Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Navin Chawla, JJ.
Sant Ram - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 13885 of 2021
Decided On : 08-12-2021
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - Employment Rights
Headnote
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - The court has directed the respondent to treat petition as a representation to be decided with a reasoned order within a stipulated timeline and clarified that it leaves contentions of all parties open. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is a head constable with grievances about being on lesser pay compared to his juniors since his promotion. Requests made to the respondents for rectification have remained undecided.
Findings of Court:
The court does not comment on the merits but orders a timely resolution with clear directives for the respondents.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondent’s inaction to rectify the petitioner’s pay was justifiable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasizes the need for timely corrective action in administrative matters affecting service rights, specifically reiterating the importance of fair treatment and equality within the ranks.
Result: Writ petition disposed with directions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. entitlement to equal pay for equal work. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. notice issued for representation. (Para 3) |
| 3. court orders decision on representation. (Para 4) |
JUDGMENT
Manmohan, J. (Oral)
C.M.No.43831/2021
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) No.13885/2021
1. Present writ petition has been filed seeking correction of the petitioner's basic pay and direction to the respondents to fix the basic pay of the Petitioner at Rs.52,000/- per month at par with his juniors and other similarly placed individuals. Petitioner also seeks arrears as calculated after re-fixation of basic pay and subsequent benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner joined the CRPF as a Constable (GD) in 1985 and was promoted to head constable in February, 2002. He states that in 2018, the petitioner came to know that the petitioner was getting lesser basic pay than his similarly placed colleagues. He further states that though subsequently, the petitioner sent multiple requests to the respondents to rectify the same, yet the said requests have not been decided till date.
3. Issue notice. Ms.Suman Chauhan, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. Keeping in view the aforesaid, this Court disposes of the present writ petition by directing the respondent no.4 to treat the present writ petition as a representation of the petitioner and decide the same by way of a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within six weeks. It is clarified that this Court has not commented on the merit of the controversy. The rights and contentions of all the parties are left open.
