Equal pay for equal work principle violated when identical posts have differing pay scales.

JUDGMENT

The above writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

“i). to declare that the wife of the petitioner is entitled for fixation of basic pay fixed @ Rs 8560 + GP Rs 2800 in w.e f 01.01.2006 at par with junior ASI/Stenographers and to grant consequential benefits including re-fixation of pension and other benefits in the light of Exts. P-5, P-5 and P-9;

ii). to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, directing the 4th and the 6th respondents to re-fix the pay @ Rs 8560 + GP Rs 2800 in w.e.f 01.01.2006 at par with junior ASI/Stenographers and to grant consequential benefits including re-fixation of pension and other benefits in the light of P-5, P-5 and P-9;

iii). to issue such other reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

2. The issue pertains to refixation of basic pay of the petitioner’s wife, who was working as ASI/Clerk in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), who died on 14.03.2018 in a road accident and the petitioner whereby became the family pensioner of his demised wife. The wife of the petitioner was directly appointed in the CISF as Assistant Sub Inspector/Ministerial on 07.01.2002 in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-100- 6000. Consequent upon the implementation of the 6^th pay commission as well as Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the pay of Assistant Sub Inspector/Clerk/Ministerial including the wife of the petitioner was re-fixed @ Rs.8190/- + 2800/- (GP) w.e.f 01.01.2006 as per Ext.P1. However, the pay of direct recruits appointed on or after 01.06.2006 in the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector/Stenographer in CISF, which is the same cadre of that of the wife of the petitioner and junior to her, was fixed @ Rs.8560 + GP of Rs.2800 in a higher scale than that of the wife of the petitioner. To substantiate the same Ext.P2 pay fixation order dated 19.01.2009 in respect of one Vimal Anand working as ASI/Stenographer is produced, which reveals that there is a difference of Rs.470/- in the basic pay of the petitioner’s wife with her Junior Assistant Sub Inspector/Stenographers appointed in CISF on or after 01.06.2006. Petitioner submits that the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector in CISF consists of Clerks/Stenographers/Executive/Fire and the personnel of this wing carries same pay and allowances applicable to Assistant Sub Inspector even though their duties are different. However, the post of Assistant Sub Inspector/Clerk and Assistant Sub Inspector/Stenographer perform more or less similar jobs and their duties are interchangeable. Thereupon Ext.P3 complaint was filed by the wife of the petitioner to rectify the anomaly and to fix her pay. In the meanwhile petitioner’s wife met with an accident and succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter family pension was sanctioned as evident from Ext.P4. Petitioner would submit that 62 personnel of CISF in the rank of Head Constable (Drivers/DCPOs) who were aggrieved by the decision of the department in not granting them basic pay fixation @ Rs.7,510/- at par with other personnel in the Head Constable Rank/Wing, approached the High Court of Delhi filing W.P.(C) No.10660 of 2016 and the said writ petition was allowed as per Ext.P5 order dated 30.11.2018 holding that maintaining a lesser basic pay to the petitioners therein is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India . Paragraphs 14 to 20 of Ext.P5 order read as follows:

“14. In other words, the guiding principle was to be that in the same post having identical duties and responsibilities, there cannot be two different pay scales, one for the promotees and another for direct recruits.

15. In the present case, the result of a restructuring, an anomaly situation has arisen where, as a result, promotee HCs are receiving a basic pay higher than the ers