Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |    

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