Delhi High Court says Centre can decide Assam Rifles' plea for equal pay and pension to Army.

Delhi High Court Disposes Assam Rifles Pay Parity Petition: Holds That CAPFs Cannot Claim Emoluments Equal to SSF or the Army.

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has disposed of W.P.(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 in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that all matters relating to pay fixation and service benefits lie exclusively within the domain of the Central Government. It further held that there exists a substantial and legally relevant distinction between the nature of duties performed by the Indian Army and those performed by CAPFs.

The Court noted that Army personnel generally retire between 42 and 54 years of age depending on rank, whereas Assam Rifles personnel serve up to 60 years of age. This distinction, the Court held, provides a valid and lawful basis for differences in pensionary and monetary benefits. The Bench further observed that no material had been presented to demonstrate any discrimination arising out of the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission.

It is noteworthy to mention that certain sections of social media are circulating the misleading claim that the Court has directed the Central Government to remove pay disparity between Assam Rifles and the Indian Army within three months. The Court has issued no such direction and has confined its order to a limited issue of making representation.

The Court has merely granted the Petitioner Association the liberty 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 decide that representation alone within three months, strictly in accordance with law.

This cannot be construed, in any manner, as a direction to implement pay parity.

The Court also acknowledged the detailed submissions and comparative material placed on record by the Respondents — particularly the Law Branch, Directorate General Assam Rifles — which assisted the Bench in understanding the distinctions in service conditions, tenure and operational roles between the Indian Army and Assam Rifles. The record demonstrated that the Union of India had not acted discriminatorily and that the two forces cannot be equated for the purpose of parity.

With these observations, the writ petition and the pending applications were disposed of.