The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by the Union of India challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) order that had granted pay parity to a Navy Foreman. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan upheld the CAT's ruling in favour of P.D. Mathaikutty, a Foreman (Welder) at the Naval Ship Repair Yard, Kochi.
The Court held that Mathaikutty was entitled to have his salary "stepped up" - meaning adjusted to equal his junior’s pay - after cadre restructuring led to the anomaly.
Background
The dispute originated from a long-standing pay irregularity within the Navy's artisan cadre. Mathaikutty had joined service as a Welder (Skilled) in 1986 and was promoted to Chargeman-II in 2006 after passing the Departmental Qualifying Test (DQT). Many of his seniors had failed the test and were left behind.
Later, in 2010, the cadre was restructured. Those who had failed earlier were elevated to the post of Master Craftsmen (MCM) with a Grade Pay of ₹4,200, and then promoted again as Chargemen - gaining two successive pay increases. Mathaikutty, having been directly promoted as Chargeman earlier, missed one increment that his juniors gained.
When he realized that his junior, P.Y. Reji, was drawing a higher salary for the same post, he approached his department for correction. But the administration rejected his plea, prompting him to move the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in 2018.
Court's Observations
The Tribunal had found merit in Mathaikutty’s argument and ordered the Navy authorities to equalize his pay with his junior’s, including all consequential benefits.
The Union of India, represented by Senior Panel Counsel Sajith Kumar V., challenged this before the High Court, arguing that the pay difference was justified since the promotions had come through "different channels." According to the government, Mathaikutty had already benefited by getting promoted earlier and could not later claim parity with those promoted through another route.
However, the Bench disagreed. Justice Balakrishnan, writing the judgment, observed that the "anomaly arose solely due to cadre restructuring" and not because of any negligence or special favor.
"The applicant’s junior started drawing more salary due to structural changes, not due to superior merit," the Bench noted. "In such cases, equity demands the stepping up of pay to maintain parity."
The Court also rejected the Union's reliance on a Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) memorandum dated 26 October 2018, which stated that seniors promoted earlier cannot claim parity with juniors. The judges pointed out that the clause didn’t apply here because Mathaikutty was appointed before his junior even entered service.
"The bench observed, Clause 3(e) of the Office Memorandum cannot stand in the way of a senior whose pay fell short only because of administrative restructuring," the order recorded.
Decision
After hearing both sides, the High Court found no merit in the Union’s petition and dismissed it outright, affirming the Tribunal’s decision.
The Court concluded that the Navy must "step up" Mathaikutty’s pay from the date his junior began drawing more salary, ensuring full parity and backdated benefits.
In simple terms, the judgment restores what the Tribunal called "equal pay for equal work among equals", even within a restructured hierarchy.
The ruling reaffirms a crucial principle: that government employees should not be financially disadvantaged merely because of bureaucratic restructuring or technical promotion routes.
With this, the Kerala High Court brought an end to a seven-year-long battle for pay justice within the Southern Naval Command.
"We find no grounds to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Ergo, we find no merit in this petition. The same is dismissed."
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. vs. P.D. Mathaikutty
Case Number: O.P. (CAT) No. 114 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2025