RAMESH KUMAR GIRI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(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.) ARGUMENTS were addressed by Mr. Rajinder Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ashish Nischal, the learned counsel for the respondents.