JEET RAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C .M. Appl. No. 136/2015 (Exemption) Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

(2.) IN the present case, the Petitioners were appointed on the post of Constable in Secretariat Security Force (SSF) and retired on the post of Sub -Inspector. They approached the learned CAT seeking direction for revision of their pay scales from Rs.4500 -7000 to Rs.5500 -9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 or from the date of their promotion to the post of SubInspector, whichever is later, equal and at par with that of Sub -Inspectors to their counterpart Sub -Inspectors in CISF. It is a case of these Petitioners that after the grant of parity in the pay scale of constables and head constables in SSF, with their counter parts in the CISF, the case of Sub -Inspectors and Inspectors in CISF also deserve similar parity. Earlier also O.A. No. 2207/2010 was preferred by these Petitioners wherein the learned CAT vide order dated 15.07.2010 gave a direction to the respondents to take a decision for revision of pay scales from Rs.4500 - 7000 to Rs.5500 -9000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 as had been granted to their counterpart in CISF but by the order dated 10.09.2010 passed by the respondents they declined the request of these Petitioners for the reasons stated therein. The Petitioners again approached the Tribunal by filing a fresh O.A. No. 2401/2011 challenging the said order and sought pay parity alongwith their counterpart in CISF, however the learned CAT dismissed the same.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that the issue regarding comparability of duties in all the equivalent posts in SSF and CISF was duly considered by the 5th Pay Commission and while considering the grant of revised pay scales to the SSF personnel, it observed that since the incumbents of the post in both organizations performed identical duties, the intention must be to grant existing cadres in SSF pay scale at par with their counterparts in CISF. Learned counsel also urged that the recommendations of the 5 th Pay Commission were considered by the Government and accepted without any reservation as a result of which Constable and Head Constable in SSF were placed in the identical scale as that of their counterpart in the CISF but in so far as other cadre of Sub Inspector is concerned, the process of merger was selectively adopted and disbanded by the respondents due to administrative difficulties. Learned counsel further argued that even the 6th Pay Commission in its report in para 7.19.47 discussed the pay structure of SSF and considered the demand of higher pay scale for Sub -Inspectors and other security related duties at par with that of CISF. Learned counsel also submits that in any case the relativity of SSF and CISF as ruled by 5th Pay Commission was duly accepted by Ministry of Finance and therefore, there could be no valid ground to deny the equal pay to these Petitioners at par with their counter parts in CISF. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal by making a reference to 7th Pay Commission for redressal of their grievances ignored the fact that the right of the Petitioners emanates from the recommendations already made by the 5th Pay Commission.