Delhi High Court
Braham Prakash Dutta & Anr. vs Railway Protection Force & Ors. on 6 July, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
R-13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 6th July 2011.
+ W.P.(C) 1533/1998
BRAHAM PRAKASH DUTTA AND ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.S.K.Dubey, Mr.Nitin Kumar
Sharma and Mr.Rahul Trivedi,
Advocates
versus
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE AND ORS. .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J (Oral)
1. At the outset, it may be noted that the petitioner No.2 has
died during the pendency of the writ petition, as told to us by
the learned counsel for the petitioners, and his legal heirs have
not sought substitution by moving any application. Thus, qua
petitioner No.2, the writ petition stands dismissed as having
abated.
2. We proceed to consider the matter pertaining to the claim
of petitioner No.1.
WP (C) No. 1533/1998 Page | 1
3. Working as an Inspector Grade-I (Prosecution) under RPF,
the first petitioner claims parity with the Senior Public
Prosecutor working with CBI and Delhi Police. The grievance is
that Inspector Grade-I (Prosecution) with RPF are placed in the
pay scale of `2000-3200, and Senior Public Prosecutor with CBI
and Delhi Police are in the pay scale of `3000-4500. Seeking
parity with the Senior Public Prosecutor and alleging
discrimination, and stated that the principle of 'equal work :
equal pay', stands attracted; petitioner No.1 seeks a mandamus
to be issued that he be placed in the pay scale of `3000-4500.
4. Suffice would it be to state that the law pertaining to
placement of posts in pay scales is: It is with the domain of the
executive to determine as to in what scale of pay a post has to
be placed and since it is a matter of expert opinion, courts
intervention has to be slow and that the court cannot assign to
itself the role of an expert. But, where it is apparently manifest
that two posts are identical, it would be a denial of Article 14 to
those who are placed in the lower pay scale. In said eventuality,
it would be within the domain of a writ court to issue appropriate
directions.
5. As observed by the Supreme Court, in the decision
reported in 2003 (6) SCC 123, State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Tilak
Raj & Ors.; it is only where there is complete and wholesale
identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay
scales, only then it can be said that the principle of 'equal pay
for equal work' would be attracted.
6. As held in the decision reported as 2002 (4) SCC 556, State
Bank of India & Anr. vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu & Ors., equivalence
of posts has not to be judged merely with reference to mere
WP (C) No. 1533/1998 Page | 2
volume of work. The touch stone on which equivalence has to be
determined would be to consider the source of recruitment,
educational and other qualifications required, as also the
qualitative as also the quantitative nature of jobs.
7. Proceeding on the facts, it would be relevant to note that
as per the writ petitioner, Public Prosecutor Grade-II are
appointed under RPF having LL.B. degree with 5 years work
experience as an advocate and their counter parts under CBI
and Delhi Police required, apart from a LL.B degree with 7 years
work experience as an advocate. Appointment of Public
Prosecutor Grade I in RPF is by promotion from Public Prosecutor
Grade II. Appointment as Senior Public Prosecutor under CBI and
Delhi Police is from amongst those advocates who, apart from
having a bachelor degree in law have 7 years work experience.
8. Thus, it is apparent that with respect to the source of
recruitment, there is difference in the appointment of Public
Prosecutor Grade I in RPF and Senior Public Prosecutor
employed by CBI and Delhi Police.
9. With respect to the nature of the job to be performed, as
pleaded by the writ petitioner, Public Prosecutor Grade I with
RPF deal with prosecution only with respect to 26 offences as
under:-
S.N. Section Description of Offences Maximum
imposition of
imprison-
ment and fine
(Rs.)
1. 137 Fraudulently travelling or attempting 6 months 1,000
to travel without proper pass or
ticket.
2. 141 Needless interference with means of 1 year 1,000
communication.
WP (C) No. 1533/1998 Page | 3
S.N. Section Description of Offences Maximum
imposition of
imprison-
ment and fine
(Rs.)
3. 142 Penalty for transfer of tickets 3 months 500
4. 143 Penalty for unauthorized carrying on 3 years 10,000
business of procuring and supplying
of Railway tickets.
5. 144 Prohibition on hawking and begging 1 year 2,000
7. 146 Obstructing Railway Servant in his 6 months 1,000
duties
8. 147 Trespass and refusal to desist from 6 months 1,000
trespass.
9. 150 Maliciously wrecking or attempting 2 years for
to wreck a train. first offence.
7 years for
second
offence.
Death or
imprisonment
for life.
10. 151 Damage to or destruction of certain 5 years or
Railway Property. fine or both
11. 152 Maliciously hurting or attempting to 10 years.
hurt persons travelling by Railway.
12. 153 Endangering safety of persons 5 years
travelling by Railway by willful act or
omission.
13. 154 Endangering safety of persons 1 year or fine
travelling by Railway by rash or or both.
negligent act or omission.
reserved or resisting entry into a
compartment not reserved.
15. 156 Travelling on roof steps or engine of 3 months 500
train.
16. 157 Altering of defacing pass or ticket. 3 months 500
17. 160 Opening or breaking a level crossing 3 years or 5
gate years
WP (C) No. 1533/1998 Page | 4
S.N. Section Description of Offences Maximum
imposition of
imprison-
ment and fine
(Rs.)
18. 161 Negligently crossing unmanned level 1 year
crossing.
reserved for female.
20. 164 Unlawfully bringing dangerous goods 3 years 1,000
on a Railway
children endangering safety of
person travelling on Railway
23. 172 Railway servant being in a state of 1 year or fine
intoxication or both
24. 173 Abandoning train etc. without 2 years 1,000
authority
25. 174 Obstructing running of train etc. 2 years 2,000
26. 175 Endangering the safety of persons 2 years 1,000
10. It be highlighted that 15 out of 26 offences are punishable
up to 1 year or with fine. 7 out of 26 offences are punishable
with imprisonment above 1 year and up to 3 years and only 4
are punishable with imprisonment beyond 3 years.
11. It is apparent that the prosecution conducted by the Senior
Public Prosecutor Grade I with RPF relate to petty offences.
12. We need not highlight the offences under the Indian Penal
Code which are dealt by Senior Public Prosecutors with CBI and
Delhi Police. To a person having elementary knowledge of the
Indian Penal Code it would be apparent that serious offences
punishable up to death or with life imprisonment, which are
quite a few in numbers, require to be dealt with by the Senior
Public Prosecutor employed by CBI or Delhi Police.
WP (C) No. 1533/1998 Page | 5
13. We find considerable qualitative difference in the duties
performed and further note that the nature of litigation
prosecuted by the Senior Public Prosecutor Grade I is much
lower in qualitative character.
14. Law requiring complete and wholesale identity before the
principle of equal pay for equal work can be applied; this being
missing in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the claim
of the petitioner No.1 cannot be sustained.
15. We note the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the Railway Protection Force has itself recommended to the
5th Pay Commission that the prosecution branch be brought at
par with that of Delhi Police and Central Bureau Investigation
and thus, cannot take a stand to the contrary. It is pleaded that
the department would be bound of estoppel.
16. It does happen, to keep the employee happy, when money
has not flown from his pocket the employer makes a
recommendation to Finance Wing and supports the claim of the
employee. It is the Finance Wing which considers whether the
purse should be loosened or not. For the purpose of court
jurisdiction, it would be the reasoning of the Finance
Department which would matter. Similarly, it is the reasoning of
an expert body which would be considered by the court and not
of a by-standing body. That apart, while recommending parity,
Railway Protection Force simply stated that its Prosecution Wing
be brought at par with that of Delhi Police and CBI, but gave no
justification for the same.
17. Decision relied upon, being the judgment reported as JT
2008 (1) SC 231, Union of India & Ors. vs. Dinesh K.K., is not
WP (C) No. 1533/1998 Page | 6
applicable in the present case. Observations herein that the
department having accepted the principle of equal pay for equal
work could not retract said stand in the pleadings before the
court, has to be understood with respect to the fact that the
department therein i.e. Assam Rifles, concurrence to which was
accorded by the Ministry of Home Affairs, had with respect to
the work of a Radio Mechanic brought out that Radio Mechanic
employed with Assam Rifles perform qualitatively and
quantitatively identical work as is performed by the Radio
Mechanics in the Central Paramilitary Forces. A complete and
wholesale identity was brought out in the recommendations
made by the Assam Rifles as also the Ministry of Home Affairs. It
was under said circumstances that the Supreme Court held that
having given good reason to support the claim before the
Central Pay Commission, merely pleading to the contrary would
not be a justified ground to be taken by the department.
18. We dismiss the writ petition but refrain from imposing any
costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J
SUNIL GAUR, J
JULY 06, 2011
pkb
WP (C) No. 1533/1998 Page | 7
