Ramesh Kumar Giri vs Union Of India & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4988 Del

*       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

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

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

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

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

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

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