Substantive Appointment to Lower Post Does Not Entitle Higher Pay Scale: Delhi High Court Rejects Equal Pay Claim for Research Assistant

1. Case Snapshot

Case Name: National Institute Of Public Co-Operation & Child Development And Anr vs Tejinder Kaur

Citation: W.P.(C) No. — (Delhi High Court)

High Court: High Court of Delhi

Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Date of Judgment: 1st July, 2026

Area of Law: Service Law, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Promotion, Pay Scales, Administrative Law

2. Judgment in Brief

The Delhi High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the National Institute of Public Cooperation & Child Development (NIPCCD), setting aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing payment of Deputy Director (DD) pay scale to a Research Assistant (RA) from 1990 onwards. The respondent, appointed as RA in 1989, claimed that she was discharging supervisory duties equivalent to DD and sought pay parity under the "equal pay for equal work" principle. The Tribunal had allowed her claim without any evidence that she was ever appointed as DD or formally asked to discharge DD duties. The High Court held that a person substantively appointed to a post is only entitled to the pay of that post; there is no principle in service jurisprudence entitling a person to the pay scale of a higher post merely because they allegedly discharged higher duties. The Court also held that the "equal pay for equal work" principle does not apply in such cases and quashed the Tribunal's order. The respondent was directed to repay the ₹20 lakhs received pursuant to a Supreme Court order in instalments.

3. Relevant Facts

The Respondent's Employment

• The respondent was appointed as Research Assistant (RA) in NIPCCD on 17.04.1989.

• She was reappointed as temporary RA on 26.09.1990.

• She was promoted as Assistant Director (AD) on 04.03.2011.

• She was never appointed as Deputy Director (DD).

The Respondent's Claim

• The respondent claimed that she was discharging supervisory duties equivalent to DD during her tenure as RA.

• She filed CWP 4563/1993 seeking consideration for appointment/promotion as DD and salary payable to a DD during her tenure as RA.

• On 26.08.1994, this Court directed that her application for direct recruitment to DD be considered.

• The respondent alleged she was not considered despite the Court's direction and filed contempt proceedings.

Subsequent Proceedings

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.