Assam Rifles Not Entitled to Parity with Indian Army Merely Due to Similar Duties: Delhi High Court Dismisses Equal Pay Petition

“Operational Similarities Do Not Obliterate Structural Differences — Dual Control and Distinct Retirement Conditions Justify Separate Pay Structures”, In a significant ruling Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Dinesh Mehta and Justice Vimal Kumar Yadav dismissed a writ petition filed by the Assam Rifles Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association (All India), which sought parity in pay, pension, and emoluments with Indian Army personnel.

The Court categorically held that “equal pay for equal work” is not a blanket principle, and structural, administrative, and functional differences between the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army provide a constitutionally valid basis for differential treatment. The Bench rejected the contention that similar duties alone can justify pay parity.

“Even if other things are ignored, the fact that the personnel of Indian Army serve up to 54 years of age or a maximum for 16 years, whereas the members of Assam Rifles serve up to the age of 60 years is a valid reason for giving lesser pensionary benefits or other emoluments to the personnel of Assam Rifles.” [Para 26]

Court Declines Mandamus for Equal Emoluments — Says “Pay Fixation Lies with Executive”

The Court was approached under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Union of India to treat Assam Rifles personnel at par with Indian Army soldiers in terms of salary and pension. However, the Bench made it clear that policy matters, including pay structures and emoluments, lie strictly within the domain of the executive:

“Paying the emoluments and salary etc. lies within the exclusive domain of the employer and the Central Government. The High Court under Article 226… cannot issue any direction in this regard.” [Para 27]

The Court allowed the petitioners to submit a fresh comprehensive representation to the appropriate authorities, which must be considered within three months, but declined to issue any directive on parity.

“Parliamentary Committee Reports Not Binding — Cannot Be Enforced by Court”

One of the key arguments advanced by the petitioner was the recommendation of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs (Report No. 214), which advocated for the removal of the dual control over the Assam Rifles and suggested pay parity with the Indian Army’s Group ‘Y’ PBOR.

While acknowledging the report, the Court held: “Such recommendation though has not been finally approved by the Central Government cannot be considered as a recommendation for giving emoluments and monetary benefits equal to the members of the Indian Army.” [Para 24]

The Bench emphasised that such recommendations, unless adopted as policy, cannot be enforced through judicial intervention.

“SFF, ITBP Operate Under Direct PMO Supervision – Not Comparable”

The petitioner also sought parity by comparing Assam Rifles personnel with those of Special Frontier Force (SFF) and Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), both of which enjoy pay parity with Indian Army PBORs. The Court rejected this analogy:

“The SFF and the ITBP enjoy a different status in light of the duties they discharge… since the members of the SFF and the ITBP work directly under the control and supervision of the Hon’ble Prime Minister, the Petitioner cannot compare the service conditions of its members with that of the SFF, ITBP, etc.” [Para 16]

Further, the Court noted that the petitioner Association had sought parity specifically with Indian Army personnel, not SFF or ITBP, and that SFF's unique origin, purpose, and control structure made the comparison inapt.

“Role, Command and Retirement Structure Distinct – Justifies Differential Treatment”

While the petitioner emphasised the similarity in operational duties, including counter-insurgency and border security, the Court examined the comparative structure, control, and retirement patterns, drawing attention to critical differences.

A key excerpt from the affidavit filed by the Government illustrated that Assam Rifles personnel retire at 60, unlike Army counterparts who retire at younger ages based on rank and service:

“Army Sepoy serves for 16 years (up to the age of 54 years), whereas personnel recruited in Assam Rifles can serve up to the age of 60 years.” [Para 14]

This, the Court said, substantially affects pension structures, service benefits, and long-term emoluments, and is a constitutionally valid basis for treating the two forces differently.

ECHS Judgment of Kerala High Court Not Applicable to Emoluments

The petitioner heavily relied on a Kerala High Court judgment dated 30.01.2015, which had allowed ECHS benefits to Assam Rifles personnel akin to SFF and Indian Coast Guard. However, the Bench drew a clear distinction:

“Providing a facility under ECHS is altogether a different matter than providing equal pay… with the same logic, it cannot be said that they are entitled to get emoluments equal to the members of SFF and ITBP and in turn, equal to Indian Army.” [Para 23]

Petitioners Claim 3rd Pay Commission Gave Parity – Court Finds No Legal Basis Post-4th CPC

The petitioner had also argued that until the 3rd Central Pay Commission, Assam Rifles personnel received parity with Armed Forces, but the 4th CPC disrupted this parity arbitrarily. The Court acknowledged that no detailed defence was offered by the Government on this change but ultimately refused to interfere, citing policy discretion.

“Even though no argument was advanced... this Court finds that no plausible reasons have come forth for such change.” [Para 28]

The Court, however, granted the liberty to submit a fresh representation to the Government on this specific grievance.

No Violation of Article 14 – Court Finds Justifiable Classification

Summing up the constitutional aspect of the dispute, the Court rejected the plea that the classification of Assam Rifles personnel vis-à-vis Army PBORs violates Article 14: “Distinction in retirement age, service tenure, and nature of duties is reasonable – Classification not arbitrary – No violation of Article 14 established.” [Headnotes, Paras 25–26]

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with the only concession being the liberty to file a representation for reconsideration.

Date of Decision: 01/12/2025