( 1 ) IN this petition, petitioners are demanding revision in pay scales fromretrospective date i. e. w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996. Revision in pay scales have been given tothe petitioners but prospectively only i. e. w. e. f. 10. 10. 1997 when the orders to thiseffect were issued.

( 2 ) PETITIONERS in this case are working invarious ranks namely Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Constable in Para Military Organisations like ITBP, CRPF and BSFas non-gazetted combatised cadre of the Central Police Organisations (CPOs inshort) being the armed forces of UOI. ITBP, CRPF and BSF are CPOs under theministry of Home Affairs, other two being Assam Rifles and CISF. All these 5 CPOsare declared armed forces of the Union by Acts of Parliament. According to thepetitioners, IV Central Pay Commission in its recommendations to the Governmenthad suggested that there should be uniformity in the pay scales of the personnel inall these 5 CPOs and it recommended same scale for Delhi Police and CPOs. However while implementing the recommendations, Government granted higherpay scales to subordinate officers of Delhi Police, IB and CBI but denied the samepay scale to the personnel of CPOs. The pay scales as. implemented by thegovernment in respect of CPOs personnel and Delhi Police personnel w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986are as under:

( 3 ) IN fact the pay scales of CPOs as given by the Government and mentionedabove were the same as recommended by IVth Central Pay Commission. However the personnel of Delhi Police were given higher pay scales thanrecommended by IV Central Pay Commission. As CPOs personnel were givenlesser pay scales than their counterparts in Delhi Police, this disparity wasprotested. It is stated by the petitioners that although the Government realisedthat the petitioners were entitled to same pay scale, due to time factor to completethe process and limitation of the Government for the payment of huge arrears whenthe country was facing financial crisis during 1989-90 the upgradation of the CPOscould not be implemented at that time but assurances were given by respondents 1and 2 to the effect that such anomalies and disparities would be removed in the Vthpay Commission. Vth Pay Commission which was set up by Resolution dated9. 4. 1994 gave its report on 30. 1. 1997. However, according to the petitioners, it didnot consider the representations made by respondents 3 to 5 recommending forparity in pay scales of subordinate officers and other in CPOs qua Delhi Policepersonnel and recommended the normal replacement scales of subordinate officersin CPOs which are as under :

( 4 ) AS anomaly persisted, matter was referred by Ministry of Home Affairs forreview of pay structure of such personnel to Committee of Secretaries and Group o1ministers of the. Government Resolution No. 50 (1) IC/97 dated 30. 9. 1997 was issuedby Ministry of Finance as per which the pay scales of the subordinate officers ofcpos were brought at par with the pay scales enjoyed by their counterparts in Delhipolice, IB and CBI. However para 7 of this Resolution reads as under :-In respect of personnel of Central Police Organisations, in the rank fromconstable to Subedar Major, Ministry of Home Affairs will carry out anexercise for rationalisation of ranks so as to achieve parity with Delhi Police,pending which the scales recommended by the Fifth Civil Procedure Code will be applied. "

( 5 ) FROM para 7, it is clear that the petitioners for time being were given the payscales as recommended by V Central Pay Commission. However exercise forrationalisation of ranks so as to achieve parity with Delhi Police was to be undertaken. This exercise was ultimately undertaken and it resulted in issuance of order dated10. 10. 1997 as per which the pay scales of subordinate officers in CPOs wererationalised and were brought at par with the pay scales being given to Delhi Police. However in para 5 of this order it was mentioned that it would be effective fromdate of issue and for the period from 1. 1.