Delhi High Court Grants Prasar Bharati Technicians Pay Arrears from 1996, Holds Notional Pay Fixation Alone Would Be Manifestly Unjust
Facts
The Delhi High Court considered two connected writ petitions filed by 66 employees working as Technicians, Senior Technicians and Engineering Assistants in Prasar Bharati.
The petitions challenged orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal granting the employees the higher pay scale of ₹5,000–₹8,000 with effect from 1 January 1996, but only on a notional basis and without payment of arrears.
Historically, Technicians and Senior Technicians had enjoyed pay parity with Lighting Assistants until 1983. The parity was disturbed after the Supreme Court, in Y.K. Mehta v. Union of India, directed that Lighting Assistants be granted the same pay scale as Assistant Cameramen in the Films Division from 1 December 1983.
Although the pay scale of Lighting Assistants was enhanced pursuant to that judgment, the corresponding benefit was not extended to Technicians and Senior Technicians.
Through an Office Memorandum dated 5 December 1997, parity between Technicians, Senior Technicians and Lighting Assistants was restored from 1 January 1996. However, the employees continued litigating for parity for the period from 1983 to 1995.
The Madras High Court eventually granted notional pay fixation to Technicians and Senior Technicians from 1 July 1983 without arrears because the employees in that case had expressly stated that they would not claim arrears. The Supreme Court upheld that relief.
The Union of India thereafter extended the benefit of notional fixation to similarly situated employees for the period from 1 July 1983 to 31 December 1995.
A fresh disparity arose when, by a judgment dated 15 December 2010, the Delhi High Court granted Lighting Assistants the higher pay scale of ₹5,000–₹8,000 from 1 January 1996 or from their respective dates of regularisation. This benefit was not extended to Technicians and Senior Technicians.
The employees approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal accepted that they were entitled to the same pay scale as Lighting Assistants but granted the benefit only notionally from 1 January 1996, without arrears.
The employees consequently approached the Delhi High Court seeking actual monetary benefits and arrears arising from the retrospective pay fixation.
Issues
- Whether Technicians and Senior Technicians were entitled to the higher pay scale of ₹5,000–₹8,000 from 1 January 1996 on an actual basis.
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal was justified in restricting the benefit to notional pay fixation without consequential arrears.
- Whether the earlier grant of only notional fixation for the period from 1983 to 1995 created a binding rule against payment of arrears in subsequent proceedings.
- Whether denying arrears to Technicians and Senior Technicians, while Lighting Assistants had allegedly received arrears upon revision of their pay, amounted to unjustified discrimination.
- Whether financial consequences and the limited scope of judicial review in pay-scale matters justified denial of actual monetary benefits.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Tribunal had erred in granting the revised pay scale of ₹5,000–₹8,000 from 1 January 1996 only notionally.
They submitted that the Delhi High Court had earlier directed that Lighting Assistants be granted the same revised pay scale as Assistant Cameramen in the Films Division from 1 January 1996 or from their respective dates of regularisation.
The petitioners relied on a “due and drawn” statement relating to a Lighting Assistant to demonstrate that Lighting Assistants had also received arrears after revision of their pay.
They contended that since the Supreme Court had already recognised parity between Technicians, Senior Technicians and Lighting Assistants, the petitioners were entitled not only to identical pay fixation but also to all consequential monetary benefits.
Regarding the earlier litigation concerning the period from 1983 to 1995, the petitioners argued that arrears had not been granted only because the employees in that case had expressly stated that they were not claiming arrears.
No such concession, waiver or relinquishment had been made in the present proceedings. The earlier order therefore could not be relied upon to deny arrears in the present case.
The petitioners submitted that once pay parity was accepted, withholding the corresponding arrears would perpetuate discrimination and render the relief incomplete.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents argued that the Tribunal’s orders granting only notional fixation were correct and did not require interference.
They relied on the earlier proceedings in which Technicians and Senior Technicians had been granted notional fixation from 1 July 1983 without arrears.
According to the respondents, the Supreme Court had upheld the Madras High Court’s order granting only notional benefits. Therefore, the petitioners’ claim for arrears in the present proceedings was without merit.
The respondents also relied on the generally limited scope of judicial review in matters concerning fixation and revision of pay scales, which involve expert evaluation, administrative considerations and financial implications.
Analysis of the Law
The Court observed that pay-scale determination ordinarily lies within the domain of expert bodies and the executive. Judicial review in such matters is limited because revision of pay involves complex administrative and financial considerations.
However, the present case did not require the Court to independently determine an appropriate pay scale.
The parity between Technicians, Senior Technicians and Lighting Assistants had already been judicially recognised and accepted. The respondents had also not challenged the Tribunal’s finding that the petitioners were entitled to the same pay scale as Lighting Assistants.
The only dispute was whether such parity should be implemented merely notionally or with actual consequential monetary benefits.
The Court distinguished between notional fixation granted because of a specific waiver of arrears and notional fixation imposed despite an express claim for arrears.
It held that non-payment of arrears in an earlier case could not become an immutable rule applicable to every subsequent claim, particularly where the earlier restriction arose from a concession made by the employees themselves.
Where parity in pay scales is restored and similarly placed employees have received actual monetary benefits, denying consequential arrears to another equivalent category without justification would be discriminatory and manifestly unjust.
Precedent Analysis
Y.K. Mehta v. Union of India, 1988 Supp SCC 750
The Supreme Court directed that Lighting Assistants in Doordarshan be granted pay parity with Assistant Cameramen in the Films Division.
The Court deprecated discrimination in pay and granted substituted pay scales with consequential benefits, including arrears.
The Delhi High Court relied on this decision to recognise the historical parity and the principle that unexplained differential treatment between comparable cadres could not be sustained.
Supreme Court Order in SLP (C) No. 33048 of 2011
The Supreme Court upheld the Madras High Court’s decision granting notional pay fixation to Technicians and Senior Technicians from 1 July 1983.
However, the Delhi High Court noted that the Madras High Court had limited the relief to notional fixation only because counsel for the employees had expressly stated that they would not claim arrears.
The Supreme Court had also specifically recorded this concession.
The absence of arrears in that litigation was therefore attributable to the peculiar factual concession made by the employees and did not create a general prohibition against granting arrears.
Union of India v. D.G.O.F. Employees Association, 2023 INSC 995
The Supreme Court upheld the grant of higher pay scales to employees of the Ordnance Factory Board from the same date on which equivalent benefits had been granted to similarly placed employees in other services.
The decision supported rectification of discriminatory pay treatment where there was historical similarity between the relevant categories.
Union of India v. Sanjoy Kor, 2025:DHC:10661-DB
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the grant of upgraded pay scales on an actual basis from 1 January 1996 where granting only notional benefits to one category, while other comparable categories received actual benefits from the same date, was discriminatory.
The judgment supported the proposition that actual monetary benefits could be granted retrospectively where notional fixation alone perpetuated unequal treatment.
R. Varadharajan v. Union of India
The petitioners relied upon a decision of the Madras Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal granting a higher pay grade with consequential benefits to similarly situated employees.
The Delhi High Court noted that the decision was under challenge before the Madras High Court and did not contain sufficient independent reasoning for departing from the Principal Bench’s restriction of relief to notional fixation. It was therefore not treated as determinative.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that pay parity between Technicians, Senior Technicians and Lighting Assistants had already been conclusively settled.
The respondents had not challenged the Tribunal’s finding that the petitioners were entitled to the revised pay scale of ₹5,000–₹8,000 from 1 January 1996.
The Court rejected the respondents’ reliance on the earlier grant of only notional fixation for the period between 1983 and 1995.
It found that arrears had been denied in the earlier proceedings because the concerned employees had categorically waived their claim for arrears. The restriction was therefore based on a case-specific concession and could not be treated as a permanent rule applicable to all future claims.
In the present case:
- The petitioners had specifically claimed arrears.
- There was no waiver or relinquishment of their monetary claim.
- Lighting Assistants had apparently received arrears following enhancement of their pay scale.
- The respondents did not effectively dispute that such arrears had been paid to Lighting Assistants.
- A “due and drawn” statement produced by the petitioners indicated payment of arrears to a Lighting Assistant.
- Pay parity would remain incomplete if the petitioners received only notional fixation while the equivalent cadre received actual monetary benefits.
The Court held that once the object was to restore parity, denying the petitioners consequential arrears would be manifestly unjust.
The petitioners had also approached the Tribunal promptly after the Supreme Court recalled its earlier order concerning denial of pay parity in the Delhi proceedings. There was therefore no justification for granting the higher pay scale only prospectively or notionally.
The Court directed that eligible petitioners be granted the pay scale of ₹5,000–₹8,000 from the same date as Lighting Assistants, namely 1 January 1996, along with consequential benefits and arrears.
The respondents were directed to pay the arrears within three months from the date of the judgment.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petitions and modified the relief granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
It held that Technicians and Senior Technicians of Prasar Bharati were entitled to the higher pay scale of ₹5,000–₹8,000 from 1 January 1996 on an actual basis, along with all consequential benefits and arrears.
The Court clarified that the earlier denial of arrears for the period from 1983 to 1995 was based on an express concession made by the employees in those proceedings and did not establish a general rule restricting subsequent claims to notional fixation.
Since Lighting Assistants had received the benefit of the higher pay scale and corresponding arrears, denying the same monetary benefits to Technicians and Senior Technicians would be discriminatory and manifestly unjust.
The arrears were directed to be paid within three months.
Case: Ashok Kumar Yadav and Others v. Union of India and Others, with Gyanandra Muni Tyagi and Others v. Union of India and Others
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: W.P.(C) 6723/2017 and W.P.(C) 6744/2017
Judge: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan
Date: 1 July 2026
Result: Writ petitions allowed; eligible petitioners granted the higher pay scale of ₹5,000–₹8,000 from 1 January 1996 with consequential benefits and arrears payable within three months.
