Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 251 (DEL)

G. K. K. PILLAI v. UNION OF INDIA

2002-02-19

VIJENDER JAIN, VUENDER JAIN

body2002
Vijender Jain ( 1 ) ( 2 ) THE present petition has been filed by the assistant Sub~inspectors (Radio Operators/ciphers/radio mechanics) working in the Border Security Force. Dr. Shyamala Pappu, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that as there were anomalies in the existing rank structure and pay scales of various cadres in the Central Police Organisations including the border Security Force, the matter was referred to 5th Pay commission. The 5th Pay Commission after considering the anomalies in the rank structure and pay scale of the central Police Organisations recommended parity among the employees of different Central Police Organisations in respect of rank structure, pay scale and other service conditions. ( 3 ) THE Government of India, Ministry of Finance vide its letter dated 30/09/1997 duly notified in the Gazette of India, after careful consideration of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission which inter alia contained Clause 7 to the following effect; "introspect of personnel of Central police Organisations, in the rank from constable to Subedar Major, Ministry of Home affairs will carry out an exercise for rationalisation of ranks so as to achieve parity with Delhi Police, pending which the scales recommended by the Fifth Code of Civil Procedure will be applied. " ( 4 ) IN the said annexure containing Part A, inter alia, reflected the existing scales of pay grades and the revised scales of pay was also notified. I need not go into the other scales of pay and grades. Suffice it would be to quote the relevant scale of pay which are relevant for adjudication of the matter as under :-It is the contention of the petitioner that although the Government rationalised the rank structure and pay scale of Central Police Organisations at par with delhi Police, however, the petitioners who are ASI in the communication wing of the Border Security Force (BSF) have not been accorded the benefits accrued to them because of the aforesaid rationalisation and the petitioners are receiving lesser pay scale than that of delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector performing the same duties. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Annexure 4 which is at page 48 of the paper-book, which is a statement regarding revised pay pay scale in respect of officers of Delhi Police. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Annexure 4 which is at page 48 of the paper-book, which is a statement regarding revised pay pay scale in respect of officers of Delhi Police. The same is as follows : ( 5 ) IT was contended before me that the Director general, Border Security Force itself recommended the case of ASI working under the BSF as operator/ciphers/radio mechanics for getting the grade of rs. 5000-150-8000 in the said recommendation. The additional points which/were recommended by the BSF to the Central Government highlighted the fact that as the government has recommended the pay scale of Central police Organisations at par with Delhi Police, the promotion avenue in the BSF personnel remains in the rank of ASIs for about more than 10 years and, therefore, the asis in BSF will be benefited even if the special pay is not given and finally at page 54 of the paper-book it was recommended that the ASIs serving in the BSF should be given the grade of Rs. 5000-150-8000 so as to bring the asis working in the BSF on parity with the pay scale of the ASIs working in Delhi Police as radio mechanics. ( 6 ) IT was contended by counsel for the petitioners that in view of the gazette notification issued by the government of India as reproduced above, there is no reason why the petitioner be discriminated and the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 be not given to the petitioner when the same grade is given to the Assistant sub-Inspector/radio Operators performing the same duties. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Keshav Dayal, learned senior counsel for the respondents has contended that the respondents have brought parity to the extent as mentioned in the Ministry of Home Affairs order dated 10. 10. 1997. It was contended that in view of 5th Pay commission report the pay scale of head constable/radio mechanics have been merged with ASI/rm and all posts of head constable in radio mechanics cadre were re-designated as ASI. The second limb of arguments advanced by Mr. Dayal was that the claim of ASI (Opr) for pay scale of Rs. 10. 1997. It was contended that in view of 5th Pay commission report the pay scale of head constable/radio mechanics have been merged with ASI/rm and all posts of head constable in radio mechanics cadre were re-designated as ASI. The second limb of arguments advanced by Mr. Dayal was that the claim of ASI (Opr) for pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 which is the pay scale of ASI (wireless operator) in Delhi Police, cannot be given to the petitioners as there is no direct entry in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (wireless operator) in BSF and secondly no comparison can be made between direct recruit of Delhi Police with the promoted Assistant Sub-Inspector (Operators) of BSF who are initially appointed as head constables. An effort was made by learned counsel for the -respondent to argue that the qualification for the post of ASI (Operator)/radio Mechanics in BSF is different than educational qualification required for asi/radio operator in Delhi Police. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has cited federation of All India Customs and Central Excise stenographers (Recognised) and Others Vs. Union of India and others AIR 1988 SC 1291 . On the basis of the aforesaid authority, it was contended before me that the functions may be the same but the responsibility makes a difference and that difference is a matter of degree and that is the element of value judgment which is in the domain of the- executive and the Court should not interfere in the said domain. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent also cited sita Devi and Others etc. Vs. State of Haryana and Others air 1996 SC 2764 . In support of his submission Mr. Dayal has also cited Garhwal Jal Sansthan Karmachari Union and anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1997 SC 2143 and on the basis of the aforesaid authorities, he contended that the duties performed by the ASI of Delhi police was qualitatively different than performed by asi/radio operators of the Border Security Force. Mr. Dayal In support of his arguments has further relied upon State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Pramod Bhartiya and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 539 as well as Randhir Sinah Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1982 SC 879 - ( 9 ) IT was further contended by Mr. Mr. Dayal In support of his arguments has further relied upon State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Pramod Bhartiya and Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 539 as well as Randhir Sinah Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1982 SC 879 - ( 9 ) IT was further contended by Mr. Dayal that the petitioners were not entitled to get the pay scale of rs. 5000-150-8000 In view of the fact that they were given replacement scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000, which was applicable to Delhi Police Assistant Sub-Inspector (Executive), who were drawing the pay scale of rs. 1320-2040 (pre revised) which was similar to Border security Force Assistant Sub-Inspector. ( 10 ) I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. At the outset It must be borne In mind that Director general of Border Security Force Itself has recommended for grant of pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 to the assistant Sub-Inspector working In BSF as radio operators as per page 54 of the paper-book. Based on the report of the Deputy Director, a note dated 23. 10. 1997 was sent to the Head quarter of BSF. The Inspector General of BSF on 23. 10. 1997 issued a circular dated 23. 10. 1997 (which is at page 56 of the paper-book) and in the said circular in para 6 request was forwarded to the Ministry of Home affairs which is reproduced below; "asi (RO)CIPHER: The posts exist in delhi Police also for which the revised scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 has been approved. It is suggested that ASIs (RO/ cipher in BSF also should placed in the same scale. " ( 11 ) AS a matter of fact why this anomaly remained can be seen from the reference made to the Ministry of Home affairs by the Director General, BSF as the order issued on 10. 10. 1997 revising the rank structure and pay scale of non-gazette staff of Central Police Organisations covered only executive staff which means that an ASI (Executive) working in Delhi Police and Assistant sub-Inspector working in BSF who were not performing the duties of radio technicians or cipher were not brought under the said circular. 10. 1997 revising the rank structure and pay scale of non-gazette staff of Central Police Organisations covered only executive staff which means that an ASI (Executive) working in Delhi Police and Assistant sub-Inspector working in BSF who were not performing the duties of radio technicians or cipher were not brought under the said circular. Although in principle it was agreed by the Central Government on the basis of the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission that the rank structure and the pay scale of all non-gazetted Central police Organisations officers vis-a-vis the pay scale of delhi Police has to be rationalised. Although, Mr. Dayal tried to distinguish the case of the petitioners by taking the plea that the essential requirements or the eligibility criterion in the case of ASI (R) working in the BSF and Delhi Police are different, the nature of duties and the responsibilities performed by the two are different. This argument, I will deal later. ( 12 ) FROM the perusal of Annexure Part A of the notification issued by the Government of India on 30th september, 1997 in relation to categories mentioned at serial Nos. 7, 8 and 9, which has been reproduced above, the revised pay scale are (i) Rs. 4000-100-6000, (ii) rs. 4500-125-7000 and (iii) Rs. 5000-150-8000, the sub-Inspector (Radio) working in the BSF as well as inspectors Radio mechanics working in the BSF have been given the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 and rs. 6500-200-10500, the same pay scale which has been given to the Sub-inspector and Inspector Radio mechanics in Delhi Police. ASI is the feeder service form which sub-Inspector and Inspector are promoted, if sub-Inspector and Inspector who are promoted from assistant Sub-Inspector are eligible and given the same pay scale which Sub-inspector and Inspector are working in Delhi Police are getting, then there is no basis or rationality in denying the same to the petitioners. ( 13 ) IT was contended before me that the nature of duties as well as qualifications for ASIs (R) working in bsf and Delhi Police are different. During the course of arguments, a comparative chart, inter alia, requiring the academic qualifications and nature of duties of ASI (RO) of BSF and Delhi Police was filed. It makes an interesting reading. As a matter of fact, it falsifies the stand of the respondent. During the course of arguments, a comparative chart, inter alia, requiring the academic qualifications and nature of duties of ASI (RO) of BSF and Delhi Police was filed. It makes an interesting reading. As a matter of fact, it falsifies the stand of the respondent. While taking into consideration, the comparative chart and the educational qualification at the entry level in BSF for head constable (RO), the qualification are matriculate or equivalent plus two years ITI certificate in radio and tv/electronics or intermediate or 10 + 2 equivalent with physics, Chemistry and Maths from a recognised board of education, whereas in Delhi Police the ASI can be appointed by direct recruitment only on the basis of (a) matriculation, (b) second class certificate of competency as wireless Operator issued by the Ministry of Transport and Communications or having passed Grade-11 proficiency test of wireless operator conducted/approved by the DCPM (Directorate of Coordination of Police wireless), (c) two years practical experience in the actual operation of radio sets, preferably the vhf, in Civil Aviation, P and T deptt. Rlys. or any Govt. agency. ( 14 ) FROM the bare perusal of the comparative chart filed by the respondents, the requirement for entry into the basic level of head constable operator in the BSF is matriculate or equivalent plus two years ITI certificate in radio and TV/electronics or intermediate or 10 + 2 or equivalent with Physics, Chemistry and Maths from a recognised Board or Institution and if the person has to be promoted to ASI, he must have minimum five years of service as head constable operator. He has to undergo a training of map reading. He has to further undergo a pre-promotion qualification required for ASI operator i. e. upgradation operation course to be passed. ( 15 ) WHY I have highlighted this is to show that the bsf itself has recommended as I have discussed above that the ASI (wireless operator) be granted the same pay scale as has been given to the ASI (wireless operator) of Delhi police. By filing this comparative statement it was sought to be argued that the essential qualification which was required was different than that of the BSF. A comparative chart of the duties of ASI/ro, BSF as well as asi Radio Operator, Delhi Police was also filed, which also makes a very interesting reading. By filing this comparative statement it was sought to be argued that the essential qualification which was required was different than that of the BSF. A comparative chart of the duties of ASI/ro, BSF as well as asi Radio Operator, Delhi Police was also filed, which also makes a very interesting reading. The same is given below : ( 16 ) TAKING into consideration the duties as filed by the respondent, the duties and functions of ASI/ro, BSF are far more onerous in comparison to the duties performed by ASI, Operator, Delhi Police. From the bare perusal of the chart given by the respondent, the degree of skill, experience, training, responsibility, strain, fatigue, risk, confidentiality undertaken and physical requirement are factors which are to be borne in mind. The authorities cited by learned counsel for the respondent of Federation of All India Customs and Central excise Stenographers (Recognised) and Others (supra) lays down that the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service and so long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. In the case before hand, the value judgment of the respondent, if based on the conditions set out by Supreme Court then this Court would be reluctant in interfering with the said value judgment. But in the case before hand after taking a decision that a parity in pay scale has to be maintained in terms of structure as well as scales of all non-gazetted officers working in the BSF along with Delhi Police, non-allowing the same pay scale to ASIs (R), BSF with those of the asis of Delhi Police, the value judgment is totally irrational and based on no basis. The case of Sita Devi and Others (supra), cited by learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the present case. In sita Devi s case, the Supreme Court held that the grievance made by the petitioner was not acceptable as the petitioners who were non-matriculate instructors in adult literacy programme wanted to have a parity with those who were matriculate. In sita Devi s case, the Supreme Court held that the grievance made by the petitioner was not acceptable as the petitioners who were non-matriculate instructors in adult literacy programme wanted to have a parity with those who were matriculate. Similarly the authority cited By learned counsel for the respondent of Garhwal jal Sansthan Karmachari Union (supra) was based on qualitative difference in duties on the ground that employees working in Jal Nigam and Jal Nigam having wider jurisdiction while the Garhwal Jal Sansthan was exercising jurisdiction only on local bodies. ( 17 ) HERE I may recall Randhir Singh s case (supra ). Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the bench said : "me concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same. " ( 18 ) I do not find any force in the arguments of counsel for the respondents that petitioners have failed to discharge the burden of establishing their right to equal pay on the person claiming the same as per the decision of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Pramod bhartiya (supra ). As a matter of fact, in view of the recommendations of the BSF that the petitioners were performing the same duties as that of ASI/radio Operators in Delhi Police and in view of the recommendations made by the BSF to the Central Government that the petitioners were entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000, there was no question of discharging onus by the petitioners. After the comparative statement has been filed by the respondents, the duties, responsibilities functions are nearly the same which are performed by asi/operators BSF and ASI/ Radio operators, Delhi Police, if not more by ASI (Operator) BSF. 5000-8000, there was no question of discharging onus by the petitioners. After the comparative statement has been filed by the respondents, the duties, responsibilities functions are nearly the same which are performed by asi/operators BSF and ASI/ Radio operators, Delhi Police, if not more by ASI (Operator) BSF. Equal pay for equal work is implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution of India and if cause of action relating to the pay scale is based on irrationality and unreasonableness. Article 14 comes into play. In view of the records placed regarding the responsibilities, duties and functions, same being similar in nature, the non-grant of similar pay scale as that of Delhi Police is irrational and without any basis. Net result is respondents are directed to bring parity in respect of pay scale of the personnel of Communication wing (ASIs) of BSF with the communication wing (ASIs) of delhi Police by granting the same pay scale of rs. 5000-150-8000 to the petitioners w. e. f. the date it has been granted to the ASIs, wireless. Radio operators, technicians in Delhi Police. Arrears of difference be paid within a period of three months from the date of order. ( 19 ) RULE is made absolute. Petition stands disposed of.