NCB Sepoys are entitled to Pay Level 3 parity with similarly situated Constables.

The applicants were Sepoys in the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), appointed under the applicable Recruitment Rules at Pay Level 1.

They sought placement at Pay Level 3, equivalent to Grade Pay ₹2,000, claiming parity with Constables in other Central Police Organisations/CAPFs based on comparable recruitment standards, duties and responsibilities.

The NCB and Ministry of Home Affairs had repeatedly proposed an upgrade, but the Department of Expenditure had not agreed.

After an earlier direction to decide the applicants’ claim by a speaking order, the respondents rejected it on 6 October 2023.

The applicants challenged that order before the Tribunal.

Whether the applicants’ recruitment standards, duties and responsibilities were sufficiently comparable to those of corresponding Constables in other Central Police Organisations/CAPFs to warrant pay parity

Whether the respondents could deny or defer the claimed parity because the Department of Expenditure had not approved the proposal and the NCB cadre proposal was under consideration in connection with the Eighth Central Pay Commission

The Tribunal applied the principle of equal pay for equal work, recognised in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618, as a constitutional goal flowing from Articles 14 and 16; pay differentiation between employees performing substantially comparable duties must rest on relevant and rational considerations.

While pay determination ordinarily lies within the executive’s and expert bodies’ domain, it remains subject to equality and non-arbitrariness.

The Tribunal also considered Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan v. Rajesh Mohan Shukla, (2007) 6 SCC 9, and the Delhi High Court decision in Constable (GD) Jitender Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., W.P. (C) No. 8006/2013, as authorities and comparative material relied upon by the applicants.

The Tribunal found that the recruitment standards, qualifications, physical and medical requirements, and duties on record supported the applicants’ claim that they were comparable in material respects to corresponding Constables.

The respondents had not established a sufficiently significant distinction to justify the pay disparity.

Nor was the distinction between direct recruitment and deputation/absorption, by itself, conclusive.

The NCB’s own proposals and the Delhi High Court’s decision concerning NCRB Constables were relevant considerations that reinforced the need to address the disparity.

The pending Eighth Central Pay Commission exercise could not, in the Tribunal’s view, justify leaving an allegedly unjustified disparity unresolved under the existing Seventh CPC framework.

It directed the respondents to extend Pay Level 3 parity to the applicants, subject to verification of eligibility and applicable service conditions, and to determine the effective date by reference to when corresponding personnel became entitled to the higher level.

Consequential pay fixation and monetary benefits are to be calculated and released in accordance with law within three months of receipt of the order.

The respondents must pursue the broader NCB cadre proposal separately; consideration by the Eighth Central Pay Commission must not defer or defeat the directed benefit under the Seventh CPC framework.

No order as to costs.