TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court orders equal pay for Delhi Police driver-constables, citing 'equal pay for equal work' principle.</h1> <h3>RANDHIR SINGH Versus U.O.I.</h3> The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and other driver-constables of the Delhi ... - Issues Involved:1. Equal Pay for Equal Work2. Discrimination in Pay Scales3. Jurisdiction under Article 324. Role of Pay Commission5. Constitutional InterpretationSummary:1. Equal Pay for Equal Work:The petitioner, a Driver-Constable in the Delhi Police Force, invoked Article 32 of the Constitution, asserting the constitutional goal of 'equal pay for equal work' as proclaimed by Article 39(d). The petitioner argued that his duties were as onerous as those of other drivers in different departments, yet he received a lower pay scale.2. Discrimination in Pay Scales:The petitioner highlighted the disparity in pay scales between Driver-Constables in the Delhi Police Force and drivers in other departments like the Railway Protection Force and various non-Secretariat and Secretariat offices. The petitioner contended that there was no justification for this discrimination, especially since their duties and responsibilities were similar, if not more arduous.3. Jurisdiction under Article 32:The Supreme Court acknowledged the petitioner's right to approach the highest court for redress under Article 32, emphasizing that the equality clauses of the Constitution must have substantive meaning for everyone, including the underprivileged.4. Role of Pay Commission:The Third Pay Commission had considered the claims of all drivers as a common category but separated the case of constable-drivers, intending to consider them along with other police personnel. The petitioner argued that this separation led to the neglect of special considerations applicable to driver-constables, resulting in an unjust pay scale.5. Constitutional Interpretation:The Court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract doctrine but a constitutional goal deducible from Articles 14 and 16, read in light of the Preamble and Article 39(d). The Court rejected the respondents' argument that different departments justify different pay scales irrespective of identical duties and responsibilities.Judgment:The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, directing the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and other driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on par with the drivers of the Railway Protection Force, effective from January 1, 1973. The Court emphasized that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' must be recognized and acted upon to ensure justice and equality. Petition allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
