Supreme Court of India
UNION OF LNDIA & ORS.versusDINESHAN K.K.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 3
- Decided
- 4 January 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- C K THAKKER
Holding
The denial of parity in pay and rank to the Radio Mechanics was irrational and arbitrary, violating Article 14, and the High Court's directions granting parity were upheld.
Summary
The petitioners, Radio Mechanics of the Assam Rifles, claimed that they were denied parity in rank and pay with their counterparts in other central paramilitary forces, despite an admitted disparity and a Ministry of Home Affairs order to rationalise pay structures. The Union of India argued that pay fixation is an executive function and not subject to judicial interference. The Supreme Court examined whether the denial of parity violated Article 14 and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, and whether the courts could review such executive decisions. Relying on earlier judgments, the Court held that when there is no material difference in duties and the disparity is irrational, the State's action is violative of Article 14. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court's directions granting parity to the Radio Mechanics. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Issues considered
- Whether the denial of parity in pay and rank to Radio Mechanics of the Assam Rifles violates Article 14 of the Constitution and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
- Whether the judiciary can intervene in pay fixation decisions that are ordinarily within the domain of the executive and expert bodies.
- Whether the disparity in pay scales is arbitrary and irrational in view of the admitted facts.
- Whether the directions issued by the High Court are maintainable.
Subjects
equal pay for equal workArticle 14paritypay fixationjudicial reviewAssam Riflesparamilitary forcesdiscrimination
Judgment
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 100
A UNION OF lNDIA & ORS. ~
v.
DINESHAN K.K.
(C.A. No. 25 of 2008)
JANUARY 4, 2008 .
B
(C.K. THAKKER AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] >
Service Law - Pay scales - Parity in - Rank of 'Radio /I
Mechanics' in Assam Rifles - Claim of parity with their
c counterparts in other paramilitary forces - Disparity arising
due to initial anomaly in the Fourth Pay Commission
irrespective of difference in their powers, duties and
responsibilities - Disparity admitted by the authorities - Held:
The Radio Mechanics were entitled to parity in pay scale with
their counterparts in other paramilitary forces - Denial of parity
D
by the authorities is 'irrational arbitrary and violative of Article
14 of the Constitution - Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 14
- Doctrine of equal pay for equal work. -s.
Constitution oflndia, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) -
E Doctrine of equal pay for equal work - Nature and applicability
of - Held: Initially it was introduced as a part of Directive
Principles, later assumed status of fundamental right - The
doctrine has no mathematical application in every case of
similar work.
F Judicial Review- Of pay fixation - Held: Equation of pay II
being complex, is generally left to the Executive and expert
bodies - However, judicial review is permissible, where the
employee is treated unjustly and arbitrarily by State action or
inaction.
G
By letter dated 10.10.1997 by the Ministry of Home
Affairs of Government of India notifying that President of
India was pleased to rationalize the rank structure and
pay scales of non-gazetted cadre of central police
organizations. In February 1998, Directorate of Assam
H 100
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DINESHAN K.K. 101
Rifles brought to the notice of the Ministry that disparity A
in the service conditions of certain category of personnel
including the rank of Radio Mechanic had arisen and
recommended re-designation of Radio Mechanic and
Head Constable in Assam Rifles as Warrant Officer and
also for replacement of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to bring B
them at par with their counterparts in other paramilitary
forces. The Ministry by letter dated 3.3.1998 informed them
that they could redesignate the Head Constable ( Radio
Mechanic) as Warrant Officer provided their pre-revised
and revised pay scales were identical to the pay-scales C
of their counterparts in CRPF and BSF. The disparity could
not be resolved. On 24.4.2001, Director General of Assam.
Rifles submitted a report to the Government, with regard
to the progress ori pay anomaly cases. As there was no
., positive response from the Government, one of the Radio D
Mechanics issued a Notice of Demand to the Government
and also to Director General of Assam Rifles praying for
giving effect to the Office Order dated 10.10.1997. By order
dated 26.12.2001 the Government rejected the
recommendation made by Director General of Assam
Rifles. E
Respondents working in the rank of RadiO
Mechanic in Assam Rifles filed writ petition. High Court,
allowed the same. Hence the present appeal.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court F
HELD: 1.1 The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'
.. was originally propounded as part of the Directive
Principles of the State Policy in Article 39(d) of the
Constitution. Having regard to the constitutional mandate
of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Articles G
·14 and 16, iri service jurisprudence, the doctrine of 'equal
pay for equal work' has assumed status of a fundamental
right. [Para 9] [107-G, 108-A, C]
D.S. Nakara and Ors. vs. Union of India 1983 (1) SCC
305 - followed. H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. 1982 (1) SCC
618 - relied on.
1.2 Initially, the said principle was being applied as
an absol'ute rule but realizing its cascading effect on other
cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of
B caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for
equal work had no mathematical application in every case
of similar work. It has been observed that equation of. ,
posts and equation of pay structure being complex
matters are generally left to the Executive and expert
c bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been
emphasized that a carefully evolved pay structure ought
not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset
the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres
as well. [Para 10] [108-D, E]
D
Secretary, Finance Department and Ors. vs. West
Bengal Registration Service Association and Ors. 1993 Supp ;
(1) SCC 153; State of Haryana and Anr. vs. Haryana Civil ~
Secretariat Personal Staff Association 2002 (6) SCC 72 -
referred to.
E
1.:i It will not be correct to lay down as an absolute
rule that merely because determination and granting of
pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court
has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an
F aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly ;
treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go
on knocking at the doors of the Executive or the ....
Legislature. When there is no dispute with regard to the
qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons
holding identical posts or ranks but they are tr~ated
G
differently merely because they belong to different
departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex-
facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court
to intervene. [Para 10] [108-F, G; 109-A, B]
H State of Haryana and Ors. vs. Charanjit Singh and Ors.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DINESHAN K.K. 103
41-" 206 (9) sec 321 - relied on. A
State Bank of India and Anr. vs. M. R. Ganesh Babu and
Ors. 2002 (4) SCC 556; State of Haryana and Anr. vs. Tilak
Raj and Ors. 2003 (6) SC 123; State of Haryana and Ors. vs.
Jasmer Singh and Ors. 1996 (11) SCC 77; Tilak Raj Orissa
University of Agriculture and Technlogy.and Anr. vs. Mano) K. B
Mohanty 2003 (5) SCC 188; Government of WB. vs. Tarun
Roy and Ors. 2004 (1) sec 347 - referred to.
" 2.1 The administrative authorities having admitted in
their affidavit the 'apparent disparity' and 'anomaly' in the
pay scales of Radio Mechanics, could not be permitted to
c
perpetuate apparent discriminatory differentiation in the
pay scales because of the disparity in pre-revised and
revised scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles prior to
.'
t
'
the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission,
irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and D
responsibilities with other paramilitary forces. In view of
. .,. the total absence of any plea on the part of the Union of
' India that Radio Mechanics in other paramilitary forces
were performing different or more onerous duties as
compared to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, the E
decision of the Government was clearly irrational and
arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
[Para 20] [115-G, H; 116-A, B]
7.2 It is admitted by the petitioners that: (i) all the
F
paramilitary forces, including Assam Rifles are at par with
-·
' each other and (ii) there was apparent 'disparity' in the
pay scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles with their
counterparts in other central paramilitary forces. The
differentiation in the pay scales of the two paramilitary
forces is sought to be achieved not on the ground of G
dissimilarity of academic qualification or the nature of
duties and responsibilities ,but only on the ground that
there was 'initial anomaly' in the Fourth Central Pay
Commission Report. The counter affidavit filed by Union
of India does not even attempt to explain how the case of H
104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 1 S.C.R.
A the HAV/RM in Assam Rifles is different from that of Radio
Mechanics in other central paramilitary forces. [Para 18]
[114-G, 115-D]
2.3 In the light of the admitted factual position, the
question of examination of external comparisons, internal
B relativities and other factors, to be kept in view for job
evaluation, considered to be a complex issue to be studied
only by expert bodies, does nof arise. As a necessary _,
corollary, the issue as to whether there is a complete or
wholesale identity between the said paramilitary forces,
c does not survive for consideration. [Para 19] [115-E-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 25
of 2008.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 11.2.2005 of
D the High Court of Gauhati (Agartala Bench) in W.P. (C) No. 497/
2001.
B. Dutta, A.S.G., Sunita Sharma and Sushma Suri for the
.
"·
Appellants.
E Ranjit Kumar, K.V. Vishwanathan, Hiren Dasan, Kalyan
Bhaumik, Dhirendra Kumar Misra and Mrs. Sarla Chandra for
the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. Delay condoned.
F
2. Leave granted.
;
3. This appeai by the Union of India and the Director •
General of Assam Rifles arises out of the judgment and order
dated 11th February, 2005 rendered by the Gauhati High Court
G in WP (C) No.497 of 2001. By the impugned order, while allowing
the writ petition, directions have been issued that the permission
~
granted by the Union of India vide its letter dated 3rd March,
1998, to re-designate the rank of Havildar (Radio Mechanic)
as Warrant Officer as recommended by the Ministry of Home
H Affairs shall be carried out and the pay scale as admissible to
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DINESHAN K.K. 105
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
.;;· their counterparts in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) A
and the Border Security Force (BSF) shall be granted from the
same date.
4. The nub of the grievance of the writ petitioner, working
in the rank of a Radio Mechanic in the Assam Rifles was that
I
the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Director General of Assam B
Rifles having accepted in principle that the members of the
Assam Rifles, should be given the same rank and pay structure
' as was given to other central paramilitary forces, yet the same
had been denied to them. It was pleaded that as the Ministry of
Home Affairs had conveyed its decision to rationalize the rank c
structure of non gazetted personnel of central paramilitary forces
vide order dated 25th January, 1998, equal pay structure in other
ranks, including the Radio Mechanics in the Assam Rifles could
not be denied. His further grievance was that after the
implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission, the pay of the D
Havildar/GD and Head Constable/Radio Mechanic was fixed
in the pay scale of Rs.975-1660, without any discrimination
~ between· the general duty and technical categories but the
discrimination surfaced when higher pay scale of Rs.1200-2040
was given to the Radio Mechanics working in the BSF, denying
the same pay scale to the Radio Mechanics in the Assam Rifles.
E
It was also pointed out that the Radio Mechanics working in the
Delhi Police organization had been given a much higher pay
scale on 10th October, 1997 which was being denied to the
similar rank holders in the Assam Rifles.
... "5. The·wrirpetition was contested by the Union of India. In
F
the counter affidavit filed on its behalf, it was stated that on the
recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission, with effect from
1st January, 1986, the Assam Rifles personnel had been granted
revised pay scales and allowances entirely on the lines of other
central paramilitary forces. However, as the changes in the rank G
.... structure were not carried out in the Assam Rifles like in other
central paramilitary forces, an 'apparent disparity' in the service
conditions of certain category of personnel including the rank of
Radio Mechanic had arisen. It was also pointed out that the
Assam Rifles Directorate had brought this disparity to the notice H
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A of the Ministry of Home Affairs in February, 1998, and had
recommended the re-designation of Radio Mechanic and Head
Constable in Assam Rifles as Warrant Officer and for
replacement of pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to bring them at par
with their counterparts in other central police organizations. It
B was stated that in response to the said recommendation, the
Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 3rd March, 1998, had
informed the Assam Rifles that they could re-designate the Head
Constable (Radio Mechanic) as Warrant Officer provided their
pre-revised and revised pay scales were identical to the pay
c scales of their counterparts in CRPF and BSF. However, the re-
designation of the ranks could not be carried out in the light of
the said communication as there was 'disparity' between the
pay scales of a Radio Mechanic in Assam Rifles and their
counterparts in CRPF and BSF. It was conceded that though
the academic qualification for recruitment to the post of Radio
D
Mechanic in Assam Rifles as well as in CRPF and BSF was
the same yet there was 'disparity' in the revised pay scales
between the Assam Rifles and the said two other paramilitary
forces. The claim of the petitioner for higher pay scales on the "'
lines of the pay scales of Delhi Police organization was seriously
E contested on the ground that the Assam Rifles being a central
police organisation, it could not claim parity with Delhi Police
organization, which was not a central paramilitary force.
6. Taking note of the admission on the.part of the Union of
F India that there was disparity between the pay scales of the
members of the Assam Rifles and similarly ranked personnel ...
of other paramilitary forces, the High Court felt that it would be
unreasonable and discriminatory if the pay scales given to Radio
Mechanics in CRPF and BSF were denied to the Radio
Mechanics in Assam Rifles, when the qualifications and service
G
requirements in all the three organizations were identical.
Consequently, t:1e High Court issued the aforenbted directions,
which are questioned in this appeal.
7. Mr. 8. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General,
H appearing for the Union of India contended that the direction
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DINESHAN K.K. 107
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
.#<'
given by the High Court is manifestly contrary to the settled legal A
position, enunciated by this Court in several decisions that pay
fixation is essentially an executive function, ordinarily undertaken
by an expert body like the Pay Commission, whose
recommendations are entitled to a great weight though not
binding on the Government. It was argued that the B
recommendations of an expert body are not justiciable since
the Court is not equipped to take upon itself the task of job
'I·
evaluation, which is a complex exercise. In support of the
proposition, reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court in
S. C, Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. 1 and Union c
of India & Ors, Vs. Hiranmoy Sen & Ors. 2
8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel, appearing on
behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the
petitioners having themselves admitted that there was an
anomaly in the pay scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles, D
particularly, the Radio Mechanics, as compared to their
,,;; counterparts in other paramilitary forces, the High Court was
fully justified in giving the impugned directions. It was pointed
out that, in fact, the Director General, Assam Rifles, who is one
of the petitioners in the present appeal, had himself E
recommended to the Ministry of Home Affairs that the 'anomaly'
in the pay scales of the Radio Mechanics should be rectified.
Learned counsel submits that it is unfair on the part of the Director
General to take a somersault and oppose the direction given
... by the High Court which is in consonance with his F
recommendation. Learned counsel, however, stated that the
respondent was not pressing for parity with the personnel of the
Delhi Police.
9. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has been
considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of G
~
this Court. The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' was
originally propounded as part of the Directive Principles of the
1
[2007] 9 S.C.R 130
2 2007 (12) SCALE 170
H
108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In Randhir Singh
Vs. Union of India & Ors. 3 , a bench of three learned Judges of
this Court had observed that principle of equal pay for equal
work is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal,
capable of being attained through constitutional remedies and
B held that this principle had to be read under Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution. This decision was affirmed by a Constitution
Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. Vs. Union of lndia 4 .
Thus, having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality
and inhibition against discrimination in Article 14 and 16, in
c service jurisprudence, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'
has assumed status of a fundamental right.
10. Initially, particularly in the early eighties, the said
principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its
cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of
D this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of
equal pay for equal work had no mathematical application in
every case of similar work. It has been observed that equation
of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters
are generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the
E Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully
evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the
Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples
in other cadres as well. (Vide: Secretary, Finance Department
& Ors. Vs. West Bengal Registration Service A.ssociation &
F Ors. 5 and State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat
Personal Staff Association 6 . Nevertheless, it will not be correct
to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because
determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of
the Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay
G structure and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is
unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to
3
(1982) 1 SCC618
4
(1983) 1 sec 305
5
(1993) Supp (1) sec 153
H 6
(2002) 6 sec 72
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DINESHAN K.K. 109
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
go on knocking at the doors of the Executive or the Legislature, A
as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants.
Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the
qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding
identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely
because they belong to different departments or the basis for B
classification of posts is ex-facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it
is open to the Court to intervene.
"'. 11. In State Bank of India &Anr Vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu
& Ors. 7 , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, dealing with the
same principle, opined that principle of equal pay is dependent c
upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere
volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards
reliability and responsibility. The functions may be the same but
the responsibilities do make a difference. It was held that the
judgment of administrative authorities, concerning the D
responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of .
reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment
'~~--
of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide,
reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the
Court. E
12. In State of Haryana & Anr Vs. Ti/ak Raj & Ors. 8 , it
has been observed that the principle of 'equal pay for equal
work' is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties
in comparing and· evaluating the work of different persons in
~
different organizations or even in the same organisation. It has F
been reiterated that this is a concept which requires for its
applicability, complete and wholesale identity between a group
of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group
of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has
been emphasized that the problem about equal pay cannot be G
translated into a mathematical formula.
,¢
13. Yet again in a recent decision in State of Haryana &
1
(2002) 4 sec 556
8
(2003) s sec 123 H
110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A Ors. Vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors. 9 , a Bench of three learned
Judges, while affirming the view taken by this Court in the cases
of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh & Ors. 10 , Ti/ak
Raj (supra), Orissa University of Agriculture & Technlogy &
Anr. Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty 11 and Government of WB. Vs.
B Tarun Roy & Ors. 12 has reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay
for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being
enforced in a court of law. Inter alia, observing that equal pay
must be for equal work of equal value and that the principle of
equal pay for equal work has no mathematical application in
c every case, it has been held that Article 14 permits reasonable
classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons
recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left
out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a
reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.
Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant
0
application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has
been held that since the said principle requires consideration
of various dimensions of a given job, normally the applicability
of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by
an expert body and the Court should not interfere till it is satisfied
E that the necessary material on the basis whereof the claim is
made is available on record with necessary proof and that there
is equal work and equal quality and all other relevant factors are
fulfilled.
F 14. Tested on the touchstone of the aforenoted broad
guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives we are of the opinion
that in the present case, on the pleadings and the material
placed on record by the parties in support of their respective
stands, the High Court was justified in issuing the impugned ·
G directions.
15. Vide order dated 1oth October, 1997 passed by the
9
c2006) 9 sec 321
10 (1996) 11 sec 77
11
(2003)5sec188
12
H (2004) 1sec 347
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DINESHAN K.K. 111
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
Ministry of Home Affairs in pursuance of para 7 of the Ministry A
"' of Finance, Department of Expenditure Resolution dated 30th
September, 1997, it was notified that the President was pleased
to rationalize the rank structure and pay scales of non gazetted
cadre of central police organizations and as a result of this
exercise certain ranks were to be merged and the rank structure B
was communicated in the order along with the revised pay scales
and replacement pay scales. Copy of this order was sent to all
the paramilitary forces, including the Assam Rifles. On 22nd
January, 1998, an office memorandum was issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by way of a c
clarification. In the said letter, it was clarified that order dated
10th October, 1997 was equally applicable to all advertised
categories. In the said letter, direction with regard to the re-
designation of the three posts including Head Constable (RM)
as ASI in central paramilitary forces along with their replacement
D
pay scales were also ordered. It appears that the disparity in
rank and pay in various central paramilitary forces could not be
resolved and on 24th April, 2001, the Director General Assam
Rifles submitted a report to the Government with regard to the
progress on pay anomaly cases. Para 4 of the said letter is of
some relevance to the issue at hand and it reads as follows: E
"Rank and pay of Technical Cadre Person RM. Ptmn,
Pharma, and Compounder of AR with the same intake
QR for remounts are given the rank of HAV wherein they
are counterparts in CPOs are given ASI. The MHA had F
~
ordered to submit proposal in directing cadre to cadre
comparison with BSF where the rank of ASI is available
in other tech and a!so along with fin implication. The
proposal alongwith fin implication has been submitted to
MHA and the case is lying with MOF for approval."
G
16. Having failed to receive any positive response from
~
the Government, one of the Radio Mechanics' issued a Notice
of Demand to the Ministry of Home Affairs and Director General
of Assam Rifles, inter alia, praying for giving effect to office order
dated 1oth October, 1997 and office memorandum dated 22nd H
112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 1 S.C.R.
A January, 1998. Vide order dated 25th December, 2001, the -+
Ministry of Home Affairs informed the Director General of Assam
Rifles that his proposal had been examined in consultation with
Ministry of Finance and it was found that there was no point for
comparison of grades and scales of pay for such posts across
B various central paramilitary forces. It was stated that the
proposed upgradation may disturb relativities of various trades
and grades within the Assam Rifles and there was no functional
justification for upgrading these posts. It is evident that on ,,
rejection of the recommendation made by the Director General
c of the Force, the respondent herein was left with no option but
to approach the High Court for redressal of his grievance.
17. As noted above, the writ petition was opposed by the
petitioners herein by filing counter affidavit. For the sake of ready
reference, the relevant portions in some of the paragraphs of
D the counter affidavit are extracted below:
"That, with regards to the averments of the petitioner made
in the writ petition in paragraph 5, I submit that Assam ~
Rifles personnel were in receipt of pay and allowances on
Army analogy with various groups in terms of Groui; 'A',
E 'B', 'C', 'D', & 'E' to conform to their functional qualitative
requirements of these groups which had varying pay
scales. I submit that on the recommendation of the fourth
pay commission w.e.f. 01.01.1986 for Force had been
granted and pay and allowance entirely on the lines of
F Central Para Military Forces while no change in the rank ~
structure was carried out and this difference in rank
structure has resulted in an apparent disparity in their
service conditions and certain catego11; of personnel who
were placed in the erstwhile higher groups including radio
G mechanics category have also been deprived of pay
scales either at par with their counterparts in the Army or
~
in the Central Police Organisation."
H "That, with regard to the averments of the petitioner made
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DINESHAN K.K. 113
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
in the writ petition in paragraph 8, I beg to reiterate that A
Assam Rifles personnel were in receipt of pay and
allowances on Army analogy with various groups in terms
of group 'B', 'C', 'D', and 'E', to conform to their functional
and qualitative requirements of these groups which had
varying pay scales in diminishing order. On the B
recommendation of the Fourlh Pay Commission w. e. f
1st January, 1986 the Force had been granted pay and
allowances entirely on the lines of Central Para Military
forces shorlly called as CPMFs while no change in the
rank structure was carried out, and this difference in the c
rank structure has resulted in an apparent disparity in
their service condition."
"That, with regards to the averments of the petitioner made D
in the writ petition in paragraphs 10 to 13, I beg to submit
;.. that on receipt of MHA letter No.27011/1103/97-PF.1/56
dated 22nd January, 1998, Assam Rifles Directorate by
' letter No.A!Pers!51h CPCNol.111198 dated 181h February,
1998 had taken up a case with HA to redesignate Hail/
RM-Gde I & II of Assam Rifles as Warrant Officer and for E
replacement of pay scale of Rs.4000-1000-60001- to
bring them at par with their counterparls in other Central
Police Organisation. I submit that attention of MHA was
also drawn regarding placement of Hav/RM Gde - I and
......
II in the lower scale of pay consequent to implementation F
of IV Pay Commission. In reply to the Assam Rifles
Directorate letter the MHA had ruled out vide their letter
No.27011/103/97-P.F.1 dated 3rd March, 1998 that Assam
Rifles can redesignate HC (RM) as Warrant Officer if pre-
revised and revised pay scale of Hav(RM) in Assam Rifles G
..>. are identical to the pay scale of HC(RM) in BSF and CRPF.
I.submit that the main hurdle in implementing the said
order in Assam Rifles is that there is disparity in pay
scales of RM in Assam Rifles to that of BSF and CRPF
The Hav(RM) of Assam Rifles were drawing pay scales of H
114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
~·-
A Rs.9'75-1660/- w.e.f. 1st January, 1986 and replacement
scale as given in the 5th Central Pay Commission is
Rs.3200-4900/- per month whereas in CRPF and BSF
the Hav (RM) was drawing pay scale of Rs.1200-30-1560-
40-2040/- per month whose replacement scale in the 5th
I
B Central Pay Commission is Rs.4000-100-6000/-. It is also
pertinent to clarify here that the qualification of HC(RM)
in other Central Police Organisations that of Assam Rifles
Hav (RM) is almost par''... ....
c
"As per averment made in Para 13 of the writ petition, the
petitioner is seeking higher pay scale viz 5000-150-80001
- admissible to Delhi Police personnel. I submit that since
the Assam Rifles is at par with other central police
D or:qanization, the demand of the petitioner, for parity with
an entirely another department is not possible. In view of
the facts narrated above and to bring parity with other
central police organization, it is proposed to grant warrant
officers rank (Equivalent to Assistant Sub Inspector) to
technical categories including radio mechanics vide
E
Assam Rifles Directorate Letter No.A!Pers/451h CPCNol
111/98177' dated 6th· April, 1998 and subsequent queries
sought by the MHA has been replied. I submit that MHA
has also informed to the LOAR (Liaison Office, Assam
Rifles) that the case for introduction of Warrant Officers ).
F rank to technical categories is presently lying with
Ministry of Finance (E-111) since 29th August, 2000."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. From the afore-extracted paragraphs of the counter
G affidavit and the resume of correspondence referred to above,
it clearly stands admitted by the petitioners herein that: (i) all the
paramilitary forces, including Assam Rifles are at par with each
.""
other and (ii) there was apparent 'disparity' in the pay scales of
the personnel of Assam Rifles with their counterparts in other
central paramilitary forces. In order to rectify this disparity,
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. DINESHAN K.K. 115
[D.K. JAIN, J.]
~
Director General Assam Rifles, petitioner No.2 herein, vide his A
letter·dated 181h February, 1998 had, in fact, taken up the
~ grievance of the respondent with the Ministry of Home Affairs,
inter alia recommending re-designation of Havildar (RM) Gd.-1
and II .of Assam Rifles as \/\/arrant Officer and for replacement
of pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 to bring them at par with B
their counterparts in other central police organization. However,
... the Ministry of Home Affairs vide letter dated 3rd March, 1998
while accepting the said proposal had recommended re-
designation of HAV/RM as Warrant Officer but subject to the
coripition that the pre-revised and revised pay scales of HAV/ c
RM in other paramilitary forces were identical to the pay scales
of Head Constable (RM) in CRFP and BSF. Manifestly, in the
instant case, the differentiation in the pay scales of the two
paramilitary forces is soug~t to be achieved not on the ground
of dissimilarity of academic qualification or the nature of duties
D
and responsibilities but only on the ground that there was 'initial
,.. anomaly' in the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report. The
counter affidavit does not even attempt to explain how the case
of the HAV/RM in Assam Rifles is different from that of Radio
Mechanics in other central paramilitary forces.
E
19. In the present case, therefore, in the light of the admitted
factual position, the question of examination of external
comparisons, internal relativities and other factors, to be kept
in view for job evaluation, considered to be a complex issue to
• be studied only by expert bodies, does not arise. As a necessary F
corollary, the issue as to whether there is a complete or
wholesale identity between the said paramilitary forces, does
not survive for consideration.
20. Thus, the short question requiring our consideration is
whether having admitted in their affidavit referred to G
hereinabove, the 'apparent disparity' and 'anomaly' in the pay
scales of Radio Mechanics, the administrative authorities, the
petitioners herein, could be permitted to perpetuate appa!ent
discriminatory differentiation in the pay scales because of the
disparity in pre-revised and revised scales of the personnel of H
116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R.
A Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay
Commission, irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties
and responsibilities with other paramilitary forces. In our
considered opinion, in view of the total absence of any plea on
the part of the Union of India that Radio Mechanics in other
-
B paramilitary forces were performing different or more onerous
duties as compared to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles,
the impunned decision of the Government was clearly irrational
and arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
21. On a conspectus of the factual scenario noted above,
C we do not find any infirmity in the impugned directions given by
the High Court, warranting interference. There is no merit in this
appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with costs.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
)
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "equal pay for equal work"Sign in to search