The Delhi High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries of the Income Tax Department seeking pay parity with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Stenographers’ Service (CSSS), affirming that the distinction between Secretariat and non-Secretariat establishments is a valid classification based on expert recommendations.
In a judgment pronounced on March 20, 2026, a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Mahajan upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had declined to interfere with the Department of Expenditure’s decision to maintain different pay scales for field offices and the Secretariat.
Background of the Case
The Petitioners, representing Private Secretaries and Senior Private Secretaries serving in the Income Tax Department under the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), challenged the CAT’s order dated August 28, 2025. They sought the restoration of historical pay parity with the CSSS, which they claimed existed until the Third Central Pay Commission.
The controversy intensified after the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) revisions and the grant of higher pay scales to the CSSS effective from September 15, 2006. The Petitioners’ representations were rejected by the Department of Expenditure on January 7, 2022, on the grounds that Secretariat pay scales do not apply to offices functioning outside the Secretariat.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Contentions:
- Historical Parity: The cadre had historically been treated at par with the CSSS until successive Pay Commission revisions created a divergence.
- Common Recruitment: Recruitment for both cadres is conducted through a common competitive examination by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) with identical entry-level qualifications and skill requirements.
- Functional Similarity: The duties performed are substantially similar, and the divergence in pay amounts to an “impermissible post-recruitment classification” founded solely on the fortuity of placement.
- Cutting Edge of Administration: Relying on the Sixth CPC’s observations, they argued that field offices are at the “cutting edge of administration” and merit treatment equal to the Secretariat.
Respondents’ Position:
- Secretariat vs. Non-Secretariat: A conscious distinction has been maintained between Secretariat and field establishments in matters of pay structure.
- Expert Recommendations: This distinction was expressly affirmed by the Sixth CPC, which recommended that absolute parity would remain only up to the grade of Assistant.
- Judicial Restraint: Decisions regarding pay fixation fall within the domain of expert bodies and the executive; a writ court should not substitute its own assessment.
Court’s Analysis
The Court emphasized that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work,” while firmly embedded in service jurisprudence, has never been treated as a rule of “mechanical application.” It noted that the equation of posts depends on a constellation of factors, including hierarchy, career progression, and the administrative setting.
On the Secretariat/Field Office Distinction: The Court observed that the Sixth CPC consciously limited parity, stating that beyond the level of Assistant, “complete parity might neither be possible nor justified.” The judgment noted:
“Expert recommendations must be viewed as an integrated whole; they cannot be dissected so as to retain only those segments that support the claim of the Petitioners.”
On Common Recruitment and Historical Parity: The Court clarified that a common recruiting agency (SSC) does not mandate pay parity. It further held that “past parity does not operate as an immutable command” and cannot be used to “fossilize a pay structure or to preclude a conscious re-evaluation by an expert body.”
Legal Precedents: The Bench relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India & Ors. v. Manoj Kumar & Ors [2021], which held that when a Pay Commission consciously frames separate recommendations for Secretariat and non-Secretariat organizations, a judicial direction for absolute parity would render those recommendations “otiose.”
The Court distinguished the cases cited by the Petitioners, such as Union of India v. D.G.O.F. Employees Association and Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar Gond, noting that the present controversy turns on a distinction expressly noticed and preserved in the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission itself.
Final Decision
The High Court concluded that the Petitioners failed to justify a direction for pay parity in the face of a “distinction acknowledged and consciously preserved by the expert body.”
“The Petitioners’ case… may furnish a legitimate basis for administrative representation. It falls short, however, of justifying a direction for pay parity in the face of a distinction acknowledged and consciously preserved by the expert body as part of the governing service structure.”
Consequently, the Writ Petition and the pending application were dismissed.
Case Details Block
Case Title: ITGOA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 1144/2026
Bench: Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan
Date of Judgment: March 20, 2026
