Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Per Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

MA No. 4358/2023 for joining together in a single Application is allowed for the reasons stated therein.

The present Original Application has been filed challenging the order dated 06.10.2023, whereby the claim of the applicants for revision of pay attached to the post of Sepoy in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) from Pay Level-1 (Grade Pay of ₹1,800) to Pay Level-3 (Grade Pay of ₹2,000), at par with similarly placed Constables in other Central Police Organisations/Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), has been rejected.

The applicants are working as Sepoys in the NCB and were recruited through the prescribed recruitment process. Their grievance is that the recruitment standards, educational qualifications, physical and medical standards, nature of duties, functional responsibilities and working conditions attached to their posts are substantially similar to those applicable to Constables in other organisations under the Ministry of Home Affairs, yet they continue to receive a lower pay scale. The applicants perform various operational and enforcement-related duties, including assistance in surveillance and interdiction operations, destruction of illicit cultivation, deposit of samples, court-related duties and security duties. In support of their claim, they have placed reliance upon the security duty chart annexed as Annexure A/5 (page 91 of the OA).

The applicants have further relied upon the departmental proposals forwarded by the Assistant Director (Administration), NCB, seeking revision of the pay of Sepoys/Havaldars and parity with the corresponding posts of Constables/Head Constables in other organisations. The relevant documents have been placed on record as Annexure A/13 (pages 117–122 of the OA). According to the applicants, the departmental records themselves acknowledge the existence of a pay anomaly and disparity. It has also been pointed out that the posts of Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS), Sepoy and Havaldar, despite their different hierarchical positions and responsibilities, have been placed in the same Grade Pay of ₹1,800.

The applicants contend that the impugned order does not adequately address their substantive grievance and rejects their claim on vague and unsustainable grounds, principally by shifting the responsibility to the Department of Expenditure and stating that the proposal could not be agreed to. They have also relied upon the Recruitment Rules applicable to Constables in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), which prescribe a Grade Pay of ₹2,000 while requiring matriculation as the educational qualification and direct recruitment as the mode of recruitment. The applicants submit that the educational, physical and medical standards prescribed for the said posts are substantially similar to those applicable to Sepoys in the NCB. They have further relied upon the Staff Selection Commission Notice dated 21.07.2018 to demonstrate the similarity in educational qualifications and physical and medical standards applicable to Constables/Sepoys in CAPFs and Central Police Organisations.

The applicants have also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618, the judgment in Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Rajesh Mohan Shukla, (2007) 6 SCC 9, and other judicial precedents, including Union of India v. Munshi Ram, Civil Appeal No. 2811 of 2022, decided on 31.10.2022; S.N. Taneja v. State of U.P. & Ors., W.P. No. 4180 (S/B) of 1990, decided on 31.08.2010; and State of U.P. v. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors., (2015) 1 SCC 347. They have also relied upon the judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 8006/2013, Constable (GD) Jitender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., concerning revision of pay of Constables in the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) from Pay Level-1 to Pay Level-3. According to the applicants, the said decision constitutes relevant comparative material, particularly as the NCRB also functions under the Ministry of Home Affairs. On these grounds, the applicants seek quashing of the impugned order and grant of the claimed pay parity.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the issue involved in the present OA is required to be examined with reference to the nature and quality of duties, responsibilities, recruitment standards, qualifications and service conditions attached to the respective posts, and not merely on the basis of the nomenclature of the post, namely, “Sepoy” or “Constable”. It was contended that the applicants have specifically pleaded and placed material on record to establish that the recruitment process and the physical and medical standards applicable to Sepoys in the NCB are substantially similar to those prescribed for Constables in CAPFs and other Central Police Organisations. Their duties are also operational and enforcement-oriented and cannot be equated with ordinary ministerial or office duties.

Learned counsel further submitted that the applicants are not claiming pay parity merely because another post carries the designation of Constable, but on the basis of substantial similarity in recruitment standards, duties, responsibilities and working conditions, coupled with the continuing disparity in pay. It was argued that the respondents' contention that posts carrying Grade Pay of ₹1,800 in the Government of India are required to be filled by candidates possessing the minimum qualification of matriculation is misconceived. In this regard, learned counsel referred to the Recruitment Rules applicable to Constables in the CRPF, which prescribe matriculation as the educational qualification and direct recruitment as the mode of recruitment, while providing for a higher Grade Pay of ₹2,000. It was, therefore, contended that the educational qualification and mode of recruitment, by themselves, cannot justify the disparity in pay.

Learned counsel placed reliance upon Randhir Singh v. Union of India (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court recognised the principle of equal pay for equal work as a constitutional goal flowing from Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It was submitted that where employees perform substantially comparable duties and responsibilities, an unreasonable classification resulting in disparity in pay cannot be sustained in the absence of a rational basis. Learned counsel argued that the respondents have failed to identify any cogent distinction in the actual duties and responsibilities of the applicants that would justify their continued placement in Pay Level-1 while corresponding Constable posts are placed in Pay Level-3.

Reliance was also placed upon Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Rajesh Mohan Shukla (supra) to contend that the source or mode of recruitment, by itself, cannot furnish a sufficient basis for denying comparable pay where the duties and functions performed are substantially similar. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents' reliance upon the percentage of vacancies filled through direct recruitment does not adequately address the applicants' grievance, particularly when the applicants have been recruited through a prescribed process and are performing operational duties involving enforcement and security responsibilities.

Learned counsel further referred to the departmental proposals forwarded by the NCB itself for revision of the pay of Sepoys/Havaldars and for bringing their pay at par with the corresponding posts in other organisations. It was contended that these proposals, together with the averments made by the respondents in paragraphs 4.6 and 4.15 of their counter affidavit, demonstrate that the existence of the anomaly and disparity has been acknowledged in the departmental record. Despite this, the applicants' claim has been rejected without furnishing any satisfactory or rational explanation for maintaining the existing disparity.

Learned counsel also relied upon the judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Constable (GD) Jitender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra), pursuant to which the pay of Constables in the NCRB was revised from Pay Level-1 to Pay Level-3. It was submitted that the said decision is a relevant precedent for examining the applicants' claim, particularly in view of the fact that both organisations function under the Ministry of Home Affairs and the applicants claim similarity in recruitment standards and responsibilities. Learned counsel additionally contended that the duties performed by the applicants are more rigorous and operational in nature, whereas the duties performed by Constables in the NCRB are stated to be comparatively less demanding and predominantly office-oriented.

On the strength of the aforesaid submissions and judicial precedents, learned counsel argued that the impugned order suffers from a failure to properly consider the relevant material and does not disclose any rational basis for denying the applicants the claimed pay parity. It was, accordingly, prayed that the OA be allowed and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to revise the pay of the applicants from Pay Level-1 to Pay Level-3, at par with similarly placed Constables in other Central Police Organisations/CAPFs, along with consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that the applicants were appointed as Sepoys in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) through direct recruitment by the Staff Selection Commission in accordance with the applicable Recruitment Rules, which prescribe Pay Level-1 (₹18,000–56,900). It was submitted that the NCB (Sepoy) Recruitment Rules, 2018, as amended in 2021, continued to prescribe the same pay level.

Learned counsel further submitted that the proposal for upgradation of the pay of Sepoys and Havaldars from Pay Level-1 to Pay Level-3, at par with corresponding posts in CAPFs and other Central Police Organisations, had been taken up repeatedly with the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance. However, the Department of Expenditure did not agree to the proposal, inter alia, on the ground that 80% of the vacancies of Sepoys were filled through direct recruitment, whereas the upgradation of pay of Constables in the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) had been agreed to because those posts were filled through deputation/absorption from CAPFs/CPOs, where the personnel were already drawing the higher Grade Pay of ₹2,000 under the Sixth Central Pay Commission structure.

It was further submitted that the Tribunal, in OA No. 2029/2023, had directed the respondents only to treat the applicants' claim as a representation and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter. In compliance thereof, the impugned speaking order dated 06.10.2023 was issued. Learned counsel also referred to the various proposals forwarded by the NCB and the Ministry of Home Affairs between 2016 and 2024, submitting that despite repeated efforts, the Department of Expenditure had not agreed to the proposed pay upgradation and that the outcome of the subsequent communication addressed by the Union Home Secretary to the Secretary, Department of Expenditure, was awaited.

Learned counsel contended that the respondents had consistently followed the applicable Recruitment Rules and that the applicants were aware of the prescribed pay scale at the time of their recruitment. It was further submitted that the security duty chart relied upon by the applicants pertained to the NCB Headquarters, where only four Sepoys were deployed on security duty and adequate rest was provided during their 12-hour duty. Accordingly, the respondents maintained that the applicants had no enforceable claim to the higher pay level and prayed for dismissal of the OA.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the pleadings and documents placed on record.

It emerges from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that the proposal for upgradation of the pay of Sepoys and Havaldars of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) from Pay Level-1 to Pay Level-3 has been under consideration at various levels since 2016. The respondents have themselves acknowledged that the matter was repeatedly taken up by the NCB and the Ministry of Home Affairs with the Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, for bringing the pay of these personnel at par with the corresponding posts in other Central Police Organisations/Central Armed Police Forces. The departmental proposals placed on record, particularly Annexure A/13, further demonstrate that the issue of pay disparity has been recognised and pursued by the department itself.

The material on record, including the applicable recruitment standards, educational qualifications, physical and medical standards, and the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the posts, lends support to the applicants’ contention that they are similarly placed, in material respects, to the corresponding Constables in other Central Police Organisations/CAPFs. The respondents have not satisfactorily demonstrated, on the basis of the material placed before us, any distinguishing feature of sufficient significance to justify the continued disparity in pay. The objection founded principally upon the mode of recruitment, particularly the distinction between direct recruitment and deputation/absorption, cannot by itself be regarded as conclusive when the claim is founded upon the nature of duties, responsibilities and recruitment standards applicable to the respective posts.

We also take note of the judgment dated 26.02.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Constable (GD) Jitender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., concerning the revision of pay of Constables in the National Crime Records Bureau from Pay Level-1 to Pay Level-3. Although the claim of the present applicants is required to be examined in the context of their own service conditions and applicable Recruitment Rules, the said judgment constitutes relevant comparative material which the respondents were required to consider meaningfully. The departmental proposals and the respondents’ own pleadings, read together with the other material on record, reinforce the applicants’ contention that the existing disparity requires correction.

The principle of equal pay for equal work, as explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618, requires the State to ensure that any differentiation in pay between employees performing substantially comparable duties is founded upon relevant and rational considerations. While the determination of pay structures ordinarily falls within the domain of the executive and expert pay commissions, such determination remains subject to constitutional requirements of equality and non-arbitrariness. In the present case, the respondents’ own efforts to secure pay upgradation, coupled with the comparative material placed on record, make it necessary to address the applicants’ grievance under the existing pay framework rather than leave it unresolved indefinitely.

We further note that the Office Memorandum dated 12.10.2026 records that the Department of Expenditure, vide its ID Note dated 26.05.2026, advised that the recommendations of the Eighth Central Pay Commission may be awaited, as the comprehensive proposal concerning the executive cadre of the NCB was under consideration in that context. It is also recorded that the Ministry of Home Affairs, with the approval of the Union Home Secretary, requested reconsideration of the proposal on 07.09.2026 and that the matter remains under consideration before the Department of Expenditure.

In our considered view, the reference of the comprehensive proposal to the Eighth Central Pay Commission forms part of the general exercise of examining and revising the pay structure of Central Government employees. The said exercise is intended to consider the overall pay structure, cadre requirements and related service matters. It cannot, however, be construed as a ground to perpetuate an otherwise unjustified disparity under the existing Seventh Central Pay Commission framework. The general exercise before the Eighth Central Pay Commission and the applicants’ claim for correction of the existing pay disparity are matters which, though related, operate in distinct contexts. The former concerns the prospective and comprehensive revision of pay, whereas the latter concerns the appropriate treatment of the applicants under the pay structure presently applicable.

Having regard to the respondents’ pleadings, the departmental proposals and the comparative material placed on record, we are of the view that the applicants cannot be denied parity merely because the comprehensive proposal concerning the NCB executive cadre is awaiting consideration in the context of the Eighth Central Pay Commission. The applicants are required to be treated at par with similarly situated personnel in the corresponding posts, subject to the applicable service conditions and the determination of the appropriate corresponding pay level under the Seventh Central Pay Commission framework. The competent authorities cannot avoid their obligation to address the existing disparity by relying solely upon the pendency of a general pay-revision exercise.

Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed to the extent indicated herein. The impugned order dated 06.10.2023 is set aside. The respondents are directed to extend to the applicants the benefit of pay parity with the corresponding similarly situated Constables in other Central Police Organisations/CAPFs by placing them in the corresponding Pay Level-3, equivalent to Grade Pay of ₹2,000 under the Seventh Central Pay Commission framework, subject to verification of the applicants’ eligibility and the applicable service conditions. The necessary consequential pay fixation shall be undertaken by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules.

The respondents shall determine the effective date for extending the aforesaid benefit with reference to the date from which the corresponding similarly situated personnel became entitled to the higher pay level, after examining the applicable orders and relevant service records. The consequential monetary benefits shall thereafter be calculated and released in accordance with law. The necessary exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

It is further directed that the comprehensive proposal concerning the pay structure and cadre-related requirements of the NCB executive cadre, including the posts of Sepoy and Havaldar, shall be pursued by the respondents before the competent authorities and placed before the Eighth Central Pay Commission, wherever required under the applicable procedure, as part of the general exercise of pay revision and consideration of cadre-related matters. The consideration of such proposal by the Eighth Central Pay Commission shall be independent of, and shall not be used to defer or deny, the benefit directed to be extended to the applicants under the existing Seventh Central Pay Commission framework.

The respondents shall ensure compliance with the aforesaid directions within the stipulated period. There shall be no order as to costs. MA No. 4106/2026 also stands disposed of accordingly.