In a significant ruling on pay parity, the Gauhati High Court has directed the Assam Power Distribution Company Limited (APDCL) to re-fix the salary of an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) after finding a long-standing discrepancy in her pay scale.
The order came from Gauhati High Court, where Justice Kardak Ete heard a petition filed by Dalimi Kalita, who alleged that she had been paid less than other similarly placed ANMs for nearly three decades.
Read also:- Bombay HC Disposes Unmarried Woman’s Abortion Plea, Cites Supreme Court Ruling on MTP Rights
Background of the Case
Dalimi Kalita was appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM) on April 29, 1992, under the erstwhile Assam State Electricity Board, now APDCL. She was placed in a pay scale of Rs. 1025-35-1375-EB-40-1655 plus allowances.
Years later, she discovered that other ANMs-some appointed around the same period-were granted a higher pay scale of Rs. 1085-40-1245-1425-EB-50-1925.
Kalita submitted representations in 2020 and 2021, asking the authorities to correct what she described as an error in her initial pay fixation. However, on February 1, 2022, the Chief General Manager (HRA), APDCL rejected her request, stating that the claim had been raised almost 30 years after her appointment and was therefore delayed.
Aggrieved, she approached the High Court.
Petitioner’s Argument
Counsel for the petitioner argued that there was no difference between the posts of “Midwife” and “Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife (ANM).” He pointed to the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, which show that “Midwife/ANM” share the same pay band and grade pay.
Read also:- Calcutta High Court Refuses to Quash Forgery Case Linked to 1963 Land Deed, Orders Police Prob
He told the court that the employer itself had admitted that the petitioner’s current basic pay was lower than that of other ANMs due to the original pay fixation at the time of appointment.
“The petitioner has been denied equal pay despite holding the same post,” the counsel submitted.
He further relied on Supreme Court rulings, including M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India, arguing that incorrect pay fixation is a continuing wrong. In such cases, a fresh cause of action arises every month when salary is paid on the wrong basis.
Another judgment cited was Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of Jharkhand, where the Supreme Court observed that delay cannot defeat a claim involving continuing violation of rights.
Read also:- Bombay High Court Flags Flawed Tree-Felling Notices, Closes Pune Coconut Trees Case
Respondents’ Stand
The standing counsel for APDCL did not dispute that the matter had been rejected primarily on the ground of delay and laches (legal term for unreasonable delay).
He submitted that the petitioner had “slept over her rights” for nearly 30 years. However, he also fairly pointed out that the authorities had not examined the claim on merits and suggested that the matter could be reconsidered.
Court’s Observations
Justice Kardak Ete carefully examined the pay rules and service records.
The court noted that under the Revision of Pay Rules, 2017, “Midwife/ANM” is treated as one and the same post, with identical pay band and grade pay.
“Therefore, it cannot be said that Midwife/ANM are two different posts having different pay scale,” the court observed.
On the issue of delay, the judge referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in M.R. Gupta, which recognized that incorrect pay fixation amounts to a recurring cause of action.
The court remarked that although there had been a delay in raising the grievance, the authorities had failed to examine the matter on merits.
“There appears to be clear discrepancy in fixation of the pay scale, perhaps inadvertently at the time of initial appointment,” the bench noted.
The judge further observed that the petitioner was admittedly drawing lesser pay than other similarly situated ANMs under the same employer.
Read also:- Kerala High Court Orders Probe Into ₹14 Lakh Sabarimala Staff Transfers During Mandala
Decision
The High Court held that there existed a clear discrepancy in the petitioner’s pay fixation.
It directed APDCL to reconsider and re-fix her pay and allowances in line with other similarly placed ANMs.
However, the court limited the claim for arrears to three years from the date of her first formal demand, that is, February 21, 2020. In doing so, it relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, which restricts arrears in service matters involving delayed claims.
The court ordered that the necessary action be completed within 60 days.
With these directions, the writ petition was allowed and disposed of.
Case Title: Dalimi Kalita vs The Assam Power Distribution Company Limited & Ors.
Case No.: WP(C)/3988/2022
Decision Date: 06.02.2026
