Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

No Parity in Pay for Delhi Police Group-D and CPMFs, Distinct Roles Cited: Delhi High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Decision

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi High Court delivered a significant judgement yesterday, upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal's decision that denied parity in grade pay between Group-D (now Group-C) employees of Delhi Police and their counterparts in the Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMFs). The verdict comes as a defining moment in the ongoing discourse on pay parity within different wings of law enforcement.

In the judgement, Hon'ble Justices V. Kameswar Rao and Anoop Kumar Mendiratta observed, "The nature of Combatisation of the ‘Followers’ in CPMFs has been such that even while they continue to perform their usual functions, but they have been imparted full Training to fight, and perform duties which are Para-Military in nature." This observation underscored the core reasoning behind the court's decision, highlighting the distinct nature of duties and training between the two groups.

The petitioners, who were originally Group-D employees in Delhi Police and later upgraded to Group-C, had challenged the Tribunal’s decision that dismissed their plea for a grade pay of ₹2,000, equivalent to the 'Followers' in CPMFs. However, the court, in its detailed judgement, noted significant differences in the roles and responsibilities of the two groups, justifying different pay scales.

The court further elaborated, "We do not discern from the facts of the case that the applicants before us can in any manner lay a claim to have been Combatised, to have come at par 100% even with the Constable (Exe) of Delhi Police." This statement was part of the court's reasoning, affirming that the training and duties of the petitioners in Delhi Police did not equate to the combatised roles in the CPMFs.

The judgement also delved into the principles of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work,' referencing various Supreme Court decisions. The court upheld that job evaluation for determining pay scales involves several factors, including the nature of duties and responsibilities, which in this case, were found to be substantially different for the petitioners as compared to their CPMFs counterparts.

Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, maintaining the grade pay of the petitioners at ₹1,800 instead of the sought ₹2,000. This decision is seen as a pivotal moment in shaping the policies regarding pay parity and job evaluation within different sectors of the government service.

Date of Decision: 23 January 2024

SUNIL KUMAR AND ORS. VS UOI AND ORS.

 

Similar News