Equal pay and review jurisdiction: parity requires substantive job comparison, and review cannot reopen a final decision on merits.

Stenographers in subordinate offices were held not entitled to automatic parity with Stenographers Grade C in the Central Secretariat under the principle of equal pay for equal work, because parity depends on a real comparison of duties, responsibilities, confidentiality, skill, reliability and recruitment conditions, and the available material showed functional and hierarchical differences. The Tribunal's review order was also held unsustainable because review has a narrow scope and cannot be used to rehear the matter on merits or act as an appellate forum over a final order. The impugned review judgment was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Stenographers in subordinate offices were entitled to parity of pay scale with Stenographers Grade C in the Central Secretariat on the principle of equal pay for equal work; (ii) whether the Tribunal, in review, could reopen its earlier final decision and grant relief by virtually sitting in appeal over the original order.

Issue (i): Whether Stenographers in subordinate offices were entitled to parity of pay scale with Stenographers Grade C in the Central Secretariat on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Analysis: The principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied in the abstract. Entitlement depends on a real comparison of the nature of duties, responsibilities, confidentiality, skill, reliability, recruitment conditions, and other relevant factors. The material placed before the authorities showed that the Pay Commission had specifically considered the issue and declined absolute parity, noting functional and hierarchical differences between stenographers in the Secretariat and those in subordinate offices. A mere assertion of similarity in designation or broad similarity of work was insufficient to establish parity.

Conclusion: The claim to parity of pay scale on the basis of equal pay for equal work was not established and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the Tribunal, in review, could reopen its earlier final decision and grant relief by virtually sitting in appeal over the original order.

Analysis: The scope of review is narrow and does not permit rehearing the matter on merits or substitution of a fresh view for the earlier reasoned decision. The Tribunal's order in review departed from and contradicted its original dismissal order without any permissible review jurisdiction being shown. Such an exercise amounted to acting as an appellate forum over its own final order, which was impermissible.

Conclusion: The review order was beyond jurisdiction and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment and the Tribunal's review order were set aside, and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for equal pay must be proved by a substantive comparison of relevant service conditions, and a review court cannot reopen a final decision on merits as though exercising appellate jurisdiction.

---