Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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.

 

Latest Legal News