Delhi High Court
Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Ors vs Anil Kumar & Ors on 20 May, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~103
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 20.05.2025
+ W.P.(C) 8908/2006
GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, Standing
Counsel GNCTD Services with
Mr. Nitesh Kr. Singh, Ms.
Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza
Alam, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat
& Mr. Amitoj Chadha, Advs.
versus
ANIL KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. S.K. Gupta & Mr. Udit
Gupta, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioners, challenging the
Order dated 02.03.2005 passed by the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as,
'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 2291/2004 titled Anil Kumar & Ors. v. Govt.
of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
2. By the said Impugned Order, the learned Tribunal has allowed
the said O.A. filed by the respondents herein, by setting aside the
Order dated 05.09.2004 whereby the petitioners herein had refused to
grant upgradation of pay scale of Process Servers to the respondents,
in pursuance of the judgment dated 04.04.2002 passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.3060/1989 titled Bailiff & Process Servers Association
(Regd.) & Ors. v. Delhi Administration Delhi & Ors., only on the
ground that the respondents were not members of the association that
had filed the said Writ Petition before this Court wherein the judgment
dated 04.04.2002 had been passed.
3. The learned Tribunal, observing that the petitioners had not
refuted the claim of the respondents that they were similarly placed to
those who had approached this Court by way of the said Writ Petition,
directed the petitioners to extend the benefit of the abovementioned
judgment of this Court to the respondents as well, including arrears in
pay, which were to be restricted to three years preceding the date of
filing of the O.A.
4. By the judgment dated 04.04.2002 passed in W.P.(C)
No.3060/1989, this Court had directed that the pay scale of the
Bailiffs and the Process Servers working in the District Courts should
be the same as that of the Process Servers working in the Family
Courts.
5. Based on the said judgment, the respondents had filed a
representation seeking upgradation of their pay scale, claiming that
they were also similarly placed to the Process Servers and the Bailiffs
in the District Courts, though they were working as Process Servers in
the Food Adulteration Department of the petitioners.
6. The petitioners, vide Order dated 05.09.2004, had rejected the
representation of the respondents, solely on the ground that they were
not members of the association which had filed the said Writ Petition
wherein the judgment dated 04.04.2002 had been passed by this
Court.
7. Aggrieved thereof, the respondents filed the above O.A. which,
as noted hereinabove, was allowed by the learned Tribunal based on
the petitioners' own concession that the respondents were similarly
placed to the Process Servers and the Bailiffs who had been granted a
higher pay scale by this Court.
8. The petitioners have now challenged the above order of the
learned Tribunal before this Court, contending that the respondents are
not similarly situated to the Process Servers and the Bailiffs of the
District Courts. They contend that the respondents are governed by
different recruitment rules and do not perform as onerous a job as that
performed by the Process Servers and the Bailiffs of the District
Courts.
9. We are afraid we cannot go into this question. Once it has
already been conceded by the petitioners before the learned Tribunal
that the respondents are similarly situated to the Process Servers and
the Bailiffs working in the District Courts, the learned Tribunal rightly
did not need to have further considered this issue. Once it had been
conceded by the petitioners that the respondents were similarly placed
as the Process Servers and the Bailiffs working in the District Courts,
the respondents could not have been denied a similar pay scale solely
on the ground that they were not members of the association that had
filed the said Writ Petition before this Court. The application of the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not based on the respondents
being members of the association. Relief has been granted by this
Court on the nature of the work being performed by the two sets of
employees and other surrounding circumstances. Therefore, as noted
hereinabove, once the petitioners had conceded the position that the
respondents performed similar work and were otherwise similarly
placed to the Process Servers and the Bailiffs of the District Courts,
the respondents have rightly been granted the benefit of the relief that
was granted to the Process Servers and the Bailiffs of the District
Courts in the form of upgradation of their pay scale.
10. We, therefore, find no infirmity in the Impugned Order. The
present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
11. We, however, leave the question of parity between the Process
Servers working in the Food Adulteration Department of the
Government of NCT of Delhi and the Process Servers and the Bailiffs
working in the District Courts, to be considered in an appropriate case
if this question, at all, arises.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RENU BHATNAGAR, J
MAY 20, 2025/pr/sm/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
