Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad 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