* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 1227/2002
RAMESH KUMAR GIRI ..... Petitioner
Through Mr. Rajinder Kumar, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through Mr. Ashish Nischal, Advocate for
the UOI
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
ORDER
% 01.10.2014 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (ORAL)
1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks i) a writ/ order/ direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Office Order dated 14.08.2000 by which the petitioner has been denied the pay scale of Rs.5,000-150-8,000/- which his counterparts in the Delhi Police, IB and CBI are getting; and ii) a writ of mandamus to the respondents to implement Para 7 of the Ministry of Finance Resolution No.50(1) 1C/97 dated 30.09.1997, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary and to implement the pay scale of Rs.5,000-150-8,000/- to the post of ASI (Technical), in parity with the W.P. (C) 1227/2002 Page 1 of 7 petitioner's counterparts in Delhi Police, IB and CBI.
2. The petitioner had joined the Central Reserve Police Force (in short 'CRPF') as Head Constable (Radio Mechanic) Grade-II in August, 1988 in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.1200-1800/-. In August, 1994, he qualified Grade-I and the pre-revised pay scale for Grade-I was Rs.1400- 2300/-. The Fourth Central Pay Commission, in its recommendation to the Government had suggested that there should be uniformity in the pay scales of the personnel belonging to the Central Police Organisation (in short 'CPO') with that of the personnel of the Delhi Police placed in same ranks. It is the case of the petitioner that while implementing the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, the Government had granted higher pay scales to the subordinates of Delhi Police, IB and CBI, but, denied the same to the personnel of the CPO. It is also the case of the petitioner that the 5th Central Pay Commission which gave its report on 30.01.1997 did not consider the parity in pay scales of subordinate officials in CPO qua Delhi Police and consequently, the matter was referred by the Ministry of Home Affairs/Respondent No.1 to the Committee of Secretaries and Group of Ministers of the Government for review of the pay structure of such personnel. It is also the case of the W.P. (C) 1227/2002 Page 2 of 7 petitioner that finally, the Ministry of Finance vide its Resolution No.50(1) 1C/97 dated 30.09.1997 modified the pay structure and brought the pay scale of subordinate officials of CPO at par with the pay scales enjoyed by their counterparts in the Delhi Police, IB and CBI. It is also the case of the petitioner that since there existed anomaly in the rank structure of the CPO including the CRPF with that of their counterparts in the Delhi Police, the Ministry of Finance vide its Resolution No.50 (1) 1C/97 dated 30.09.1997, further directed the Ministry of Home Affairs to carry out an exercise for rationalisation of ranks, so as to achieve parity with the Delhi Police and pending such consideration, the scales recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission be applied. As per the petitioner, the exercise of rationalisation of ranks was undertaken by the respondent No.1 on 10.10.1997. Concurrently, respondent No.1 also rationalised the pre-revised pay scales of such personnel with that of replacement pay scale. The grievance of the petitioner is that after the said exercise of rationalisation of ranks, the petitioner's post was re- designated as ASI (Technical) and his replacement pay scale was fixed at Rs.4,000-100-6000/- whereas the pay scale for ASI (Technical) in Delhi Police, which is an equivalent post, was fixed at Rs.5,000-150-8,000/-. It W.P. (C) 1227/2002 Page 3 of 7 is also the grievance of the petitioner that except the rank of ASI (Technical) in CPO's pay scale, all the ranks of Non-Gazetted Cadres in CPOs are at par with the Non-Gazetted posts in Delhi Police. It is therefore, submitted that the action of the respondents in not giving parity of pay scale to the rank of the petitioner is an act of discrimination and is against the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" as implicit in the doctrine of 'Equality' enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. The stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit is that the Ministry of Home Affairs had carried out rationalisation of the rank structure and pay scale of Non Gazetted Cadres of CPOs pursuant to the recommendations of the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance dated 30.09.1997 and as a result of this exercise, HC/RM Grade-I and II were re-designated as ASI (Technical) and they were given replacement pay scale of Rs.4, 000-6,000/-. It is also the argument of the respondents that the nature of duties of the CRPF are different from the duties of the Delhi Police and that it was not the intention of the respondents to implement the pay scale available in the Delhi Police in toto for equivalent posts in the Central Para Military Forces. It is further W.P. (C) 1227/2002 Page 4 of 7 submitted that the petitioner was drawing his pay in the pre-revised scale of Rs.1400-2300/- and after the implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission, he was granted the revised pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000/-
4. Arguments were addressed by Mr. Rajinder Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Nischal, the learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that all the ranks of Non Gazetted Cadres in CPOs, except the rank of ASI (Technical), have been brought at par (in terms of rank and pay scale) with the ranks in Non- Gazetted Cadres in the Delhi Police with a view to secure parity of the CPOs with the Delhi Police. In view of the said contention, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner occupying the post of ASI (Technical) has been discriminated vis-a-vis the officers holding the same rank in the Delhi Police, who discharge similar duties.
6. It is settled legal position that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is a function of the executive and the scope of judicial review over such a decision is very limited. It is only where such an administrative decision appears to the Court to be unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and devoid of any intelligible differentia and is also W.P. (C) 1227/2002 Page 5 of 7 against the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" as implicit in the doctrine of 'Equality' enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that an interference by the Courts would be necessary.
7. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed any material on record expounding the nature of duties, as assigned to the post of ASI (Technical) vis-a-vis the counterparts in the Delhi Police. No comparative chart of the nature of duties performed by or assigned to the officers in these two posts in the CPOs and the Delhi Police has been filed on record. The grievance of the petitioner with regard to his claim of disparity in the pay scale was examined by the respondents and the view taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs was that the intention of the Government was not to implement the pay scale available in Delhi Police in toto to the Central Para Military Forces. In the light of the said decision taken by the Ministry of Home Affairs and in the absence of any material placed on record by the petitioner, we find no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the respondents in not granting the same pay scale to the post of ASI (Technical) in CPOs as the pay scale fixed to the same rank in the Delhi Police.
8. The respondents in their counter affidavit have taken a stand that W.P. (C) 1227/2002 Page 6 of 7 the nature of duties in the CRPF are different from the duties of the Delhi Police and a mere fact that a higher pay scale was being given in any other department would not afford a justifiable ground for fixing the same pay scale in the CRPF. We find merit in this submission of the respondents. Equivalence of posts or ranks may not justify the grant of same pay scale unless there are striking similarities in the nature of duties assigned to and performed by similarly ranked officers.
In the light of the above discussion, we find no merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J.
OCTOBER 01, 2014 v W.P. (C) 1227/2002 Page 7 of 7