Prior combatised service requires reasoned consideration of an MTS employee’s claim for Grade Pay parity.

The applicant, initially appointed in the Border Security Force (BSF) as a Cook in Group ‘D’, underwent a 12-week basic training course at the BSF training centre, including combatised training and handling and firing of small arms such as SLR and Carbine.

He was subsequently deputed to Delhi Police as a Cook and permanently absorbed there in 1998.

Thereafter, he served in the Special Protection Group (SPG) as a Security Assistant (Ministerial) on a combatised post from 13 November 1999 to 31 March 2005.

Following implementation of the Sixth Central Pay Commission, the applicant continued to be treated as Delhi Police MTS/Cook with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800.

He sought redesignation as Constable (Tradesman) and grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000, relying on the treatment accorded to tradesmen in the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), the Sixth CPC recommendations, and his prior combatised training and SPG service.

His request was rejected by the respondents, who maintained that Delhi Police MTS posts were non-combatised and governed by separate service rules.

The respondents also relied on the Tribunal’s decision in O.A. No. 726/2013, where similar claims by Delhi Police MTS employees had been rejected on the ground that they had not undergone the rigorous training prescribed for Constable (Executive).

The applicant contended that his case was distinguishable because he had undergone combatised training in the BSF and served on a combatised SPG post.

Whether the applicant’s BSF training and subsequent service on a combatised Security Assistant post in the SPG could be treated as equivalent, or relevant, to the combatised training imparted to Constables in Delhi Police for the purpose of grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000.

Whether the applicant was entitled to redesignation as Constable (Tradesman) and grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000 instead of Rs. 1,800, notwithstanding the Tribunal’s earlier decision in O.A. No. 726/2013 concerning Delhi Police MTS employees.

Whether the respondents were required to reconsider the applicant’s request by examining the equivalence of his BSF and SPG training and service with the relevant Delhi Police combatised training.

The Tribunal exercised jurisdiction under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

It considered the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations, particularly the provisions relating to conversion of Followers’ posts in the CAPFs into Group ‘C’ Constable (Tradesman) posts with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000 and the recommendation for maintaining parity between the CAPFs and Delhi Police.

It also considered the MHA order dated 29 October 2009, which provided for conversion of specified CAPF tradesmen posts into Constable (Tradesman) posts with Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000.

The Tribunal applied the principle that equivalence of training and duties must be examined on the basis of the actual curriculum, nature of training and character of the post, rather than merely by reference to the employee’s designation.

The earlier decision in O.A. No. 726/2013 was distinguished because the employees in that case had not undergone full training in arms, ammunition, law-and-order duties and related Constable (Executive) functions.

The Tribunal also took note of the Delhi High Court’s decision in W.P. (C) No. 3930/2011 concerning Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000 for similarly converted CAPF Followers.

The Tribunal found it undisputed that the applicant had completed a 12-week BSF training course involving combatised training, weapons handling and firing.

It further relied on the SPG office order, which expressly appointed him to a combatised Security Assistant post, and on the High Commendation Certificate recognising his security duties.

These facts materially distinguished his case from O.A. No. 726/2013, where the applicants had not undergone the requisite combatised training.

However, the Tribunal did not itself conclusively declare the applicant entitled to redesignation or Grade Pay of Rs. 2,000.

Instead, it held that the issue required examination by the respondents, particularly by comparing the curriculum and training prescribed for Delhi Police Constable (Executive) with the applicant’s BSF training and combatised SPG service.

The applicant’s prior training and service therefore constituted relevant material requiring a reasoned administrative determination, rather than an automatic entitlement to the claimed benefit.

The respondents were required to pass a reasoned and speaking order within eight weeks of receiving the Tribunal’s order.

If the request was accepted, they were directed to carry out consequential pay refixation and grant other admissible benefits in accordance with law.

The Tribunal did not directly order redesignation as Constable (Tradesman) or grant the higher Grade Pay; those matters were left for fresh consideration by the respondents.

There was no order as to costs.