Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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