The Delhi High Court on Monday ordered the Central government to decide the issue of pay parity between the Assam Rifles and the Indian Army within three months [Assam Rifles Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association v Union of India and Ors].
A Division Bench of Justices Dinesh Mehta and Vimal Kumar Yadav said that Assam Rifles Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association (petitioner) will make a representation before the government, highlighting the disparity between the pay and pensionary benefits of the two forces, and the same shall be considered within three months.
The Court noted that when the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission were in force, the Assam Rifles were treated on equal status with the Army. However, a sudden change occurred with the Fourth Pay Commission when the paramilitary force was taken out of this equal status.
"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," the Court ordered.
The High Court passed the order while disposing of a plea filed by Assam Rifles Ex-Servicemen Welfare Association. The plea sought directions to the government to ensure that members of Assam Rifles are treated at parity with the Indian Army when it comes to pay and pension.
Assam Rifles is India’s oldest paramilitary force, originally raised in 1835 (as Cachar Levy). It is now entrusted with border security, especially the India–Myanmar border, and internal security and counter-insurgency operations in the Northeast.
It comes under the administrative control of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), meaning recruitment, pay, pensions, infrastructure, and other “service conditions” are governed by MHA. However, the force's operational control, like deployments, postings, transfers, and command during operations, rests with the Indian Army or the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
Over time, this dual structure has triggered persistent complaints. Personnel have argued that the ambiguity disadvantages them in terms of pay, benefits, pensions and welfare compared to the regular Army.
Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat with advocates P Rohit Ram, Sanyam Jain and Pranav Sachdeva appeared for the petitioners.
Advocates Jagdish Chandra, Ruchir Mishra, Sanjiv Kr Saxena, Mukesh Kr Tiwari, Poonam Shukla, Reba Jena Mishra and Sidharth Bajaj represented the Union of India.