Bail Applicant Under Mandatory Obligation To Disclose Criminal Antecedents, Non-Disclosure Results In Erroneous Decisions: Andhra Pradesh High Court Judicial Decrees Cannot Be Set Aside By Administrative Orders After Decades; Long-Standing Revenue Entries Must Be Protected: Allahabad High Court 'Any Use Whatsoever' Includes Promotion & Events: Bombay High Court Restrains New Indian Express Group From Hosting Commercial Events Outside Southern States Reserved Category Candidates Who Qualify On Their Own Seniority Must Be Adjusted Against Unreserved Vacancies: Calcutta High Court Decree For Possession Can Be Passed If Landlord-Tenant Relationship & Termination Are Admitted; Unregistered Lease Is Month-To-Month: Delhi High Court Prosecution Against Co-Accused Not Sustainable When Main Accused Is Discharged On Same Facts: Jharkhand High Court Admission Of Handwriting On Account Statement Is Not Admission Of Its Contents; Corroborative Evidence Necessary To Prove Claim: Gujarat High Court Omission Of Label Defects In Food Inspector's Spot Memo Fatal To Prosecution For Misbranding: Himachal Pradesh High Court RBI Must Consult State Government, Not Just Registrar, To Supersede Co-operative Bank Board; Principles Of Natural Justice Excluded Under Section 36AAA: Kerala High Court Suit Filed Before IBC Proceedings Cannot Be Dismissed Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Section 96 Moratorium Only Stays Pending Actions: Calcutta High Court Senior Citizens Not Technologically Savvy Cannot Be Penalized For Not Checking Case Status On Court Website: Tripura High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Case Against CM Revanth Reddy Over 2019 Election Roadshow, Cites Bar Under Section 195 CrPC Maintenance Tribunal Orders Passed Without Mandated Three-Member Coram Are A Nullity: Punjab & Haryana High Court School Register Entry Regarding Date Of Birth Lacks Probative Value Unless Source Of Information Is Proved: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Limitation Period For Specific Performance Starts From Date Of Refusal If No Fixed Date Stipulated In Agreement: Karnataka High Court Pensionary Benefits Not ‘Pecuniary Advantage’, Cannot Be Deducted From Income For Motor Accident Compensation: Punjab & Haryana 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.

 

Latest Legal News