SUNIL KUMAR AND ORS. Vs. UOI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions, identical reliefs are sought: in W.P.(C) 1358/2014, the petitioners, working as Combatised Staff Nurses (holding the rank of Sub -Inspector [SI]) seek parity of pay with Non -Combatised Staff Nurses. In W.P.(C) 3829/2014, the petitioners seek similar relief in the form of parity with Nursing Sister, in the grade pay of Rs. 4600/ - (PB -2) in the pay scale of Rs. 9300 -34800 of the Indo Tibetan Border Police Force (ITBP) in the case of all petitioners, except Petitioner Nos. 10,12,18,19 and 20 - in the case of the latter, they seek the grade pay of Rs. 4800/ -. The ITBP Petitioners are also working as Nurses. Both complain that their employers have acted arbitrarily in denying them a normal replacement scale pertaining to Category S -10 after the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, (2008 Rules) by granting them a lower grade. They say that given the arduous nature of their duties of Staff Nurses entitles them to be placed in Pay Band -2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/ - and Nursing Sisters drawing Rs. 5500 -9000 to be placed in Pay Band -2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/ -.

(2.) THE CRPF has both Combatised and Non -Combatised Staff Nurses. Before 01.01.2006 both categories of Nurses were being paid 'Nursing Allowance' at the rate applicable to Nursing personnel of Central Government Hospitals. Then, Combatised Staff Nurses like the Petitioners were drawing a higher pay in the scale of Rs. 5500 -175 -9000/ - while their Non -Combatised counterparts, i.e. Staff Nurses in CRPF were placed in a slightly lower pay scale of Rs. 5000 -150 -8000/ -. The Petitioners rely on the extracts of Paras 1.2.18, 3.6.16, 3.8.1, 3.8.3(e) and 3.8.15 of VIth Central Pay Commission (hereafter VIth PC) Report. The Petitioners explain that differential pay whereby combatised nurses were given slightly higher pay is because they were trained for handling arms and they are expected to maintain high standards of physical fitness and are posted in field areas, as compared with non -combatised staff nurses.

(3.) COUNSEL for the CRPF staff nurses submitted that granting revision and pay relief in accord with the VIth PC recommendations only to Non -Combatised staff nurses, while denying it to Combatised staff nurses is discriminatory. Stressing that before the report and recommendations as well as the 2008 Rules, in fact the Combatised staff nurses were given slightly higher pay, it was urged that denying parity was indefensible. At the very outset it should be noted that in writ petition, in line with the position as it existed before the 2008 Rules, the petitioners prayed for the upgraded pay -scale of Rs. 7500 -12000 and Grade Pay of Rs. 4800, however in the course of their arguments limited the relief prayed for to a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600, the same as that of Non -Combatised staff nurses under the VIth PC. Ms. Rekha Palli, learned senior counsel relied upon recommendations of the VIth PC report and urged that if the Central Government felt that there was a need to depart from it, vis -a -vis combatised nurses, some reasons germane to the subject had to be forthcoming. Learned senior counsel emphasized that combatised staff nurses are made to face more hardship and are required to discharge responsibilities under more arduous conditions than non -combatised nurses. In addition, they have to undergo arms training and bear arms whenever required. These features have remained unchanged. Therefore, denying parity with non -combatised staff nurses, is unjustified and discriminatory.