Today, On 1st December, The Delhi High Court directed the Centre to examine demands for Army-level pay and pension, noting the Assam Rifles Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association’s plan to highlight disparities in benefits and seek parity through a detailed representation.
The Delhi High Court directed the Central government to resolve the issue of pay parity between the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army within three months.
A Division Bench, comprising Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav, stated that the Assam Rifles Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association (the petitioner) will present a representation to the government to highlight the disparities in pay and pension benefits between the two forces.
This representation should be considered within the specified timeframe.
The Court acknowledged that when the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission were active, the Assam Rifles were regarded as equal to the Army.
However, a significant shift occurred with the Fourth Pay Commission when the paramilitary force’s status changed.
The Court ordered,
“The petitioners, therefore, submit a comprehensive representation to the competent authority highlighting the parity in pay and other emoluments between the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army up to the Third Central Pay Commission, which seems to have been diluted after the Fourth Pay Commission. The concerned authority shall consider such representation within three months of receipt of the representation in accordance with the law,”
This ruling came while addressing a plea from the Assam Rifles Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association, which sought assurances that Assam Rifles personnel would be treated equally alongside the Indian Army regarding pay and pensions.
The Assam Rifles, recognized as India’s oldest paramilitary force, was established in 1835 as the Cachar Levy. Its primary responsibilities include border security, particularly along the India–Myanmar border, as well as internal security and counter-insurgency operations in the Northeast.
This force operates under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), which oversees recruitment, pay, pensions, and service conditions. However, its operational control encompassing deployments, postings, transfers, and command during operations falls under the Indian Army or the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
Over time, this dual-control structure has led to ongoing grievances among personnel, who contend that the ambiguity puts them at a disadvantage concerning pay, benefits, pensions, and overall welfare when compared to the regular Army.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat, along with advocates P Rohit Ram, Sanyam Jain, and Pranav Sachdeva, represented the petitioners, while advocates Jagdish Chandra, Ruchir Mishra, Sanjiv Kr Saxena, Mukesh Kr Tiwari, Poonam Shukla, Reba Jena Mishra, and Sidharth Bajaj represented the Union of India.