Delhi High Court Issues Notice in Pay Protection Plea Filed by Ex-Air Force Personnel Against GAIL
In an important development concerning pay protection claims of Ex-Air Force Personnel joining Public Sector Undertakings, the Delhi High Court has issued notice to GAIL (India) Limited in a writ petition filed by former Indian Air Force Personnel Devender Singh. The matter, registered as W.P.(C) 1926/2026, came up for hearing on 11 February 2026 before Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
The petitioner was represented by Advocate Sharvan Singh Tanwar. The case pertains to denial of pay protection to the petitioner after his appointment in GAIL’s S-3 Grade position. After hearing preliminary submissions, the Court issued notice and directed the respondents to file their Counter Affidavit within four weeks. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 7 April 2026.
Background of the Dispute
Devender Singh was serving in the Indian Air Force before applying for the post of Assistant (Store and Purchase) in S-3 Grade pursuant to GAIL’s advertisement dated 16 August 2022. The advertisement prescribed a pay scale of ₹24,500–90,000 for the said post.
Following the recruitment process, the petitioner was selected and issued an appointment letter dated 23 March 2023 specifying the same pay scale. However, the dispute arose over the issue of pay protection, a benefit typically extended in certain cases to safeguard the last drawn salary of an employee moving from one government or public employment to another.
According to the petitioner, his acceptance of the offer of appointment was conditional and based on communications from GAIL officials indicating that the issue of pay protection would be considered. The petitioner has relied upon an email received from the Senior Manager (HRD), GAIL Corporate Office, to contend that pay protection was under examination at the relevant time.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Advocate Sharvan Singh Tanwar, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that GAIL’s Recruitment Policy and Procedure, particularly Clause 11.1, recognizes the concept of pay protection and provides for consideration of such claims. It was argued that the policy framework does not completely prohibit pay protection but allows the competent authority to evaluate cases appropriately.
The petitioner further contended that similarly situated employees appointed in the same S-3 Grade were granted pay protection benefits. Denial of the same benefit to him, despite comparable circumstances, was alleged to be discriminatory and violative of the constitutional principles of equality.
The writ petition reportedly cites specific instances where pay protection was granted to other employees in similar roles. The petitioner has asserted that differential treatment without rational basis cannot be sustained in law and warrants judicial scrutiny.
Respondents’ Stand
Senior Advocate Mr. Vinay Garg, appearing for GAIL, raised preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition and invoked the doctrine of delay and laches. The respondents argued that the petitioner had unconditionally accepted the offer of appointment and was bound by its terms.
It was submitted that the petitioner sent an email dated 27 March 2023 regarding pay protection, which was responded to on 25 April 2023. While granting extension for joining, GAIL expressly stipulated that all terms and conditions of the offer of appointment would remain unchanged.
The respondents placed reliance on Clause 5.2 of the advertisement, which specifically states that “no candidate joining the post shall be granted any kind of pay protection.” According to GAIL, this clause clearly bars any claim for pay protection by newly appointed candidates under the advertisement.
Senior counsel further argued that the policy provision relied upon by the petitioner has been misconstrued and merely permits case-by-case consideration without conferring any enforceable right. In the present case, both the advertisement and the appointment letter did not provide for pay protection, and therefore the petitioner cannot claim the benefit contrary to express terms.
Wider Implications Highlighted
GAIL also submitted that there were 28 vacancies for the concerned post and that several appointees may have joined from other government services. Granting pay protection to the petitioner at this stage, it was argued, could open a “Pandora’s box” and lead to multiple similar claims from other employees.
On the allegation of discrimination based on specific instances cited in the petition, the respondents’ counsel stated that instructions would need to be obtained from the concerned department.
Court’s Directions
After considering the submissions at the preliminary stage, the Delhi High Court issued notice in the matter. Counsel for the respondents accepted notice in Court.
The Court directed the respondents to file their Counter Affidavit within four weeks from the date of the order. The petitioner has been granted liberty to file a rejoinder before the next date of hearing. The matter has been listed on 7 April 2026 along with a connected writ petition for further proceedings.
Legal Significance
The case raises important Service Matter Law questions concerning the interplay between recruitment advertisements and internal recruitment policies of Public Sector Undertakings. It also highlights the legal position regarding pay protection order service personnel transitioning into civilian public sector employment.
A central issue likely to be examined is whether an explicit clause in a recruitment advertisement barring pay protection order can override policy provisions that allow discretionary consideration. The Court may also examine whether denial of Pay Protection Order, when allegedly granted to similarly situated employees, amounts to arbitrary or discriminatory treatment under constitutional principles.
At present, the matter remains at the stage of pleadings, and the High Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The final outcome will depend upon the pleadings filed by advocate, policy interpretation, and the factual matrix that emerges in subsequent hearings.
The case is expected to be closely watched by government employees seeking clarity on pay protection rights upon joining Public Sector Undertakings.