New Delhi, Dec 2: The Delhi High Court has disposed of WP (C) 10493/2017 filed by the Assam Rifles Ex-Servicemen Association, holding that parity in pay, allowances and pension with personnel of the Indian Army cannot be directed through writ jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that matters relating to pay fixation and service benefits fall exclusively within the domain of the Central Government.
The Bench observed that a substantial and legally relevant distinction exists between the nature of duties performed by the Indian Army and those performed by the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), including Assam Rifles.
Highlighting differences in service tenure, the Court noted that Army personnel generally retire between the ages of 42 and 54 years, depending on rank, while Assam Rifles personnel serve up to 60 years of age. This, the Court held, provides a lawful basis for differences in pensionary and monetary benefits.
The Court further observed that no material had been placed on record to establish any discrimination arising from the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission.
It is pertinent to clarify that certain sections of social media have been circulating misleading claims suggesting that the Court has directed the Central Government to remove the pay disparity between Assam Rifles and the Indian Army within three months. The Court has issued no such direction.
The only relief granted by the Court is limited to permitting the Petitioner Association to submit a detailed representation to the Central Government regarding any anomalies that may have arisen after the 3rd Central Pay Commission. The competent authority has been directed to consider and decide that representation within three months, strictly in accordance with law. This cannot, in any manner, be construed as a direction to implement pay parity.
The Court also took note of the detailed submissions and comparative material placed on record by the respondents, particularly by the Law Branch, Directorate General Assam Rifles, which assisted the Bench in appreciating the differences in service conditions, tenure and operational roles between the two forces. The record demonstrated that the Union of India had not acted in a discriminatory manner and that the two forces could not be equated for the purpose of parity.
With these observations, the writ petition and all pending applications were disposed of.