SUMAN RAINA 19 March 2026

Challenge to j&k pay matrix (level 6 fragmentation) – unequal financial progression vs 7th cpc

Under the standard 7th CPC framework, Level 6 employees receive uniform annual increments of approximately 3%, leading to consistent and predictable salary progression. However, in J&K, the Pay Matrix introduces fragmented sub-levels such as 6B, 6C, 6D, etc., resulting in very small initial increments (₹100–₹200) before reaching the next major jump. This creates a situation where employees in J&K experience slower financial progression despite having the same starting pay and level classification.
For example, based on actual matrix values:
Central Government Level 6 employee:
Basic Pay after 10 years ≈ ₹47,600
J&K Level 6 employee:
Basic Pay after 10 years ≈ ₹43,600
This results in an approximate difference of ₹4,000 per month and a cumulative financial disadvantage of around ₹3–4 lakh over 10 years (basic pay only, excluding allowances).
Further, it is observed that:
No other State or Union Territory has adopted such fragmented sub-levels within a pay level.
Even financially weaker States follow the standard 7th CPC Pay Matrix without such deviations.
Higher pay levels (Level 13 to Level 17) in J&K appear to remain aligned with the Central structure, while Level 6 is selectively modified.
This creates a disproportionate impact on lower and mid-level employees in terms of salary growth.
In this background, I seek guidance on the following legal aspects:
Whether this structure can be challenged as a violation of Article 14 (Right to Equality) due to unequal financial progression among similarly placed employees.
Whether selective modification of only certain levels amounts to arbitrary classification without reasonable nexus.
Whether courts are likely to treat this as a policy matter immune from judicial review, or whether the demonstrated financial loss makes it justiciable.
What are the practical chances of success in filing a writ petition before the High Court.
Whether it is advisable to file the petition individually or through a group/association for stronger impact.

Reply Follow

6 Replies

P. Venu (Advocate) 19 March 2026

This is a policy matter. Employees can make a joint representation to the Government through proper channel. However, it is unlikely that there could be an issue for judicial review.

All the more, State Government employees cannot claim demand or parity with the Central Government employees unless the State Government has laid down such a policy.

1 Like

T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate (Advocate) 19 March 2026

This is a constitutionanl issue debatable under the heading of balancing between policy discretion and arbitrariness.

No doubt yoiu can seek remedy under article 14 of the constitution before supreme court.

But court may state that the pay structure differences across States/UTs are permissible unless clearly arbitrary.

However you can put before court that the selective modification (only Level 6) is an arbitrary classification.

You can argue that why only Level 6, why not Level 5, 7, or higher levels and why higher levels (13–17) remain aligned. his raises a classic arbitrariness issue under Article 14.

The Supreme Court held in the following cases

E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India

that the “Arbitrariness itself is equality violation.” If the State cannot justify why only Level 6 is fragmented, your case becomes stronger.

However before filing you may send representation to Government, get official justification or even silence so that you have a strong ground to approach the supreme court with a petition v entiong out your grievances and seek remedy and releif.

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 20 March 2026

Very well explained and obliged by learned senior experts, which I agree and appreciate their acumen.

Being a State policy issue governing the subject it would be better to seek professional advise of a local senior lawyer practicing service matters in J & K High Court or Supreme Court.

However, generally Courts desist to interfer policy matters.

SUMAN RAINA 20 March 2026

Thank you for your response. I respectfully agree that parity with Central Government employees cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and that pay fixation is generally a policy domain.

However, the Supreme Court has consistently held that policy decisions are not immune from judicial review if they result in arbitrary or discriminatory outcomes under Article 14.

In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982), the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognised that unequal pay arising from irrational classification can be tested under Articles 14 and 16.

Further, in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, the Court examined whether different pay scales within the same cadre performing identical duties would violate equality, indicating that such internal disparity is constitutionally scrutinizable.

More importantly, in P. Savita v. Union of India, the Supreme Court struck down discriminatory pay structures where the classification had no intelligible basis linked to duties or responsibilities, holding it violative of Article 14.

Therefore, the present issue may not be one of parity with Central Government employees, but whether employees within the same level, with identical starting pay, can be subjected to structurally slower financial progression without a rational basis.

If such internal differentiation leads to a measurable and continuing financial disadvantage, the question arises whether it can withstand the test of reasonable classification and non-arbitrariness under Article 14, despite being framed as a policy.

I would respectfully submit that this brings the matter within the permissible scope of judicial review, not on parity, but on constitutional validity of the classification itself

Dr. J C Vashista (Advocate ) 21 March 2026

@ Suman Raina,

Since you are very learned person and have deeper knowledge on the subject, what else you are searching by posting this query, except to take an examination ?