Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1148

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Rajesh Mazumdar, J.
Ratul Dutta And Anr - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Assam Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Home And Political Department And Ors – Respondents
WP(C) 6540 of 2021, WP(C) 3381 of 2021
Decided On : 09-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. I. H. Saikia
For the Respondent: Mr. R. Borpujari, SC

Selective implementation of pay commission recommendations that excludes specific wings of a department without rational justification constitutes arbitrary discrimination, violating the right to equality under the Constitution, and warrants judicial intervention to ensure parity for similarly placed cadres.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Right to equality - Discrimination in service benefits - Denial of revised grade pay to specific staff cadre while granting the same to other cadres under the same department without rational justification - Violation of Article 14 - When the executive fails to provide a logical basis for the discriminatory implementation of pay commission recommendations among similarly placed internal wings of a department, the court is empowered to intervene to rectify the anomaly. (Paras 46, 50, 51)

(B) Service Law - Pay parity - Implementation of pay commission recommendations - Where recommendations do not explicitly exclude specific wings of a department, but the executive chooses to arbitrarily exclude those wings from receiving benefits granted to the rest of the department, such exclusion is unsustainable - Judicial review is permissible to correct anomalies that amount to discrimination despite the limited scope of review in pay-related matters. (Paras 46, 47, 50)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, serving as technical staff in a specialized radio wing of a state police force, challenged the denial of revised grade pay. While other establishments under the same department received enhanced pay following pay commission recommendations, the petitioners were excluded. The authorities contended that no specific recommendation existed for the petitioners' cadre, despite the general recommendations applying to the entire department.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the exclusion was arbitrary and discriminatory. The state failed to provide a rational justification for why other wings received the benefits while the petitioners were denied, despite being under the same superior control. The court held that the executive action lacked application of mind and bypassed the constitutional guarantee of equality.

Issues: Whether the denial of revised grade pay to the petitioners, while extending the same to other functional wings of the same departmental organization, constitutes arbitrary discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: Pay commission recommendations intended for a departmental organization cannot be selectively implemented to exclude a specific wing without a rational basis. Selectivity that denies benefits to a subset of employees under the same administrative control, where such employees are otherwise similarly placed regarding rank and duty, is discriminatory and warrants judicial interference.

Result: Writ petition allowed. Impugned orders set aside; authorities directed to grant specified grade pay effective from the prescribed date, with arrears to be paid within the stipulated period.

Table of Content
1. historical context and previous litigation regarding status and pay parity of apro personnel. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. implementation and notifications of the 7th pay commission regarding salary and grade pay adjustments. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. petitioner's claim of discrimination and entitlement to pay parity under article 14 of the constitution. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. respondent's defense based on judicial restraint in executive pay fixation and denial of equal pay claims. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41)
5. court's analysis confirming discriminatory denial of uniform pay structure implementation within the home department. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)
6. quashing of the impugned government order and mandate for implementation of the revised grade pay. (Para 51 , 52 , 53)

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel for the Finance Department.

2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are serving as Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Head Constables, respectively, in the Assam Police Radio Organization (APRO) under the Director General of Police, Assam, Department of Home Affairs, Assam. They are aggrieved as, according to them, they have not been granted the appropriate revised grade pay in the ranks of Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade I), Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade II) and Head Constable of the Assam Police Radio Organization (APRO) although counterparts who serve under the same Director General of Police in the Home Department have been granted the said benefits on acceptance of the recommendations of the 7th Assam Pay and Productivity Commission (hereinafter referred to as 7th APPC for convenience).

BRIEF FACTS:

3. It is the case of the petitioner that equilibrium was maintained between the Grade Pay of ranks in the APRO and the corresponding ranks in the Assam Police (AB/UB) posts in all the revisions of pay prior to the implementation of the recommendations of the 7th Pay Commission. According to the petitioners, the parity maintained under the revision of pay under the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission was as follows:

(a) The posts figuring in the ASI Grade I of the APRO were authorised a pay scale of Rs. 3130-6600/-, which is one step higher in the pay scale than the pay scale authorised to the posts figuring in the ASI (UB/AB) of the Assam Police and ASI Grade II of the APRO.

(b) The ASI Grade II of the APRO were authorised a pay scale of Rs. 3010-6075/- and the same pay scale was also authorised to the posts figuring in the ASI (UB/AB) of the Assam Police.

(c) The Head Constable (earlier known as Constable Grade II, and later redesignated as Head Constables), of the APRO, were authorised a pay scale of Rs. 2890-6725/- and the same pay scale was also authorised to the post of Head Constable (AB/UB), of the Assam Police.

4. Being aggrieved by a disparity in the ranks between the incumbent serving in the APRO and the incumbent serving in the other sub-organization under the Directorate General of Police, a few Constables (Wireless Operator/Wireless Technician) had preferred WP(C) 6712 of 2010. The petitioners in that case had sought a redesignation of their ranks to be upgraded to the rank of Head Constable. The order dated 18.12.2013 disposing of the aforesaid writ petition is quoted herein below for ease of reference:

“2. Nevertheless, I may refer to the salient features of the case as projected by both the petitioners and the State respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition for clarity. The petitioners were appointed as Constable (Wireless Operator /Wireless Technician) with the requisite qualification of 10+2 (Science) pass with Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics in the pay scale of ‘2650-5200/- along with other admissible allowances on various dates between 2001-2002

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Gau) 1148

Cases Referred (8)