Government cannot deny Pay Commission benefits by reading conditions that were never written into the rules: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling on pay parity and service benefits, the Supreme Court has refused to interfere with a Delhi High Court judgment granting Non-Functional Upgradation (NFU) to Junior Engineers in the Border Roads Organisation. The case centred on whether authorities could deny NFU by introducing additional conditions not found in the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations, an issue with wide implications for government employees awaiting career progression benefits.

The controversy began when Junior Engineers, who had reached Level 8 after years of service, claimed entitlement to NFU at Level 9 (Grade Pay Rs.5400) after completing four years, as envisaged under the Seventh Central Pay Commission. Their claim was rejected by the authorities through a 2021 communication, arguing that the benefit applied only to those who entered service at a higher grade pay. Counsel for the petitioners argued that this interpretation was arbitrary and discriminatory, especially when similar benefits were extended to other cadres. The Union of India, however, maintained that Pay Commission recommendations were merely advisory and that eligibility depended on entry-level pay structures.

The Court firmly rejected this restrictive interpretation, holding that the authorities had effectively added conditions not contemplated under the Pay Commission framework. Emphasising a plain reading of the provision, the Bench observed that insisting on an entry-level grade pay requirement would defeat the intent of the recommendation, noting that such a stance “may amount to adding additional conditions for extending the benefit of NFU.” The Court found no valid justification for denying the benefit once the condition of four years in Level 8 was met, and upheld the High Court’s direction.

Consequently, the Civil Appeal was dismissed.