AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. K. Barua, learned counsel and Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, learned counsel for the
petitioners as well as Ms. A. Paul, learned ASST SGI and Mr. N. Mozika, learned CGC for the respondents.
The brief fact of the petitioner''s case in a nutshell is that:
Assailing the validity and legality of the order dated the 25th day of June, 2010 passed in W.P. (C) No. 32(SH) of 2008, and
claiming pay scale and rant structure as recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission and as per Office Memorandum dated the
22nd day of January, 1998 one 358916Y Rfn/ORL Savendra Singh Chauhan approached the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong
Bench by way of Writ Appeal No. 50 (SH) of 2010 and the Division Bench of the Hon''ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench by
the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd day of September, 2011, allowed the said Writ Appeal.
The operative portion of the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd day of September, 2011 passed in Writ Appeal No. 50 (SH) 2010
is reproduced below:
On a totality of the consideration of the above facts, reasons and discussions as well as taking into account the decision rendered
by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Dineshan KK (Supra), we are inclined to set aside and quashed the Judgment and Order dated
25/06/2010, passed by the Learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 32(SH) of 2008. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed.
The Union of India is directed to give appropriate rank and pay scale to the petitioner as per recommendation of the 5th Pay
Commission and Office Memorandum dated 22/01/1998.
Thereafter claiming pay scale and rank structure as recommended by the 5th central pay commission and as per Office Memorandum
dated the 22nd day of January, 1998, the similarly situated employees of Assam Rifles approached Hon''ble High Court, by way of
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2013 [357918 RFN/ORL Madhuvendra Singh and 2268 others].
The Hon''ble High Court of Meghalaya after hearing submissions of both sides by the Judgment and Order dated the 8th day of May,
2014 disposed of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2013 and the operative portion of the said Judgment and Order is reproduced
below:
In the above factual backdrop, it is clear that the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the
Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 50 (SH) 2010 shall squarely cover the case of the present writ petitioners and accordingly,
the respondents are directed to give the benefit of the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dated
22.09.2011 to the writ petitioners and in other words, the respondents shall provide/give appropriate rank and pay scale to the
petitioners as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission and Office Memorandum dated 22.01.1998 within a period of 8
(eight) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment and Order.
With the above observation and directions this writ petition is disposed of.
By the Order No. A/Pers/11-04/ORL/2015/1157, dated the 23rd day of October, 2015 the Directorate General Assam Rifles
upgraded and re-designated the post of Rfn/ORL in Assam Rifles in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 3200-85-4900 wef 10/10/1997 and
from the date of passing ORL Class-III in pursuance of the Judgment and Order passed in WP(C) No. 59(SH) of 2013 and WP(C)
No. 218 (SH) of 2013 limiting the benefit to the petitioners only.
All the petitioners are working as Rfn/Orl and they are also legally entitled to the revised/upgraded pay scale, allowances and
appropriate rank structure as recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission and as per Office Memorandum dated 2nd day of
January, 1998. The basic principle is that once the recommendation of the pay commission is accepted, same should be extended to
all other similarly situated personnel.
In the case of Purshottam Lal - Vs - Union of India [AIR 1973 SC 1088], the Hon''ble Apex Court settled it that incomplete
implementation of the recommendation of the pay commission is violative of fundamental right.
The Hon''ble Apex Cout in Ashwani Kumar and Others - Vs - State of Bihar and Others [(1997) 2 SCC 1] held that cases of
affected persons who failed to approach the court cannot be ignored and the benefit of the judgment-in-rem should also be granted to
them.
It was held that by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav - Vs - Union of India [1985(2) SCC 648] held that the relief granted
by court is to be given to other similarly situated employees without forcing them to go to court for similar benefits. The same view
was expressed by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Berry - Vs - CEE [1975 (4) SCC 14].
The 5th Central Pay Commission also expressed the same view to extend judicial decision in matters of a general nature to all
similarly placed persons. The similarly situated persons cannot be treated differently and if treated differently, same is violative of
Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
In the case of State of Karnataka - Vs - C Lalitha [2006 (2) SCC 745] it was held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that similarly situated
should be treated similarly and not differently"".
When the matter came up for hearing, the grievances of the petitioners were that they have not been upgraded in their services, so these writ
petitions were filed for necessary directions.
In reply to the submission advanced by Mr. T.T. Diengdoh, learned Sr. counsel, Ms. A. Paul, learned ASST, SGI produced the order dated
21st February, 2017 and brought to the notice of this Court that in Para 2 of the said order, it is clearly mentioned that:
Rec Branch, CPBO(AR), UPAO AR and PAO (AR) will undertake DPC proceedings for upgradation and redesignation of all
the affected Rifleman/ORL to Havildar/ORL, fixation of their pay and pension including calculation of arrears and revision of pension
as per 5th, 6th and 7th CPC as applicable"".
On perusal of Para 2 of the order dated 21st February, 2017 as referred above, I am of the considered view that the grievances assailed by the
petitioners in their respective petitions has already been or is going to be addressed by the respondents. Therefore, there remains nothing or
survives anything to consider or to address further. However, the respondent''s authority is directed to complete the DPC within 2(two) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. In that regard, the learned ASST SGI submits that she had already taken the
instruction from the respondents and they are ready to complete the DPC within 2(two) months.
Ms. A. Paul, learned ASST, SGI also referred to Para 3 of the said order dated 21st February, 2017, wherein, it is clearly mentioned that:
Henceforth, all ORL personnel will be automatically upgraded to the rank of Havildar/ORL, with effect from the date of passing
of ORL Class-III and no separate orders will be issued for the same"".
On perusal of Para 3 of the order dated 21st February, 2017 as referred above, it is understood and clear that all ORL (Operator Radio Line) will
be automatically upgraded to the rank of Havildar/ORL, with effect from the date of passing of ORL Class-III and no separate orders will be
issued for the same.
The WP(C) No. 322 of 2015, WP(C) No. 49 of 2016, WP(C) No. 295 of 2015 and WP(C) No. 321 of 2015 are disposed of by this
common judgment and order since the issues are similar in nature.
Respondents to comply the order.
Before, I part with these case records, I hereby observed that it will be always desirable if the petitioners filed their writ petitions or any other
petitions before the Court separately, so that no confusion arises at the time of hearing or writing of the judgment and order.
The Registrar General is directed to circulate a copy of this judgment and order at the Bar as well as to all concerned.
With this observation and direction the WP(C) No. 322 of 2015, WP(C) No. 49 of 2016, WP(C) No. 295 of 2015 and WP(C) No. 321 of
2015 stands disposed of by this common judgment and order.