State Cannot Prescribe Different Pay Scales For Members Of Unified Cadre Based On Pre-Merger Status: Allahabad High Court

Allahabad High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 22, 2026, held that the State cannot classify and grant differential pay scales to employees within a newly unified cadre solely on the basis of their pre-merger designations. A division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi observed that once two posts are merged into a single homogeneous cadre due to identical duties, any subsequent pay disparity runs contrary to the constitutional mandate of equality.

The dispute arose in the State Animal Husbandry Department, where two distinct posts—Live Stock Extension Officer and Live Stock Extension Inspector—were merged into a single cadre with retrospective effect from January 1, 1986. Despite this merger, the State Government issued an order in April 1992 restricting a higher revised pay scale solely to those who had served as Extension Officers prior to 1986, denying it to the rest of the unified cadre. Aggrieved by this, the employees approached the High Court, and a Single Judge quashed the 1992 order, prompting the State to file the present Special Appeal.

The primary legal question before the court was whether the State Government was justified in prescribing two different pay scales for members of the same unified cadre based strictly on their pre-merger status. The court was also called upon to determine whether such a classification within a single cadre violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

No Rational Basis For Classification After Merger

The bench noted that prior to 1986, the two posts carried different pay scales despite involving substantially similar qualifications, duties, and responsibilities. Upon examining the government orders effectuating the merger, the court found that the historical distinction between the two groups had been consciously erased to form one unified cadre under a single designation.

Differential Pay Defeats The Purpose Of Merger

Rejecting the State's argument that the classification was necessary to protect the seniority and higher pay of pre-1986 Extension Officers, the court emphasized that classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The bench noted that the very object of the merger exercise was to remove the pre-existing disparity between the employees.

"The subsequent creation of two different pay scales within the same cadre, therefore, runs contrary to the very purpose for which the merger was brought into effect," the bench observed.

Reliance On Supreme Court Precedent

The High Court placed strong reliance on the Supreme Court's judgment in S. Sivaguru Vs State of Tamilnadu (2013) 7 SCC 335, which dealt extensively with the legal consequences of cadre integration. Drawing from this precedent, the bench underscored that upon the merger of cadres, earlier separate identities cease to exist. The employees seamlessly become members of the newly constituted unified cadre.

"Once such integration takes place, differentiation amongst members of the same cadre merely on the basis of their erstwhile cadre identity cannot ordinarily be sustained."

Seniority Cannot Justify Pay Disparity In Unified Cadre

The court additionally repelled the appellant's contention that the classification was a legitimate protective measure for senior employees who had entered the service much earlier. While acknowledging that years of service might be relevant for promotional avenues, the bench clarified that such historical seniority cannot justify disparate pay scales for employees holding the exact same post.

"A distinction based merely upon the date on which an employee joined the service before merger of the cadre cannot justify differential pay after the cadre itself has been unified," the court firmly noted.

Violation Of Equality Mandate

The bench concluded that an employee's entitlement to a specific pay scale must be determined with reference to their present status in the unified cadre, not their historical designations. The court affirmed the Single Judge's finding that the 1992 Government Order introduced an impermissible and artificial classification within a homogeneous class, inherently violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Finding no legal infirmity in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the Special Appeal filed by the State. The court directed the State authorities to extend the benefit of the higher revised pay scale of Rs. 1350–2200 to the respondents with effect from January 1, 1986, along with all consequential benefits, within a period of three months.

Date of Decision: 22 July 2026