The appellant, who held the position of Artificer III, contended that Artificers—highly skilled technical personnel—were unjustly assigned a lower grade pay compared to their counterparts in non-technical branches. Under the revised pay structure introduced by the 6th Pay Commission, all personnel classified in the S-9 category were to receive a pay band and grade pay of Rs. 4200. However, Artificers in grades I, II, and III were allocated a grade pay of only Rs. 3400, despite being placed in the same pay band.

Following the dismissal of their grievances by the Naval Headquarters, the appellant appealed to the Armed Forces Tribunal, which upheld the lower pay grade in its judgment dated 27th October 2010.

The appellant’s counsel argued that the Gazette Notification dated 30th August 2008 mandated equal pay for equivalent ranks across both technical and non-technical branches. They pointed out that Chief Petty Officers in non-technical roles received a grade pay of Rs. 4200, while Artificers, who were considered equivalent to Chief Petty Officers, were denied the same. The counsel highlighted various Navy instructions that supported the view that Artificers of class III and above were entitled to rank equivalency with Chief Petty Officers.

Additionally, the appellant cited a Supreme Court ruling which underscored the importance of equitable pay structures, asserting that the existing disparity constituted discrimination.

In contrast, the respondents, represented by the Additional Solicitor General, maintained that Artificers of grade III are not equivalent to Chief Petty Officers until they are promoted to the rank of Chief Artificer. They argued that the hierarchical structure within the Navy justifies the differences in grade pay, emphasizing that Artificers work under the command of Chief Artificers.

Furthermore, the respondents pointed out that while Artificers hold a relative rank of Chief Petty Officer, the Chief Artificer is a promotional position that distinguishes it from the roles of the lower-ranking Artificers.

The Tribunal evaluated the appellant's claims against existing Navy regulations and instructions. Regulation 247 clearly delineated the command hierarchy within the Navy, establishing that Chief Artificers rank above Artificers of grades I to III. Consequently, even if Artificers were considered equivalent to Chief Petty Officers for seniority purposes, they did not possess the same authority or promotional pathways.

The Tribunal also referenced the Navy’s order regarding seniority, which confirmed that only Chief Artificers could be promoted to the rank of Master Chief Artificer, further justifying the different grade pays assigned to various ranks.

The Armed Forces Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal signifies a reaffirmation of the existing military pay structure and the rationale behind it. The judgment emphasizes that while equal pay for equivalent roles is a critical issue, the unique hierarchical and promotional frameworks within military organizations warrant distinct classifications and pay structures.

Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision underscores the necessity for clear regulations governing pay grades, particularly in a structured environment like the armed forces, where rank and command significantly influence compensation. As such, the appeal highlights ongoing discussions about fairness and equity within military pay systems, especially as they adapt to recommendations from central pay commissions.