(the high court of assam, nagaland, meghalaya, manipur, mizoram, tripura … · · 2017-07-04(the...

WRIT APPEAL No.50(SH) of 2010 of 23

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MEGHALAYA, MANIPUR, MIZORAM, TRIPURA AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

WRIT APPEAL No.50(SH) of 2010

NO.3589164Y Rfn/ORL SAVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, (D.G.SECRETARIAT) (The Directorate General Of Assam Rifles) Shillong, Meghalaya), Present Place of Posting 4th Battalion, The Assam Rifles, C/O:99 APO, Pin: 932004

…APPELLANT/PETITIONER

-Versus-

1. THE UNION OF INDIA, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi: 110001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL ASSAM RIFLES, Mahanideshalaya, (The Directorate General of Assam Rifles) Shillong, Meghalaya: 793011. 3. THE STAFF OFFICER 1(A) Mahanideshalaya (The Directorate General of Assam Rifles) Shillong, Meghalaya: 793011.

...RESPONDENTS

P R E S E N T

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BD AGARWAL


Advocates for the appellant : Mr. DP Chaliha, Sr. Advocate.

Mr. HG Baruah, Mr. S Deka Mr. BP Dutta

Advocates for the respondents : Mr. SC Shyam,

Central Govt. counsel

Date of hearing : 15.6.2011.

Date of delivery of judgment : 22.9.2011

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

by Hazarika, J.

Challenge in the instant writ appeal is made against the

order of the learned Single Judge passed on 25.06.2010 in WP(C)

No.32(SH) of 2008 whereby and whereunder the learned Single

Judge disposed of the writ petition by holding that as per

communication dated 24.06.2010 the petitioner would be entitled

to the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200/- with effect from 19.11.2009

by way of granting first financial upgradation under Modified

Assured Career Progressive Scheme (MACPS) without considering

the points raised in the writ petition and hence the writ appeal.

2. In the writ petition the petitioner sought the following

relief -


The petitioner should be given appropriate rank and pay

scale as per guideline of Fifth Pay Commission and Office

Memorandum dated 22.01.1998.

3. In order to determine the relief sought for, it would be

appropriate to discuss the pleaded facts of the petitioner vis-à-vis

the respondents.

The facts pleaded in the writ petition is that the petitioner

has been working in Assam Rifles, Ministry of Home Affairs as a

Para Military Force and one of the Central Police Organization

(„CPO‟ for short) since November 1999 in the rank of

Rifleman/Operator Radio & Lines („ORL‟ for short) and his present

scale has been fixed at Rs.3050/- which is not in consonance with

the pay structure of other paramilitary forces of the Government

of India and hence, the writ petition seeking the relief as

indicated above.

4. The grievances of the petitioner relating to pay structures

relates back to the 4th Pay Commission. Vide Gazette of India

Notification dated 29.08.1986 notified implementation of 4th Pay

Commission. The personnel of Assam Rifles were given the pay

scale as applicable to other CPOs. Accordingly, the pay scale of

Rfn/ORL to which category the petitioner belongs, based on their

technical qualification, pay scale were fixed as under-


Tech Class Rank Pay Scale

Cl- I ASI Rs. 1320 /-

Cl- II Hav Rs. 975 /-

Cl- III N/K Rs. 950 /-

But the scale of pay as indicated above were not

implemented in the Assam Rifles because the technical staffs

were not given the post as per the 4th Pay Commission and the

pay scale in Assam Rifles remained as under : -


Cl- I Hav Rs. 975/-

Cl- II N/K Rs. 950/-

Cl- III Rfn Rs. 825/-

5. Thereafter the 5th Pay Commission came into existence

wherefor all technical ranks were re-designated and the pay scale

were revised. In all the paramilitary forces, the technical

combatant staff were given the rank and pay scale of SI, ASI and

Hav as follows: -



Cl- I SI Rs. 5500/-

Cl- II ASI Rs. 4000/-

Cl- III Hav Rs. 3200/-

While the same was not implemented in case of Assam

Rifles and it remained stagnant as follows: -


Cl- I SI Rs. 5500/-

Cl- II Hav Rs. 3200/-

Cl- III Rfn Rs. 3050/-

Therefore, the petitioner claimed pay parity along with

designation of all central paramilitary forces, irrespective of the

fact that he belongs to Assam Rifles.

6. There is discrimination in the technical pay also between

the Assam Rifles employees and their counterpart in other

Central Para Military Forces. Such as, after the declaration of 4th

Central Pay Commission all the three ranked employees, ASI, Hav.

and N/K were given Rs.80/- per month as technical pay in all the

Central Para Military Force, but in the Assam Rifles only Class-II

N/K and Class-I Havildar were given Rs.40/- per month. After the


Gazette notification of 5th Central Pay Commission, the technical

pay were doubled as a result in all the Central Para Military

Force, i.e. all three categories of staffs started receiving Rs.160/-

per month but in the Assam Rifles only the Class-I category were

given Rs.80/- per month only and the Class-III, i.e. Rfn. were not

given any amount/benefits as per the guidelines issued from time

to time by Government of India.

7. After the declaration of 5th Central Pay Commission, the

Ranks structure and Pay Scale from the rank of constable upto

the rank of Subedar Major have been rationalized vide

Government of India Order dated 10.10.1997 for all the CPOs, the

rank and the Pay Scale for the technical staff such as Operator

Radio & Lines/Radio Mechanic‟s/Cipher were re-designated to the

rank of Havildar and till date, the Pay Scale given is Rs.3200/-

and the Class-I & II employees were given the rank of ASI and the

Pay Scale of Rs.4000/- per month and Office Memorandum from

the Ministry of Home Affairs in this regards had also been issued

vide its Memo No.27011/103/97-PF, I/56 dated 22nd January,

1998 and the copies were sent to all the Central Police

Organisations/Central Para Military Force, but the Assam Rifles

failed to implement the said Office Memorandum as otherwise,

this Memorandum covers the case of the petitioner without any

dispute.


It has further been contended that the petitioner passed

ORL Technical class-III and II, Map Reading Standard III, II and I

and promotion cadre N-II and N-I, pursuant to which, the

petitioner ought to have been re-designated as Havildar or re-

appointed as Head Constable/ORL at the pay scale of Rs.3200/-

per month plus technical pay of Rs.160/- per month as per CPO

policy. But the same was not carried out in case of the petitioner.

8. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by the

communication dated the 4th day of July, 2002 issued vide memo

No.II. 27013/18/99-PF.V, directed the Directorate General,

Assam Rifles to upgrade the existing post of Rifleman Clerk to

Havildar Clerk. It was contended that the Riflemen Clerk also

falls within the communication wing/signal category of Assam

rifles and is a post below the Rfn/ORL (to which category the

Appellant/Petitioner belong).

9. It has been contended by the appellant/petitioner that

there are three types of technical combatant staff in Assam

Rifles, viz. (i) Operator Radio and Line/Radio Operator (ii) Radio

Technician/Radio Mechanic and (iii) Cipher. In a similar case,

another personnel, namely, Mr. Dineshan KK, who is a Radio

Mechanic of Assam Rifles filed a writ petition which was allowed

by this Court and upon challenge before Apex Court, the same


was affirmed. The same would be referred to in the subsequent

paragraphs.

10. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation on

29.5.2006, which was followed by another representation dated

6.10.2006 and in reply to the representations submitted by the

petitioner, the office of the respondent No.2 vide communication

dated 28.11.2006 specifically stated that the department has

taken up for suitable amendment in Revised Peace Establishment

(RPE), 2003 holding that the Recruitment Rules can only be

amended after approval of amendment in RPE by Ministry of

Home Affairs. In another communication dated 29.01.2008

relating to grant of rank and pay in respect of ORL category, it

has been specifically communicated referring three service notes

dated 23.01.2008, 24.01.2008 and 23.01.2008 whereof it has been

held that all “Sig Pers” of Assam Rifles are directly recruited as

Rfn/ORL as per Recruitment Rules 2000 with educational

qualification Matric without any technical education, whereas

“Sig Pers” of other CPOs are enrolled directly in the rank of Head

Constable with educational qualification Matric plus two years ITI

certificate in Radio and TV/Electronics or intermediate or 10+2.

Educational qualifications and terms of reference being different

in Assam Rifles from that of other CPO‟s, the rank structure and

pay scales are fixed as per Recruitment Rules. However,


personnel in ORL trade with technical qualifications have the

opportunity to remuster themselves to the rank of Havildar in

Assam Rifles. It has been further spelt out that in case they have

any proof to claim that other CPOs have similar or lower

qualifications in their rank, it may be forwarded to the office to

pursue the case with Ministry of Home Affairs.

11. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the

Union of India and others wherein it has been stated that before

the introduction of Recruitment Rules, 2000 issued by the Ministry

of Home Affairs vide letter dated 31.08.2000, all categories of

Assam Rifles personnel were enrolled as per Record Office

Instructions 1/83 and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued

vide DGAR letter dated 07.05.1991 with educational

qualifications as Matriculate and medical fitness and in the

instant case, the petitioner was enrolled in Assam Rifles on

19.11.1999 in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-75-4590/- p.m. and

completed 7 years of service. Regarding petitioner‟s claim for

equal pay scale and rank as per 5th pay Commission and Office

Memorandum dated 22.01.1998, it is contended that the pay

scale of Rifleman/Operator Radio Line is fixed as per Recruitment

Rules, 2000 and according to Ministry of Home Affairs letter dated

10.10.1997, the salary has been fixed at Rs.3050-75-4590/-.

Moreover, in the Office Memorandum dated 22.01.1998 there is


no provision for Rifleman/Operator Radio Line in the Assam Rifles

for grant of special pay and revised pay scale. According to Office

Memorandum dated 22.01.1998 the Head Constable (Radio

Mechanic) Grade I, Grade II and Head Constable (Draughtsman)

only are entitled to the revised pay scale and hence submitted

that the prayer of the petitioner is misleading and lacks

substance. For ready reference Office Memorandum dated

22.01.1998 and 3.3.1998 are quoted hereunder,

“No.27011/103/97-PF.I/56

Government of India/Bharat Sarkar Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya

North Block,

New Delhi, the 22nd Jan 98

Office Memorandum

Subject:- FIXATION OF PAY ON RATIONALISATION OF PAY SCALES

WITH EFFECT FROM 10.10.97 IN THE CENTRAL PARA

MILITARY FORCES.

In the context of certain doubts expressed by the

Central Para Military Forces in fixation of pay of certain

non-gazetted personnel of the Central Para Military Forces

with effect from 10.10.97, vide order No.27011/1/97-PC

Cell/PF.I dated 10.10.97, it is hereby clarified that the

orders are equally applicable to all combatised categories.

For example, the HC (RF) will be given the replacement pay

scale of Rs.3200-4900, as approved by the Government, in

the said orders for HCs and will continue to the known as

HC (RF).

2. In the case of HC (RM) Gr.I and Gr. II and HC

(Draughtsman), since the Pay commission has given the

replacement pay scale of Rs.4000-6000/- in respect of these


three categories of posts in Central Para Military Forces ,

these three categories may be re-designated as ASI in the

scale of pay of Rs.4000-5000. As regards other categories

of HC, in any of Central Para Military Forces , such as HC

(RO, Cry) etc., these posts will continue to be known as HC

in the relevant scale of pay approved by the Government.

3. This issues with the concurrence of Integrated

Finance Division of this Ministry vide their Dy.No.305/97-

Fin.II dated 22nd January, 1997.

Sd/-XXX

(A. Gopinathan)

Desk Officer To

1. DG BSF/CRPF/ITBP/CISF/NSG/Assam Rifles.

2. Fin.II/III/PF.II/III/IV/V Desk. 3. Guard File.”

“No.27011/103/97-PF.I/56

Government of India

Ministry of Home Affairs

New Delhi-110001,

Dated:03.03.1998

OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject:- Fixation of pay on rationalization of pay-scales

with effect from 10.10.1997 in the Central Para

Military Forces.

The Undersigned is directed to refer to DGAR’s letter

No.A/Para/5th CPC/Vol III/98 dated 19/8.02.1998 on the

subject cited above.

2. In this connection it may be sated that the orders

dated 22.01.1998 are quite clear. If the Pre-revised pay

scales of HC (RM) in AR and revised pay-scales are identical

to the pay scales of HC (RM) in BSF & CRPF etc., HC(RM) in

AR can be redesignated as ASI or equivalent in AR.

Sd/-XXX

(A. Gopinathan)

Desk Officer


To DGAR, Shillong, Meghalaya.”

12. Stand taken by the Union of India in their affidavit-in-

opposition with regard to paragraphs 2 to 5 is that separate scale

of pay under 4th Central Pay Commission was granted to the

personnel belonging to Assam Rifles with effect from 01.01.1986

as per the rank structures. It has been specifically pleaded that

the educational qualification and terms of service of Assam

Rifles are different from other CPOs and in this regard referred to

the Recruitment Rules, 2000 issued by the Ministry of Home

Affairs vide letter dated 31.08.2000, where no separate pay

scale of class I and Class II Operators of Assam Rifles is specified

and the pay scale in Assam Rifles have been implemented in

accordance with the letter dated 10.10.1997 issued by the

Ministry of Home Affairs and therefore, submitted that the

contention raised in the writ petition is incorrect.

13. In reply to the averments made in paragraph 6 of the writ

petition, the Union of India has pleaded that after

implementation of 5th Central Pay Commission, the rate of special

pay which was admissible as per 4th Pay Commission was doubled

for Havildar/Operator Radio Lines category from Rs.40/- to

Rs.80/- in Assam Rifles with effect from 01.08.1997, whereas, in

other CPOs, Rs.160/- pm were granted to Havildar/Operator

Radio Lines and the said variation was because of educational


qualifications and the terms and conditions of service between

Assam Rifles and other Central Para Military Forces and hence no

comparison can be drawn.

14. In the affidavit-in-opposition relating to paragraph 7 of the

writ petition, it has been contended that as per Office

Memorandum dated 22.01.1998 and even number dated

03.03.1998, the 5th Pay Commission has given the replacement

of pay scales for Rs.4000/--6000/- to Head Constable (Radio

Mechanic) Grade-I, Grade-II and Head Constable (Draughtsman)

only with effect from 10.10.1997 and not for Havildar Operator

Radio Lines in Assam Rifles. Moreover, the entry level post in

Signal category in Assam Rifles is Rifleman/Operator Radio Line

with pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- and they are given the pay

scale of Rs.3200- 4900/- which is equivalent to Head Constable

rank and thus refuted the contentions of the writ petitioner.

15. With regard to the averments made in paragraphs 8 to 16 of

the writ petition the stand of Union of India, as would reveal

from the affidavit-in-opposition is very categorical, wherein it

has been stated that as per Recruitment Rules in Assam Rifles,

the signal personnel in communication cadre are recruited as

Rifleman/Operator Radio Line with minimum qualification as

Matric without any technical qualification, whereas in other


CPOs, signal personnel are enrolled as Head Constable with

educational qualification as Matric plus two years ITI certificate

in Radio and TV/Electronics or intermediate or 10+2 or equivalent

and therefore, the Recruitment Rules in Assam Rifles and other

CPOs are different and thus the pay scales are also different and

hence no comparison can be drawn. However, it is admitted that

the necessary amendment in the RPE is required as the post of

direct entry to Havildar in the said trade is not authorized in the

present Peace Establishment of Signal Trades as per Recruitment

Rules 2000 and till the amendment in the Recruitment Rules of

the Assam Rifles is made like other CPOs by the Ministry of Home

Affairs, no pay structure like other CPOs in Assam Rifles would be

made. Recruitment Rule can only be amended like other CPOs by

the Ministry of Home Affairs, but till date no amendment has

been done in respect of Recruitment Rules in Assam Rifles by

Ministry of Home Affairs. It has further been admitted that in

compliance of the Apex Court‟s order dated 04.01.2008, the pay

scale has already been implemented to the petitioner with effect

from 03.03.1998, which, however, does not mean that

implementation of a specific court order by itself does not bring

automatic relief to all similarly placed personnel. The other

averments made in the writ petition has been refuted by the

respondents.


16. In a similar situation, in the case of Dineshan K.K.

(HAV/RM) -vs- Union of India & Ors delivered on 11.02.2005 in

WP(C) No.497 of 2001 copy of which has been annexed as

Annexure-I to the writ petition, learned Single Judge has held

that since there was changes in the rank structure and that the

same was not carried out in the Assam Rifles, like other Central

Paramilitary Forces, an apparent disparity in the service

conditions of certain category of personnel including Radio

Mechanic resulted, though they were given the revised pay and

allowances entirely on the lines of other Central Para Military

Forces on the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission.

17. In the case of Dineshan KK (supra), respondent contested

the claims by filing counter affidavit stating inter alia that on

the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission with effect from

1.1.1986, the Assam Rifles personnel have been granted revised

pay and allowances entirely on the lines of other Central Para

Military Forces but as the changes in the rank structure was not

carried out in the Assam Rifles like other Central Para Military

Forces an apparent disparity in the service condition of certain

category of personnel including Radio mechanic resulted.

However, Assam Rifles Directorate took up the case with Ministry

of Home Affairs by letter dated 18.2.1998 to re-designate Radio

Mechanic and Havildar as Warrant Officer and for replacement of


pay scale of Rs.4,000/--6,000/- to bring them at par with the

counterparts in other CPOs. In reply to that, the Ministry of Home

Affairs informed the Assam Rifles on 3.3.1998 that they could re-

designate the HC(RM) as Warrant Officer, if their pre-revised and

revised pay scales were identical to pay scale of their counter

parts in BSF, CRPF, but the said communication permitting to re-

designate could not be carried out as there existed disparity

between the pay scales of Radio Mechanics of Assam Rifles and

their counterparts in BSF and CRPF. While in Assam Rifles the pay

scale was Rs.975-1660 which was revised to Rs.3,200/-4,900/- in

CRPF and BSF, the pay scale was Rs.1,200-2040 which was

revised to Rs.4,000/--6,000/-. However, it was admitted that the

qualifications for recruitment to the post of Radio Mechanic in

Assam Rifles as well as in CRPF and BSF is same. But as regards

the claim of the petitioner for higher pay scale of Rs.5000-8000/-

, as admissible to Delhi Police Organisation, the contention of the

respondents is that Assam Rifles being a Central Police

Organisation, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the Delhi

Police Organisation which is not a Central Para Military Forces.

18. Considering the statement made in the counter affidavit,

the learned Single Judge in Dineshan KK (supra) disposed of the

writ petition with a direction that Union of India‟s permission to

re-designate the HV(RM) as Warrant Officer communicated vide


letter No.27011/103/97-PF.1 dated 3.3.1998 shall be carried out

and the same pay scale as admissible, to the counterparts in

CRPF and BSF shall be given with effect from the same date and

the rider stated there in, shall have no effect and be ignored in

view of acceptance by Union of India that the members of Assam

Rifles shall get same rank structure with that of other Central

Police organisation, further directing to implement the direction

within a period of three months from the date of the order.

19. The Union of India being aggrieved, went on appeal being

Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21222 of

2003 against the judgment rendered in WP (C) No. 497 of 2001

(Dineshan K.K. (Hav/RM) -vs- Union of India & ors.). In the

following paragraphs of the judgment delivered by the Hon‟ble

Apex Court reported in (2008) 1 SCC 586 (Union of India Vs.

Dineshan K.K.), it has been held as thus:

“15. In State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj it has been

observed that the principle of “equal pay for equal

work” is not always easy to apply as there are

inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the

work of different persons in different organisations

or even in the same organisation. It has been

reiterated that this is a concept which requires for its

applicability, complete and wholesale identity

between a group of employees claiming identical pay

scales and the other group of employees who have

already earned such pay scales. It has been


emphasized that the problem about equal pay cannot

be translated into a mathematical formula.

16. Yet again in a recent decision in State of Haryana

v. Charanjit Singh a Bench of three learned Judges,

while affirming the view taken by this Court in State

of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa

University of Agriculture & Technology v. Manoj K.

Mohanty and Govt. of W.B. v. T. K. Roy has reiterated

that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not

an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced

in a court of law. Inter alia, observing that equal pay

must be for equal work of equal value and that the

principle of equal pay for equal work has no

mathematical application in every case, it has been

held that Article 14 permits reasonable classification

based on qualities or characteristics of persons

recruited and grouped together, as against those who

are left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics

must have a reasonable relation to the object sought

to be achieved. Enumerating a number of factors

which may not warrant application of the principle

of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that

since the said principle requires consideration of

various dimensions of a given job, normally the

applicability of this principle must be left to be

evaluated and determined by an expert body and the

court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the

necessary material on the basis whereof the claim is

made is available on record with necessary proof and

that there is equal work of equal quality and all

other relevant factors are fulfilled.

17. Tested on the touchstone of the aforenoted broad

guidelines and not cast-iron imperatives, we are of

the opinion that in the present case, on the pleadings

and the material placed on record by the parties in


support of their respective stands, the High Court

was justified in issuing the impugned directions.

18. Vide Order dated 10-10-1997 passed by the

Ministry of Home Affairs in pursuance of Para 7 of

the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure

Resolution dated 30-9-1997, it was notified that the

President was pleased to rationalise the rank

structure and pay scales of non-gazetted cadre of the

Central Police Organisations and as a result of this

exercise certain ranks were to be merged and the

rank structure was communicated in the order along

with the revised pay scales and replacement pay

scales. Copy of this order was sent to all the

paramilitary forces, including Assam Rifles.

19. On 22-1-1998, an office memorandum was issued

by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,

by way of a clarification. In the said letter, it was

clarified that Order dated 10-10-1997 was equally

applicable to all advertised categories. In the said

letter, directions with regard to the redesignation of

the three posts including Head Constable (RM) as ASI

in Central paramilitary forces along with their

replacement pay scales were also ordered.

20. It appears that the disparity in rank and pay in

various Central paramilitary forces could not be

resolved and on 24-4-2001, the Director General,

Assam Rifles submitted a report to the Government

with regard to the progress on pay anomaly cases.

Para 4 of the said letter is of some relevance to the

issue at hand and it reads as follows:

“Rank and pay of technical cadre person, RM,

Ptmn., Pharma, and compounder of AR with the

same intake QR for remounts are given the rank

of Havildar wherein they are (sic whereas their)


counterparts in CPOs are given ASI. MINISTRY

OF HOME AFFAIRS had ordered to submit

proposal in directing cadre to cadre comparison

with BSF where the rank of ASI is available in

other technical and also along with financial

implication. The proposal along with financial

implication has been submitted to MINISTRY OF

HOME AFFAIRS and the case is lying with MOF

for approval.”

21. Having failed to receive any positive response

from the Government, one of the Radio Mechanics

issued a notice of demand to the Ministry of Home

Affairs and Director General of Assam Rifles, inter

alia, praying for giving effect to Office Order dated

10-10-1997 and Office Memorandum dated 22-1-1998.

Vide Order dated 26-12-2001, the Ministry of Home

Affairs informed the Director General of Assam Rifles

that his proposal had been examined in consultation

with Ministry of Finance and it was found that there

was no point for comparison of grades and scales of

pay for such posts across various Central

paramilitary forces.”

20. But in the instant case, the stand of the Union of India is

different relating to educational qualification of Radio Mechanic

of Assam Rifles, wherein it has been stated that as per

Recruitment Rules 2000, the educational qualification of other

paramilitary forces are different in the entry point of service,

inasmuch as, signal personnel in communication cadre are

recruited as Rifleman/ORL with minimum qualification as Matric

without any technical qualification, whereas, in other CPOs,


Signal personnel are enrolled as Head Constable with educational

qualification as Matric plus two years ITI certificate in Radio and

TV/Electronics or intermediate or 10+2 or equivalent and thus

caused disparity in the rank and structure and the pay scales of

Assam Rifles with other central police organizations will continue

till the amendment of the Recruitment Rules, 2000 is made.

21. Considered the argument advanced. Perused the pleadings

of the parties alongwith the judgment delivered by the learned

Single Judge in Dineshan KK (supra) affirmed by the Apex Court.

The stand taken by the Union of India in the case of (Dineshan

K.K.) would show that in Dineshan KK, the Union of India

admitted that on the recommendation of the 4th pay commission

with effect from 1.1.1986, the Assam Rifles Personnel have been

granted revised pay and allowances entirely on the line of other

Central Para Military Forces. But as the changes in the rank

structure was not carried out in the Assam Rifles like other

Central Para Military Forces an apparent disparity in the service

conditions of certain category of personnel including Radio

Mechanic resulted. It has also been admitted that there is no

dissimilarity of academic qualification or the nature of duties and

responsibilities, whereas, the stand is different in the present

case in hand in regard to educational qualification to the effect

that the Recruitment Rules 2000 if not amended, the disparity


would continue between the personnel of Assam Rifles and other

CPOs. The stand of the Union of India cannot be accepted at this

stage since they have admitted that there is no dissimilarity in

educational qualifications in Assam Rifles and other Central Para

Military Forces and the Recruitment Rules of 2000 of Assam Rifles

was not agitated either before the learned Single Judge or before

the Apex Court in Dineshan K.K.(Supra).

22. 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 Dinseshan KK (supra), we

are inclined to set aside and quash the judgment and order dated

25.06.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C)

No.32(SH) of 2008. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed.

23. 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.

24. No costs.

25. Before parting with the case, we would like to put on

record that the matter could have been remanded back to the

learned Single Judge, but we refrain from doing so as the case is


pending since 2008. Therefore, this Court took up the entire

matter for hearing and passed the judgment as indicated

hereinabove.

JUDGE JUDGE

gunajit

(the high court of assam, nagaland, meghalaya, manipur, mizoram, tripura … · · 2017-07-04(the...

Documents