{"id":124581,"date":"2017-04-13T19:50:21","date_gmt":"2017-04-13T14:20:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=124581"},"modified":"2017-04-21T15:30:42","modified_gmt":"2017-04-21T10:00:42","slug":"union-of-india-asked-to-deliberate-upon-the-issue-of-non-grant-of-equal-pay-for-equal-work-to-armed-personnel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/04\/13\/union-of-india-asked-to-deliberate-upon-the-issue-of-non-grant-of-equal-pay-for-equal-work-to-armed-personnel\/","title":{"rendered":"Union of India asked to deliberate upon the issue of non-grant of equal pay for equal work to Armed Personnel"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court<\/strong>: Stating that the Court would fail in it\u2019s duty if it did not took note of the grievance of the BSF, CRPF, CISF, ITBP, RPF and SSB who are grieved by non-grant of equal pay for equal work, that is, benefit that has been granted to the organized services, the bench of Dipak Misra and M.M. Shantagoudar, JJ asked the respondents to file their duty chart in respect of each of the forces. The Court also asked the Union of India to file the duty chart and the job allocation so that a comparison can be made that can render assistance in the process of adjudication.<\/p>\n

The Court was hearing the appeal filed against the order of the Delhi High Court creating Organized Group \u2018A\u2019 Services on the basis of certain notes, correspondences and the letters issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India, for it is the Home Department which has the jurisdiction\/authority under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, Border Security Force Act, 1968, Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968, Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Sashastra Seema Bal Act, 2007 and Indo Tibetan Border Police Force Act 1992. The respondents, referring to an Office Memorandum which gives list of Central Group \u2018A\u2019 Services category wise, had contended that once an office memorandum has been issued accepting the position, it cannot be stated that it is based on office notes or a policy decision<\/p>\n

The Court, agreeing to hear the matter, framed the following issues for consideration:<\/p>\n