Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by 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