NWDA CWC pay parity was the central issue before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA No. 1747/2015, O P Singh Kushwah & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, has allowed OA No. 1747/2015, O P Singh Kushwah & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., concerning the claim of pay parity between Superintending Engineers working in the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) and their counterparts in the Central Water Commission (CWC).
The judgment was pronounced on 18 September 2026 by a Bench comprising Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), and Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J). The dispute concerned the scale of pay applicable to the applicants, who were serving as Superintending Engineers in NWDA, and the historical parity between the corresponding posts in NWDA and CWC.
Case Background
The six applicants in the matter were Superintending Engineers in the National Water Development Agency. The respondents were the Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources, and the Director General, National Water Development Agency.
The applicants were represented by Mr. Kamlesh Kumar Mishra and their Team, as recorded in the judgment.
The dispute had its background in the pay structure existing before the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations. According to the material considered by the Tribunal, the applicants’ case was that the corresponding Superintending Engineer posts in NWDA and CWC had historically enjoyed parity, but the parity was subsequently disturbed when different revised pay scales were adopted.
The applicants sought the pre-revised scale of ₹14,300–18,300, along with the corresponding revised scales under the Sixth and Seventh Central Pay Commissions and consequential benefits.
Earlier Proceedings
The dispute had also been the subject of earlier litigation. An earlier Original Application had been dismissed, with liberty granted to the applicants to seek revival in accordance with law. The judgment records subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Court and the revival of the matter before the Tribunal. The present proceedings therefore considered the applicants’ claim in the context of the earlier litigation and the material placed before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also considered the earlier order concerning the historical pay parity between the concerned posts. The earlier proceedings recorded that the CWC Superintending Engineers were placed in the ₹14,300–18,300 scale while the corresponding NWDA Superintending Engineers had been placed in the ₹12,000–16,500 scale. The Tribunal examined the circumstances in which this difference had arisen.
Issue Before the Tribunal
The principal question before the Tribunal was whether the applicants, as Superintending Engineers of NWDA, were entitled to the same pay scale as the corresponding Superintending Engineers of CWC, particularly in view of the historical parity between the two posts.
The Tribunal considered the issue as one of pay parity, while distinguishing it from a claim based purely on the broader doctrine of “equal pay for equal work.”
This distinction was relevant because the applicants’ case was based substantially on the historical parity between the corresponding posts and the subsequent change in their respective pay structures. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148, while discussing the principles relating to pay parity.
Historical Pay Parity
The dispute concerning NWDA CWC pay parity arose from the historical similarity in the pay scales applicable to the corresponding Superintending Engineer posts.
The Tribunal examined the history of the two organisations and the pay scales applicable to the corresponding posts.
According to the judgment, the relevant posts had identical pay scales before 1 January 1996. The Tribunal found that the subsequent difference arose following the adoption of revised pay scales, resulting in the CWC Superintending Engineers receiving the ₹14,300–18,300 scale while the corresponding NWDA officers were placed in a lower scale.
The Tribunal therefore examined whether the later difference in pay could be sustained despite the historical parity between the posts.
The Tribunal also considered the institutional character of NWDA. It noted that NWDA is an autonomous society and is fully funded by the Government of India. The Tribunal examined this circumstance along with the other material before it rather than treating the autonomous status of NWDA, by itself, as determinative of the pay-parity issue.
NWDA Governing Body Recommendation
An important part of the record considered by the Tribunal was the recommendation made by the Governing Body of NWDA.
The judgment records that, in its 56th meeting held on 8 April 2011, the Governing Body recommended the revised scale corresponding to ₹14,300–18,300 for the concerned Superintending Engineers. The recommendation was subsequently forwarded on 17 September 2014.
The claim was thereafter rejected through communications dated 29 October 2014 and 1 December 2014, which became the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal also considered the respondents’ submissions concerning differences in recruitment and other service-related aspects. It did not treat such differences as sufficient to defeat the applicants’ claim in the context of the particular historical pay-parity issue before it.
Tribunal’s Reasoning on Pay Parity
The Tribunal examined the earlier judicial proceedings and the effect of the orders passed in the matter.
It considered the principles relating to finality of judicial decisions and also discussed the Supreme Court’s decisions concerning the effect of earlier judgments and the doctrine relating to merger and finality, including the principles discussed in P.V. Hariharan and Kunhayammed.
After examining the history of the matter, the earlier orders, the recommendations of the NWDA Governing Body and the respective pay scales, the Tribunal concluded that the denial of the claimed parity was not sustainable.
The Tribunal held that the applicants were entitled to the benefit of the pay scale corresponding to the scale applicable to the CWC Superintending Engineers, subject to the conditions recorded in its final directions.
Final Directions of the CAT
The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed the Original Application.
The Tribunal quashed and set aside the communications dated 29 October 2014 and 1 December 2014, insofar as they denied the applicants the claimed pay scale.
The respondents were directed to grant the applicants the pre-revised scale of:
₹14,300–18,300
along with the corresponding revised scales under the Sixth and Seventh Central Pay Commissions, at par with the Superintending Engineers of CWC, subject to the qualifying service conditions referred to in the NWDA Governing Body recommendation.
The Tribunal further directed that the benefit would be available notionally from the date on which the applicants became entitled to it.
In respect of monetary arrears, the Tribunal restricted the benefit to three years and two months preceding the institution of the Original Application, applying the principle stated in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648.
The respondents were also directed to carry out the consequential pay re-fixation and disburse the admissible arrears within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
The Tribunal further directed that, in case of default in complying with the directions within the stipulated period, the admissible amount would carry simple interest at 6% per annum. The matter was disposed of with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
What the Judgment Addresses
The judgment is relevant to service-law issues involving historical pay parity between corresponding posts in government-funded organisations and government departments.
The decision examines several aspects together, including:
- historical parity between corresponding posts;
- subsequent changes in pay scales;
- the distinction between pay parity and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work;
- the relevance of organisational structure and funding;
- recommendations of the competent governing body;
- the effect of earlier judicial proceedings;
- the manner in which monetary arrears may be restricted in service matters; and
- consequential re-fixation of pay following a finding regarding entitlement to a revised scale.
The judgment therefore provides a detailed illustration of how a Tribunal may examine a pay-parity claim by looking at the historical position, subsequent changes, administrative decisions and the judicial record relating to the dispute.
Practical Significance for Service Matters
For employees involved in service-related disputes, the judgment demonstrates the importance of establishing the historical basis of a claimed pay parity rather than relying only on a general assertion that two posts perform similar functions.
The record considered by the Tribunal included the earlier pay scales, the subsequent revision of those scales, the institutional relationship between NWDA and CWC, the Governing Body’s recommendation and the administrative communications rejecting the claimed benefit.
The decision also illustrates the distinction between a claim founded on historical parity and a claim based solely on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Tribunal considered the applicants’ claim within the particular factual and procedural history of the case.
The judgment further demonstrates that where a service-related monetary claim is accepted, the question of arrears may be separately considered. In this case, the Tribunal granted notional benefit from the entitlement date but restricted monetary arrears in accordance with the principle referred to in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the case before the Central Administrative Tribunal?
The matter was OA No. 1747/2015, concerning a claim by Superintending Engineers of NWDA for pay parity with corresponding Superintending Engineers of CWC.
2. What pay scale was claimed by the applicants?
The applicants sought the pre-revised ₹14,300–18,300 scale and the corresponding revised scales under the Sixth and Seventh Central Pay Commissions.
3. What did the CAT decide?
The CAT allowed the Original Application and directed the respondents to grant the applicants the claimed pre-revised scale and corresponding revised scales, subject to the conditions specified in the judgment.
4. From when was the benefit directed to be given?
The Tribunal directed that the benefit would operate notionally from the date on which the applicants became entitled to it.
5. Were full arrears awarded for the entire period?
No. The Tribunal restricted monetary arrears to three years and two months preceding the institution of the Original Application, applying the principle referred to in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.
6. What further relief was granted?
The respondents were directed to undertake consequential pay re-fixation and disburse admissible arrears within three months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. A 6% simple interest direction was also provided in case of default.
7. Which Tribunal decided the case?
The case was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.
8. When was the judgment pronounced?
The judgment was pronounced on 18 September 2026.
Case Details
Case: O P Singh Kushwah & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.
Case Number: OA No. 1747/2015
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi
Date of Judgment: 18 September 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A), and Hon’ble Mr. Rajveer Singh Verma, Member (J)
Subject: Pay parity between NWDA and CWC Superintending Engineers
Result: Original Application allowed
Key Relief: Grant of ₹14,300–18,300 pre-revised scale and corresponding Sixth and Seventh CPC revised scales, with notional benefit, restricted monetary arrears and consequential pay re-fixation.
Read Full Judgment (PDF)
Disclaimer
This content is published solely for legal information, legal education, and reporting of judicial or legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice, create a lawyer-client relationship, or amount to solicitation or advertisement under the applicable Bar Council of India Rules.