de hors the applicable Regulations and the decisions of the competent authority.

The applicants are seeking parity for grant of Shiv Shankar pay scales as granted to the other employees of the respondents with all consequential benefits however they are not entitled to it. It is submitted that the applicants are getting pay scales as are given to the teachers under Government of India as per recommendations of a committee set up under Prof Chattopadhyay of the National Commission for teachers. It is relevant to submit here that the Respondent Council has adopted the scales granted by the Government of India, including the enhanced scales arising pursuant to the recommendations of Chattopadhyaya Committee and thereafter the replacement scales under Vth Central Pay Commission.

It is further relevant to highlight that in the report of the Vth Central pay commission, it was duly discussed that the scales of pay of the teaching fraternity need to be improved and after taking into consideration the pay suggested by the National commission of teachers the pay of the teachers was further replaced. Hence, consequently as a result of enhancement of pay scales under Chattopadhyaya Committee recommendation and thereafter by granting the replacement pay scales under Vth Central Pay Commission, the applicants have already received successive enhancements in their pay scales and their pay scales were more than the pay scales granted under the Shiv Shankar pay scales to the other posts which had the same scales as teachers under IVth CPC. Therefore, the grant of further pay scales would result in double enhancement/benefit to the applicants. The Respondents have already placed on record a comparative chart demonstrating the difference between the pay scales under the Central Pay Commission and the DTL/Shiv Shankar Pay Scales in its reply. The said comparison demonstrates that the applicants' pay structure, after giving effect to the successive revisions applicable to them, was already higher than the corresponding scales applicable to certain posts under the DTL/Shiv Shankar structure.

Thereafter, pursuant to the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court vide its Order dated 16.07.2008 regarding rationalisation of the pay scales of employees of the Respondent Council, the Respondents constituted the Bharat Bhushan Committee to examine the issue of pay scales comprehensively. Significantly, the Committee has considered the pay scales of different categories of employees, including those governed by the Central Pay Commission as well as employees whose pay scales were governed by specialised recommendations/committees, including the Chattopadhyay Committee in the case of teachers. The Bharat Bhushan Committee undertook the exercise of rationalisation of the pay scales taking into account the different categories and existing pay structures. Pursuant thereto, replacement/ enhanced scales were recommended for the teachers and were implemented vide Order dated 10.11.2009.

The Applicants have admittedly not challenged the Order dated 10.11.2009 till date. Having allowed the Order dated 10.11.2009 to operate without challenge, the applicants cannot indirectly seek parity of pay scales merely by relying upon a subsequent Office Order or by comparing their pay with another category of employees.

It is relevant to submit here that the applicants have also placed reliance upon the Office Order dated 05.09.2016. The said reliance is misplaced. The applicants were already enjoying the higher pay scales applicable. The Office Order dated 05.09.2016 was issued to extend the benefit of the Shiv Shankar Pay Scales to the categories of employees who had been left out from such benefit. However, the applicants do not fall within the said category, as they were already drawing pay scales higher than the Shiv Shankar Pay Scales by virtue of the pay revisions applicable to them and in the absence of any specific provision extending the benefit of that Office Order cumulatively to them, the Office Order cannot be used to confer a second enhancement over and above the scales already granted to the Applicants.

It is further stated that the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. Hence, Tribụnal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. [Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Anr. 2023 SCC Online SC 173].

The aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely applies in the present case. In the present case, the pay structure of the Applicants has not been fixed without consideration. On the contrary, their pay has undergone successive revisions pursuant to the recommendations applicable to teachers followed by the revised scales under the Fifth Central Pay Commission, and the overall issue of rationalisation was thereafter considered by the Bharat Bhushan Committee.

Further, it has been averred in the written submissions that the Hon'ble Apex Court has recently observed that courts are not to evaluate and compare on the basis of the affidavits and pleadings, the justifiability or otherwise of the differentiation of the pay scales and that such matters should be best left to the executive. It was further observed that unless malafides are shown, the Court would respect the fixation of pay scales by the expert bodies or Pay Commissions Committees, The Hon'ble Apex Court also held that Article 14 prohibits class legislation but does not prohibit reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation and again reiterated that the power of judicial review in matters of classification of posts and determination of pay scale was very limited inasmuch as the equation of posts and salaries is a complex matter required to be best left to an expert body. It is the domain which is exercised by the executive with the aid of bodies expert in the field. [R.K. Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India and Others, WP(C) No.193/2012 decided on 12.08.2026.

It is further submitted that no material has been placed by the applicants on record demonstrating any manifest arbitrariness, mala fide or grave error in the determination of their existing pay structure warranting such interference. The mere fact that another category of employees is receiving a particular pay scale does not, by itself, create an enforceable right in favour of the Applicants to claim the same scale. The determination of parity requires consideration of the complete cadre structure, qualifications, nature and extent of duties, responsibilities, recruitment, promotional avenues and the historical evolution of the respective pay scales.

In summary, the respondents accordingly submit that the applicants have failed to establish: -

Any statutory or regulatory entitlement to the Shiv Shankar Pay Scales;

any arbitrariness or mala fide in the existing pay structure;

any legally sustainable basis for disturbing the pay structure determined after consideration by the competent authorities and expert committees;

any illegality in the Order dated 10.11.2009, which remains unchallenged;

any provision under the Office Order dated 05.09.2016 extending the benefit of Shiv Shankar scales to the Applicants;

Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record.

During the course of final hearing, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the applicants regarding the comparative pay scales of teachers in the Education Wing of the respondents vis-à-vis teachers in similarly situated organisations such as CBSE, KVS, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti or the Delhi Government. However, instead of establishing any such teacher-to-teacher parity, the applicants submitted that they seek similar upgradation as was granted to non-educational employees of respondents pursuant to the recommendations of the SSC. It is again relevant to submit here that the applicants have already been granted the pay scales applicable to the teaching category pursuant to the recommendations of the Chattopadhyay Committee/National Commission of Teachers and subsequent Central Pay Commission revisions and cannot, therefore, disregard their specialised pay structure and seek an additional benefit merely on the basis of the pay scales granted to a distinct category of non-educational employees. Hence, in the absence of any parity with similarly situated teachers the claim of the Applicants is wholly unsustainable.

The SSC recommended higher pay scales for the technical staff of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in its report in 1973. To be specific, the SSC recommended higher pay scales than what has been recommended by the Third Pay Commission for the Technical Staff of DESU (Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking). Subsequently, all the categories of employees including non-technical staff of DESU were granted the SSC pay scales. The respondent - NDMC also passed the resolution to accept the SSC pay scales for its technical and ministerial staff in the same manner as granted by DESU. Subsequently, other ministerial staff and medical and non-medical staff approached the courts and the respondents for grant of SSC pay scales and the respondents - NDMC granted such higher pays scales to them. It is a fact that the present applicants, who belong to the Education Wing of NDMC, were considered for granting appropriate pay scales and the respondents have adhered to the pay scales recommended by the successive Central Pay Commissions for the teaching staff in the central Education institutions. It is in this context that the respondents in their counter affidavit dated 27.11.2025, in Paragraphs 9 and 10, have referred to the Chattopadhyay Committee Report based on which the Central Government has accepted the Vth CPC recommendations for the teaching staff in their institutions and the NDMC has also accepted such pay scales. The learned counsel for the respondents in Paragraph 2 of written submission dated 25.09.2026 has mentioned that the teaching community of NDMC are paid pay scales as per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules applicable for the teaching staff.

The genesis of the Shiv Shankar Committee traces to payment of appropriate pay scales to the Technical Staff in the Electrical Wing of MCD at par with similar staff of DESU. The applicants have not placed the details of the SSC report in their pleadings. However, the facts are culled out from Paragraphs 5 to 6 of the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in WPC No.11141/2004 dated 17.9.2004. Subsequently, the respondents have extended the pay scales to other non-technical cadres like Ministerial cadres in the electrical wing and others based on court decisions/Tribunals/office orders. It has also been stated by the respondents that the teaching staff were granted the pay scales as per the Central Government Pay Rules applicable to the teaching cadre on the basis of Vth CPC recommendations based on Chattopadhyay Committee recommendations and on the basis of recommendations by successive CPCs.

The applicants in their relief paragraph have not mentioned the period for which they are praying for higher pay scales as per SSC recommendations. Again, it is made clear that SSC never recommended any pay scales for the teaching cadre but for the technical cadre in the electrical wing of MCD not for similar cadre of NDMC. It is only NDMC who adopted the SSC pay scales for technical cadre of the electrical wing and subsequently to the non-technical cadres in the same wing.

The applicants have not brought out any historical comparison of pay scales granted to the teaching cadre in NDMC vis-a-vis the teaching cadre in MCD or the Central Educational Institutions since 26.2.1988 when Resolution No.1 of NDMC was passed to adopt SSC pay scales for the Electrical wing of NDMC. In absence of the same, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the pay scales of employees having equivalent pay scales in NDMC prior to acceptance of SSC pay scales have been granted higher pay scales after acceptance of SSC pay scales in NDMC.

The learned counsel for the applicants has raised the issue of discrimination of the applicant’s vis-a-vis other similarly placed employees. In absence of the historical parity of equivalent employees in NDMC, MCD and Central government, this Tribunal fails to accept such averment. The question arises: Discrimination vis-à-vis whom? Where are the comparisons and for which period? There is nothing in the pleadings to accept such assertion. Apples have to be compared with apples, not with onions.

The allegation of discrimination is always weighed on the bed rock of differential treatment to various sub-groups based on reasonable and intelligent criteria of classification of the various classes of employees. The principle of creating sub-classes within broad class of employees has always been upheld by the Apex Court based on intelligent and reasonable criteria for such differentiated categories. The teaching staff of NDMC could be compared with the teaching staff of MCD and Central Government Teaching Institutions. The applicants have failed to bring out any such comparative picture to allege discrimination. By mechanically applying the fact that 98% of employees belonging to 26 categories of the Respondent NDMC have been granted the SSC pay scales, the principle of non-discrimination cannot be evoked.

Furthermore, grant of a particular pay scale to a particular cadre of employees, is a policy decision. Unless there is proven case of discrimination and violation of principle of equal pay for equal work, the Courts and Tribunals are refrained to entertain applications/petitions seeking grant of higher pay scales to a particular cadre.

In view of the above analysis, the present OA lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.