High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Equal Pay for Equal Work Must Be Ensured: Delhi High Court, Upholds Tribunal's Order on Pay Parity

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


 

The Delhi High Court has upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) order mandating the Union of India to rectify pay disparities among ministerial staff following the reorganization of the Directorate General of Security (DGS). The court's decision underscores the need for the government to address historical inequalities in pay and benefits between different cadres within the DGS

The case originated from a petition filed by the Union of India challenging the CAT's order dated March 17, 2014. The CAT had directed the Union of India to devise a package to address the pay disparities that arose following the trifurcation of the DGS in 2001. This reorganization affected ministerial staff, who were divided into different units without an opportunity to choose their preferred postings, leading to claims of discrimination and disadvanta

The High Court validated the CAT's order, emphasizing that the CAT had acted within its jurisdiction to address pay parity issues, which were not covered by the Supreme Court's earlier validation of the trifurcation policy​​.

The court rejected the argument that the respondents' claims were barred by limitation, noting that the issue of pay scales constitutes a continuing cause of action

Pay Parity Concerns

The primary issue addressed was the disparity in grade pay among Assistants in different units. The CAT had ordered that the respondents, who were in a lower pay grade, should be brought to parity with their counterparts in other units​​.

The respondents had also sought the continuation of special allowances provided to some units but not others. The CAT and the High Court noted that the government must address these disparities to ensure fairness and equity among all staff members​​.

The court reaffirmed that the CAT had the competence to address issues of pay parity and that its directives were within legal bounds. The tribunal’s focus on resolving practical disparities was upheld as necessary and justified​​.

The court highlighted the government's obligation to rectify the identified pay disparities and directed it to take concrete steps within a specified timeframe. The decision underscored the principle that administrative decisions must not result in unjust treatment of employee

Justice V. Kameswar Rao, delivering the judgment, stated, “The decision taken by the petitioners must also keep in mind, the fact that the SOs / PSs have been granted grade pay of ₹4,800/- with a further grade pay of ₹5,400/- after completion of four years and also the fact that the said grade pay of ₹4,800/- is two stages above grade pay of ₹4,200/-, which the petitioners are drawing”​

The Delhi High Court's decision underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring administrative fairness and equity. By directing the Union of India to address pay disparities and implement the CAT's recommendations, the judgment reinforces the principles of equal pay for equal work and fair treatment of all employees. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for future cases involving administrative reorganization and employee rights

 

Date of Decision : May 27, 2024

Union of India & Anr. vs. Tapash Basak & Ors.

 

Similar News