HIRA NAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(DLH)-2017-9-229
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decided on
September 22,2017
HIRA NAND
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF MYSORE VS. P NARASINGA RAO [REFERRED TO]RANDHIR SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
D S NAKARA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE STENOGRAPHERS RECOGNISED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. J P CHAURASIA [REFERRED TO]
MEWA RAM KANOJIA VS. ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [REFERRED TO]
V MARKENDEYA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARBANS LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GRIH KALYAN KENDRA WORKERS UNION VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. PRADIP KUMAR DEY [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. M R GANESH BABU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY VS. MANOJ K MOHANTY [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL VS. TARUN K ROY [REFERRED TO]
M P RURAL AGRICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
U P STATE SUGAR CORP LTD VS. SANT RAJ SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SOHAN SINGH SODHI VS. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD PATIALA [REFERRED TO]
S C CHANDRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [REFERRED TO]
OFFICIAL LIQUIDATOR VS. DAYANAND [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. RAMESH CHANDRA BAJPAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. WEST BENGL MINIMUM WAGES INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. DIBYENDU BHATTACHARYA [REFERRED TO]
UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION CHANDIGARH VS. MANJU MATHUR [REFERRED TO]
HUKUM CHAND GUPTA VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL, ICAR [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL ALUMINIUM CO. LTD. VS. ANANTA KISHORE ROUT [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION VS. T V L N MALLIKARJUNA RAO [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. VS. JAGJIT SINGH & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
SANJIV KHANNA,J. -
(1.)This is a second round of litigation by Hira Nand, the writ petitioner, who has prayed for quashing of Memorandum dated 5th March, 2004 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Memorandum dated 10th June, 1999 issued by the Directorate General of Security, Addendum dated 1st September, 1987 issued by the Cabinet Secretariat, Government of India, and order dated 8th February, 1999, passed by the Cabinet Secretariat being arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(2.)In nutshell, the prayer of the petitioner is that there cannot be any discrimination in the pay-scale of matriculate and non-matriculate Constable (General Duty) for they perform similar and identical work and duties. Divergence of pay-scales would be violative of the principle of "equal pay for equal work".
(3.)The petitioner had earlier challenged the Memorandum dated 5th March, 2004, vide W.P. (C) No. 13349/2005, which was admitted and had remained pending till 1st February, 2016. This petition was disposed of, without examining the contentions and issues on merits, observing that the writ petitioner, namely, Constable Hira Nand, had only challenged the aforesaid Memorandum and not the Addendum dated 1st September, 1987, issued by the Government of India. The petitioner, it was held, was seeking piecemeal relief. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition reserving his right to assail Recruitment Rules and the captioned Addendum/Memorandum.
(2.)In nutshell, the prayer of the petitioner is that there cannot be any discrimination in the pay-scale of matriculate and non-matriculate Constable (General Duty) for they perform similar and identical work and duties. Divergence of pay-scales would be violative of the principle of "equal pay for equal work".
(3.)The petitioner had earlier challenged the Memorandum dated 5th March, 2004, vide W.P. (C) No. 13349/2005, which was admitted and had remained pending till 1st February, 2016. This petition was disposed of, without examining the contentions and issues on merits, observing that the writ petitioner, namely, Constable Hira Nand, had only challenged the aforesaid Memorandum and not the Addendum dated 1st September, 1987, issued by the Government of India. The petitioner, it was held, was seeking piecemeal relief. The petitioner was permitted to withdraw the writ petition reserving his right to assail Recruitment Rules and the captioned Addendum/Memorandum.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.