Personnel holding similar posts and responsibilities are entitled to similar pay and allowances, and should not be discriminated based on their method of recruitment.

JUDGMENT

Suresh Kumar Kait, J. - The ninety one petitioners in the present petition, who are Assistant Sub-Inspectors (ASI) in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), are seeking quashing of order dated 19.08.2020 or any other similar orders, whereby their representations seeking correct fixation of pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006, has been rejected. Petitioners claim that w.e.f. 01.01.2006, they were granted first financial upgradation to the pay scale of the ASI and, therefore, while seeking parity with petitioners in Vinoj V.V. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12714; W.P.(C) 4854/2020, titled as Krishan Kumar & Ors. Vs. Union of India & ors. and W.P.(C) No. 4905/2020, titled as Malkhan Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & ors. wherein by virtue of decisions dated 30.11.2018; 04.08.2020 and 05.08.2020 respectively, they are seeking a direction to the respondents to re-fix their pay with basic pay of Rs. 8,560/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- i.e. Rs. 11,360 w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

2. It is averred in the petition that the factual matrix of the case with regard to all the petitioners is more or less similar, therefore, the facts pertaining to petitioner No.1- Shri Devender Pal Singh be considered in the present petition. Thus, the present petition is being heard and decided on the facts contended on behalf of petitioner No.1- Devender Pal Singh.

3. According to petitioner, he had joined the services of CISF on the post of HC- DCPO in the year 1993 in the pay band of Rs. 975-25-1150-30-1660. In the year 1999, by virtue of notification dated 01.08.1999, two financial up-gradations on completion of 12 years and 24 years were granted. In the year 2005, the petitioner was granted first financial upgradation under Assured Career Progression (ACP) in the rank of ASI and pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 was granted and with one notional increment and his basic pay was fixed at Rs. 4,200/-. For the purpose of implementation of recommendations under the Sixth Pay Commission, petitioner's pay was counted as Rs. 4,300/- which after applying multiplier of 1.86 was fixed to Rs. 8,000/- plus Rs. 2,800/- grade pay.

4. Petitioner has claimed that subsequent to implementation of recommendations under the Sixth Pay Commission, the entry grade for the rank of ASI was fixed at Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay Rs. 2,800/- and was fixed at Rs. 8,560/-. It is submitted that the salary of new entrants recruited in the force pursuant to recommendations of the Sixth Pay Commission was fixed at Rs. 8560/- plus grade pay of Rs. 2,800/- i.e. Rs. 11,360/-; whereas after rendering service of 13 years, petitioner's salary was fixed with the basic of Rs. 8,000/-. The grievance raised by petitioner in the present petition is that the entry pay for the rank of ASI is Rs. 5,200-20200 with grade pay Rs. 2,800/- and the entry grade pay is Rs. 8560/-, however, his basic pay has been fixed at Rs. 8000/- on the basis of entry grade pay, which is lower than the prescribed limit for rank of ASI. It is claimed that as per CCS(RP) Rules, 2008, the revised pay band of ASI is Rs. 5,200-20200 with grade pay Rs. 2,800 and therefore, the entry grade pay for the rank of ASI is Rs. 8,560/-.

5. Petitioner has further averred that even pursuant to grant of 2nd MACP in the year 2014 in the pay band of Rs. 35,400-1,12,400 for the post of SI, his fixation was incorrectly done and he was granted basic pay of Rs. 50,500/- whereas the direct recruits were granted the pay band with basic pay of Rs. 52,000/-. The petitioner claims to have raised the aforesaid grievance before the competent authority by filing a representation, which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 19.08.2020 primarily stating that the petitioner was not directly recruited to the rank of ASI after 01.01.2006, so he is not entitled to entry level pay as per the provisions of OM No. 8-23/2017-E.III dated 28.09.2018.

6. During the course of hearing, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that due to incor