Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 973 (GAU)

Rupender Singh v. Union of India

2012-08-10

SUBHASIS TALAPATRA

body2012
JUDGMENT:- Subhasis Talapatra, J. 1. The writ petitioner No. 1 was initially appointed as the Rifleman/Operator Radio line on 07.08.1999 and subsequently remustered as Rifleman Draughtsman w.e.f. 13.02.2006 in the scale of pay Rs. 3050-4590/-, whereas the writ petitioner Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were appointed as the Rifleman Draughtsman w.e.f. 25.09.2001 and since then have been working in the said capacity without blemish so far. The writ petitioner No. 7 was initially appointed as Rifleman Draughtsman on 26.10.1996 in the scale of pay of Rs. 3200-4900/- and subsequently promoted as Havildar Draughtsman w.e.f. 06.10.2004, whereas the writ petitioner No. 8 was initially appointed as the Rifleman Draughtsman and subsequently promoted as Havildar Draughtsman in 2004. In the Assam Rifles all the Draughtsman used to be initially appointed in the rank and status of Havildar in the scale of pay of Rs. 3200-4900/-, but the petitioners those who were appointed as the Rifleman Draughtsman were placed in the lower scale of 3050-4590/-, having similar qualification. 2. The Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, by the Office Memorandum No. 27011/100/97-PF-1, date 22.01.1998 (Annexure-I to the writ petition), on considering the recommendation of the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commission, rationalised both the post of Rifleman Draughtsman and redesignated them as the Assistant Sub-Inspector with a common replacement scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- w.e.f. 10.10.1997. Thus the Rifleman (Constable) and Havildar (Head Constable) Draughtsman stood upgraded to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector in the scale of pay of Rs.4000-6000/- w.e.f. 10.10.1997. In this context, it would be essential to reproduce the entire Order No. 27012/1/97 PC Cell/PE.1, dated 10.10.1997 (Annexure-G to the additional affidavit). "ORDER In pursuance of para 7 of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Resolution No. 50(1)/IC/97 date 20 Sep. 1997 the President is pleased to rationalise the rank structure and pay scale of non gazetted cadre of Central Police Organisations. As a result of this exercise, the rank of L/NK & NK in the Central Police Organisations will be merged with the rank of Constables respectively. Accordingly, the rank structure in the Central Police Organisation will be as indicated below: 1. Constable/Security Assistant 2. Head Constable 3. Asstt. Sub-Inspector 4. Sub-Inspector/ACIO-II 5. Inspector/ACIO-I 6. Subedar Major 2. As a result of this exercise, the rank of L/NK & NK in the Central Police Organisations will be merged with the rank of Constables respectively. Accordingly, the rank structure in the Central Police Organisation will be as indicated below: 1. Constable/Security Assistant 2. Head Constable 3. Asstt. Sub-Inspector 4. Sub-Inspector/ACIO-II 5. Inspector/ACIO-I 6. Subedar Major 2. The President is also pleased to rationalize the pre-revised pay scale and replacement pay scales in respect of above cadres as indicated below: Sl No. rank structure Rationalize pre-revised pay scale Replacement pay scale 1. constables/Security asstt. Rs.950-1400 Rs.3050-70-4590 2. Head Constables Rs.975-1660 Rs.3200-85-4900 3. Asstt. Sub-Inspector Rs.1320-2140 Rs.4000-100-6000 4. Sub-Inspector/ACIO-II Rs.1640-2900 Rs.5500-175-9000 5. Inspector/ACIO-I Rs.2000-3200 Rs.6500-200-10500 3. The existing Lance Naiks & Head Constable in these organisations will be followed a special petitioner pay/appointment pay of Rs. 30/- or Rs. 50 per month respectively. These persons will continue to draw this special pay/appointment pay till they are promoted to the next higher grade or till they vacate the post on attrition. 4. It has also been declared to allow an appointment pay of Rs. 200/- per month to the Sub Major in the Central Police Organizations. 5. The above orders will be effective from the date of issue. For the period from 1.1.96 till the issue of this order, the pay in the revised scale will be regular in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 1997. 6.This issue with the concurrence of Department of Expenditure vide their 0.0 No. 27012/Director (Petitioner)/97 dated 9th Oct 97 and integrated Finance Division of MHA vide their Dy. No. 167/Fin.P1/97 dated 10.10.97." 3. It emerges from the order dated 10.10.1997 that the rank of L/NK & NK in the Central Police Organisations will be merged with the rank of Constable and Head Constables respectively. Apart the rank structure, rationalized pre-revised pay scale and replacement pay scale in the Central Police Organization in respect of the said cadres certain other benefits have been provided therewith. Later on, on 22.01.1998, to remove some ambiguities from the said order dated 10.10.1998, another Office Memorandum under No. 27011/100/97-PF-l was issued on 22.01.1998 by the Ministry of Home Affairs. Apart the rank structure, rationalized pre-revised pay scale and replacement pay scale in the Central Police Organization in respect of the said cadres certain other benefits have been provided therewith. Later on, on 22.01.1998, to remove some ambiguities from the said order dated 10.10.1998, another Office Memorandum under No. 27011/100/97-PF-l was issued on 22.01.1998 by the Ministry of Home Affairs. For the purpose of a conjoint reading, the said Office Memorandum dated 22.01.1998 as a whole is reproduced hereunder: "Subject:-Fixation of pay on realization of pay scale with effect from 10.10.97 in the Central Para Military Forces. 1. In the context of certain doubt express by the Central Para Military Forces in fixation of pay of certain non-Gazetted personnel of the CPMFs with effect from 10.10.97 vide order No. 27011/1/97/-PC Cell/PF-I dated 10.01.97 is hereby clarified that the orders are equally applicable to all combaties categories for example the HC (RF) will be given the replacement pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900/-. As approved by the Government on the said orders of HCs and will continue to be known as HC(RF). 2. In the case of HC(RM) Grade-I and GD-II and HC (Draughtsman) since the pay commission has given the replacement pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000/- in respect of these cat. of posts in CPMFs, these three cal may be re-designated as ASI in the scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/- as regards other cat. of HC in any of CPMFs, such as HC (RO, CRY) etc. These posts will continue to be known as HC in the relevant scale of pay approved by the Govt. 3. The issues with the concurrence of integrated finance division of this Min vide their Dy. No. 305/97- Fin-II dated 22 Jan 97." 4. By the said Office Memorandum dated 22.01.1998, it has been clarified that the order dated 10.10.1997 is equally applicable to all combatised categories for example the HC(RF) and they would be entitled to the replacement pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900/-. However, their status would be maintained. In para-2 of the said Office Memorandum, it has been clarified further that in case of the HC(RM) Grade-I and Grade-II and HC (Draughtsman), since the pay commission has given the replacement pay scales of Rs. 4000-6000/- in respect of those category of posts as regards other categories of HC in the relevant scale of pay, the similar benefits were approved by the Government. 4000-6000/- in respect of those category of posts as regards other categories of HC in the relevant scale of pay, the similar benefits were approved by the Government. Basing on the said O.M. dated 22.01.1998, some of the petitioners represented to the respondent No. 2 for their up-gradation to the rank of Asstt. Sub-Inspector/Warrant Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- But even thereafter the post of Riflemen/Draughtsman/Havildar Draughtsman in the Assam Rifles were not upgraded to the cadre of Asstt. Sub-Inspector (ASI) although in other para military organizations like the BSF,CRPF, under the same Ministry, implemented the said directions contained in the order dated 10.10.1997 read with the O.M. dated 22.01.1998. 5. It appears from the letter dated 02.06.1998 that on the face of numerous representations from the personnel of technical categories regarding pay and rank i.e. Havildar (RM) and Havildar (Draughtsman), the Director General of Assam Rifles, the respondent No. 2 herein wrote to the Ministry of Home Affairs, seeking the sanction for implementing the O.M. dated 22.01.1998. Apart of the said communication dated 02.06.1998 is reproduced hereunder: "2. This Dte vide our letter No. A/Pers/5th-CPC/Vol.III/98 dated 18 Feb 98 (not at all) had taken up case with MHA to re-designate Hav (RM) Grade I & Grade II and HAV (Draughtsman) of Assam Rifles as warrant officers and be entitled the replacement pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- to bring them at par within their counterparts in other CPOs. Attention of MHA was also drawn regarding placement of Hav A(RM) Grade I & II and Hav (Draughtsman) in lower scale of pay consequent to IV pay commission. 3. In reply of our above mentioned letter, MHA ruled vide their letter No. 27011/103/97-PF. 1 dated 03 Mar 98 that Assam Rifles can redesignate HC(RM) as Warrant Officers, if pre-revised and revised pay scale of Hav (RM) in Assam Rifles are identical to the pay scale of HC(RM) in BSF & CRPF. Presently cannot redesignate Hav (RM) as WO equivalent in Assam Rifles because there is disparity in pays (copy of MHA letter att). 4. It is pertinent to clarify here that entry qualification of HC (RM) in other CPOs is higher than required of Hav (RM) who is a Dett promote in Assam Rifles. Thus their terms and conditions and pay scale are different. 4. It is pertinent to clarify here that entry qualification of HC (RM) in other CPOs is higher than required of Hav (RM) who is a Dett promote in Assam Rifles. Thus their terms and conditions and pay scale are different. To circumvent the above difficulty of entry qualification and Hav (RM) drawing lesser pay consequent to IV CPC this Dte has re-taken up case vide this Dte letter No. A/Pers/5th-CPC/Vol.III/98/77 dated 06 Apr 98 for introduction of warrant officer rank in percentage in following cat:- (a) Hav(Pharmacist) (b) Hav (Cipher) (c) Hav(Rm) (d) Hav(EFS) (e) Hav(ORL) 5. Beside above, this Dte has taken up a separate case vide letter No. A/Pers/5th-pay/21/97 dated 05 Nov 97 with MHA for granting spl. pay to all tech cat and regt appt." But, the saction as sought for was not accorded by the Ministry of Home Affairs. 6. The petitioners contented that the qualification as required at the entry point of Rifleman/Draughtsman are equivalent to the Draughtsman in the other Central Para Military Forces, hereinafter for short "CMPF", such as BSF,CRPF etc. The Draughtsman in those CMPF has been re-designated as the Asstt. Sub-Inspector with the replacement scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/- in view of the O.M. dated 22.01.1998 for illustrating the qualification required for the Asstt. Sub-Inspector (Draughtsman) Grade-III in the BSF, a reference may be made to the advertisement issued under No. A. 8/30/ASI-Draughtsman/PERS (SSB)/2007 (Annexure-II to the writ petition), whereby the following educational qualifications were insisted: "Essential:- (i) Matriculation pass or equivalent from a recognised Board University. (ii) Two years Diploma or certificate in Draughtsmanship (Civil) from a recognised Individual Training Institute or equivalent institution. Desirable:- One year experience in the Draughtsman-ship (Civil)." 7. From the Recruitment Rules (RC) for enrolment and promotion to the Draughtsman in the Assam Rifles, the following Qualification Recruitments (QRs) are insisted upon: "(a) Rifleman/Draughtsman (direct recruitment) Matric with English, Mathematics, Science and Diploma/ITI certificate from recognized institution. (b) Havilder/Draughtsman (direct recruitment) Matric or equivalent and diploma in the trade from recognized institution/board preferably with three years experience. (c) Promotion criteria from Rifleman/Draughtsman to Havildar/Draughtsman is eight years service and passed promotion cadre, Map Reading-II and Technical Trade Test-I. (d) The Draughtsman Class-I is not equivalent to diploma of three years duration." 8. (b) Havilder/Draughtsman (direct recruitment) Matric or equivalent and diploma in the trade from recognized institution/board preferably with three years experience. (c) Promotion criteria from Rifleman/Draughtsman to Havildar/Draughtsman is eight years service and passed promotion cadre, Map Reading-II and Technical Trade Test-I. (d) The Draughtsman Class-I is not equivalent to diploma of three years duration." 8. On drawing a comparison between the two qualifications, the petitioners claimed that they were also covered by the Office Memorandum dated 22.01.1998 inasmuch as all the petitioners have passed the matriculation and possessed two years Diploma in Draughtsman (Civil) and have working experience for several years having similar recruitment qualification like the Draughtsman in BSF who are now in the rank and status of Asstt. Sub-Inspector (Draughtsman) Grade-III. Denial as such of the benefits of up gradation to the rank of Asstt. Sub-Inspector in the replacement scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- in terms of the O.M. dated 22.01.1998 is arbitrary and iniquitous. The representations made in this regard by some of the petitioners, as available in Annexure-III series to the writ petition, even did not fetch any positive yield. Another grievance has also been projected in the writ petition in respect of their pay scale granted at the time of their entry. In the Assam Rifles, though the Draughtsman were being initially appointed in the rank and status of Havildar in the scale of pay of Rs. 3200-4900, but in the case of the petitioners herein, they were initially appointed as the Rifleman Draughtsman in the lower scale of pay of Rs. 3050-4590/- though having the similar Qualification Recruitment (QR). Even though the Radio Mechanics working in the Assam Rifles have been granted benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- in compliance to the decision of the Apex Court as rendered in Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K., as reported in (2008) 1 SSC 586, but on the same principle the upgration of the post of Rifleman Draughtsman/Havildar Draughtsman has not been considered. As consequence thereof, the petitioners are incurring huge financial loss each and every day and the action of the respondent has been affecting them continually as they are deprived of the rationalised rank, status and the scale of pay. 9. As consequence thereof, the petitioners are incurring huge financial loss each and every day and the action of the respondent has been affecting them continually as they are deprived of the rationalised rank, status and the scale of pay. 9. In Dineshan K.K.(supra), the Supreme Court affirmed the finding of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 497/2001 (Dineshan K.K. vs. Union of India), wherein it was stated: "Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the person holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene". The Union of India and other official respondents, hereinafter referred to as the respondents, by filing affidavit-in-opposition, in refuting the claim, asserted that- (i) the writ petition suffers from delay and latches as the claim of the petitioners based on the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commission; (ii) the recruitment, rank, structure and service condition of the petitioners are governed by the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 and the Rules made there-under, as such cannot be altered at the instance of the petitioners; and (iii) the entry level qualification and promotional criteria of the combatised Draughtsman in Assam Rifles are different from the other Central Police Organisations such as Border Security Force central Reserve Police Force etc. and as such no parity can be drawn among them. 10. The respondents further contended that the Office Memorandum dated 22.1.1998 does not include the Rifleman/Draughtsman for re-designation as Assistant Sub-Inspector. Moreover, the rank and designation as maintained in the Assam Rifles are different from the other Central Police Organisations. 80% Draughtsman are recruited in the rank of Rifleman and not Havildar (Head Constable). The promotional post of Rifleman is Habildar and not Assistant Sub-Inspector/Warrant Officer. Thus, there is a wide variance in the structure, rank and their designation in the Assam Rifles and no parity can be drawn to extend the benefits as provided by the O.M. dated 22.01.1998. They have taken a categorical stand the Draughtsman of Assam Rifles cannot be compared at par with the Draughtsman of other CPMFs. They further stated that the Govt. They have taken a categorical stand the Draughtsman of Assam Rifles cannot be compared at par with the Draughtsman of other CPMFs. They further stated that the Govt. of India has decided that the entry of the Draughtsman in the Assam Rifles should be in the rank of Warrant Officer with Diploma qualification in Draughtsman-ship and the said change would come into effect after modifying the Recruitment Rules. Apart that, the respondents stated that benefit of the O.M. dated 22.01.0998 would be applicable to those Head Constables/Havildar (Draughtsman) whose pre revised pay scale were Rs. 1200-2040/- and only they would be entitled to the replacement pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- with status of ASI/Warrant Officer, which is not the case with the Rifleman and Havildar/Draughtsman of Assam Rifles who were placed in the pre revised pay scale of Rs. 825-1200/- and Rs. 975-1660/- respectively. The respondents also stated that the Director General of Assam Rifles, respondent No. 2, had taken up the matter with the Ministry of Home Affairs for re-designation of Havildar (RM) Grade-I and Grade-II and Havildar (Draughtsman) as Warrant Officer (ASI in other CPMFs) with replacement scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/-, but the Ministry of Home Affairs did not approve the same. Faintly, it was also contended that since the petitioners had voluntarily joined their service, accepting all terms and conditions attached to their service relating to the post of Rifleman Draughtsman and Havildar Draughtsman, they cannot demand such up-gradation as a matter of right. The allegation of discrimination as projected by the petitioners has been discarded by the respondents on stating that principles as laid down by the Apex Court in Dinesh K.K. (supra) is not applicable in the case of the petitioners. However, an unnecessary comparison has been mad in the affidavit-in-opposition between the Rifleman Draughtsman, Havildar Draughtsman and the Radio Mechanics, working in the Assam Rifles. However, the respondents admitted that the said order of the Apex Court has been implemented giving the scale of scale pay of Rs. 4000-6000/- to all categories (Class-I, Class-II and Class-III of the radio Mechanics working in the Assam Rifles). 11. The writ petitioners, on the face of such stand taken by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-reply, generally denied the propositions as projected in the affidavit-in-opposition. 4000-6000/- to all categories (Class-I, Class-II and Class-III of the radio Mechanics working in the Assam Rifles). 11. The writ petitioners, on the face of such stand taken by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-reply, generally denied the propositions as projected in the affidavit-in-opposition. They categorically denied that- (i) Denial of the appropriate pay scale giving rise to a continuous cause of action and as such the challenge to non implementation of the O.M. dated 22.01.1998 should not face a road-block by way of doctrine of latches. (ii) The respondents misconstrued the OM dated 22.01.1998 which was issue by the Ministry of Home Affairs for extension of replacement pay scale for the Draughtsman at par with the other CPMFs. Moreover, it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition that the entry level qualification of the combatised Draughtsman of the Assam Rifles are at par with the QR of the CPMFs. 12. The petitioners further contended that the Recruitment Qualifications of the Draughtsman of the Assam Rifles working in the rank of Rifleman are exactly similar to the Draughtsman working in the other CPMFs. For restructuring, now the entry post in the BSF has become Asstt. Sub-Inspector (Draughtsman) with the identical QRs. Though the said post is carrying the replacement pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, but the petitioners are compelled to discharge the similar duties with much lower pay scale. This glaring disparity is nothing short of hostile discrimination, assert the petitioners. Even the promotional post of Havildar Draughtsman as stated carries a low pay scale vis-a-vis the replacement pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Therefore, all categories of Draughtsman working under the Assam Rifles are entitled to get the benefit of the restructuring in the rank up-gradation in the pay scale as approved by the Apex Court in Dineshan K.K. (supra) inasmuch as the principle for striking parity cannot be different as in Dineshan K.K. (supra), the Apex Court approved the parity between the radio Mechanics working in the Assam Rifles and the other CPMFs on the face of the respondents' similar plea, taken in the affidavit-in-opposition. The petitioners declined to accept that there is difference in the nature of duties as discharged by the Draughtsman in the other CPMFs and the Rifleman Draughtsman/Havildar Draughtsman in the Assam Rifles. The petitioners declined to accept that there is difference in the nature of duties as discharged by the Draughtsman in the other CPMFs and the Rifleman Draughtsman/Havildar Draughtsman in the Assam Rifles. They further contended in the reply that the respondents failed to give any reply how the duties of the Draughtsman working in the Assam Rifles are dissimilar or less onerous than that of the Draughtsman of the other CPMFs. 13. For further elucidation, the petitioners filed an additional affidavit with leave of this Court, wherein the petitioners contended that the claim of the respondents that 80% of the Draughtsman recruited in the rank of Rifle-man is contrary to the Rules and records of the Assam Rifles and as such said submission as made by the respondents is not liable to be considered. They categorically contended that: "...it is stated that the petitioners are highly aggrieved for creation of two separate categories of Draftsman i.e. Rifleman Draftsman as well as Havildar Draftsman with similar recruitment qualification when both the categories performing exactly same nature of work, duties and responsibilities in the respondents Department. But direct recruit Rifleman Draftsman, surprisingly allotted lower scale of pay Rs. 3050-4590, whereas, Havildar Draftsman are allotted the scale of Rs. 3200-4900/- at the time of initial recruitment or in other words the entry scale of the cadre of Rifleman Draftsman and Havildar Draftsman discriminated in the matter of allotment of scale of pay when both the categories of Draftsman discharge identical duties with different nomenclature of the posts namely "Rifleman Draftsman" and "Havildar Draftsman", but factually both the categories of posts, as stated above are identical except separate nomenclature. It is pertinent to mention here at this stage, that both the categories of Draftsman namely "Rifleman Draftsman" and "Havildar Draftsman" are also recruited under Direct Recruitment quota, as per recruitment rule as stated in the affidavit-in-opposition. As per Recruitment Rules known as (the Assam Rifle) Group "C" combatised posts Recruitment Rules, 2000 there is also a provision of promotion of Rifleman Draftsman in the cadre of Havildar Draftsman, whereas, both the categories of Draftsman are recruited in Assam Rifles with exactly similar recruitment qualification, with similar duties and responsibilities. Therefore creation of two categories of Draftsman with different scale of pay having similar recruitment qualification with similar duties and responsibilities is highly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. Therefore creation of two categories of Draftsman with different scale of pay having similar recruitment qualification with similar duties and responsibilities is highly arbitrary, illegal and discriminatory. It is evident from the recent advertisement issued for filling up the vacancies of Havildar Draftsman on direct recruitment basis prescribing the same recruitment qualification as required for recruitment of Rifleman Draftsman. As such, classification of two categories of Draftsman in the matter of rank, status and scale of pay on the basis of source of Recruitment are highly arbitrary and such, classification is violative of Article 14 as because the same pay scale ought to have been available to both the categories of Draftsman in addition to their claim for grant of scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- at per with similarly situated Draftsman having similar recruitment qualification working in other CPMF under the same Ministry of Home affairs, Govt. of India." 14. Referring to a decision of the Apex Court as rendered in P. Savita & Ors. vs. Union of India, Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence Production), New Delhi & Ors., as reported in 1985 (Supp) SCC 94 the petitioners contended that the Draughtsman discharging the same functions and duties, classification of the Draughtsman into two groups with higher or lower scale of pay is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In P. Savita (supra), the Apex Court held as under: "11. It has to be borne in mind that this differentiation is not based on any intelligible ground. The group of Draughtsman entitled to the higher scale of pay, is not selected by any process not is it based on any merit-cum-seniority basis, but is based only on seniority-cum-fitness. There is no denial anywhere that both these types of Draughtsman do the same work and discharge the same functions and duties. According to the recommendations of the Third pay Commission a Draughtsman has to get Rs. 330-10-380-EB-12-500-EB-15-560. While Senior Draughtsman like the appellants, who have become so on promotion, will continue to get the same scale of pay and not the higher scale of pay. In other words, the promoted persons like the appellants, are without any monetary benefit to them. The pay that they would get as Senior Draughtsman, would be the same as Draftsman would get under the Third Pay Commission. In other words, the promoted persons like the appellants, are without any monetary benefit to them. The pay that they would get as Senior Draughtsman, would be the same as Draftsman would get under the Third Pay Commission. That is, for the same work and same functions, the appellants would get sell pay than the other group of senior Draughtsman. The explanation is that this division is based on seniority. This cannot be accepted as sufficient to meet the requirements of law by seniority, a Senior Draughtsman will get higher pay with the increments that he earns proportionate to the number of years he is in service. Here that is not the case. It is the classification of the Senior Draughtsman into two groups, that is responsible for the higher pay. For this classification, the Government must be able to satisfy the Court of certain other tests which are non-existent in this case, since it is not in dispute that Senior Draughtsman, belonging to the two Divisions, do equal and same work. In view of the total absence of any plea on the side of the respondents, that the Senior Draughtsman who are placed in the advantageous group, do not perform work and duties more onerous or different from the work performed by the appellants' group, it will have to be held that this grouping violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 12. The High Court did not have the advantage of a decision of this Court in Randhir Singh V. Union of India, to which one of us was a party, which evolved the equity doctrine embodied in Article 39(d) and read Article 14 into it; while considering the complaint of a driver who was originally in the Army but later employed as a driver constable in Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration and who was denied the same pay as was available to the other divers in the service of the Delhi Administration. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authorities to pay the petitioners in that case, salary at least equal to the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authorities to pay the petitioners in that case, salary at least equal to the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. Disagreeing with the plea, put forward by the Union of India this Court observed as follows: The counter-affidavit does not explain how the case of the drivers in the Police Force is different from that of the drivers in other departments and what special factors weighed in fixing a lowers cal of pay for them. Apparently in the view of the respondents, the circumstance that persons belong to different departments of the Government is itself a sufficient circumstance to justify different scales of pay irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities. We cannot accept this view. If this view is to be stretched to its logical conclusion, the scales of pay of officers of the same rank in the Government of India may vary from department to department not withstanding that their powers, duties and responsibilities are inditical. We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Governments and expert bodies like Pay Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same. 13. This Court however observed that a differential treatment in appropriate cases can be justified, when there are two grades based on reasonable grounds, and stated as follows: It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualification for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principal of 'equal pay for equal work' would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to applied to them. 14. With respect we agree with the conclusion arrived at in the above judgment, that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts discharging similar duties should not be treated differently. 15. The case on hand is much stronger than the facts of the Randhir Singh case. In that case, the drivers belonged to two different departments. In this case, the Senior Draughtsmen, divided into two groups are in the same department doing identical and same work. It is not a case of different grades created on the ground of higher qualification either academic or otherwise or an entitlement by any other criteria laid down. The justification for this classification is by the mere accident of an earlier entry in a service. This can not be justified. 16. The above decision of this Court has enlarged the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, envisaged in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and has exalted it to the position of a fundamental right by reading it along with Article 14. This exposition of law had given rise to some whispering dissent in that the doctrine had been extended beyond permissible limits. The observations that the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Article14, in the judgment in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi V. Union of India, rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court it is contended, may perhaps run counter to the observations in the decision referred above. We do not think it necessary on the facts of this case to dwell at length upon the effect of this observation on a wider campus of service jurisprudence in the context of equal pay for equal work which will have to be attempted in an appropriate case. 17. For the purpose of the case on hand, it is sufficient to none that the classification between two groups of Senior Draughtsman is without any basis. 17. For the purpose of the case on hand, it is sufficient to none that the classification between two groups of Senior Draughtsman is without any basis. They do the same work, they perform the same duties, and as such the ratio of the decision in Randhir Singh case applies to this case with greater force. The Order passed by the Government of India on January 27, 1978, implementing this Classification violates Article 14 of the Constitution and has to be struck down and we do so. In our opinion, it would be a great injustice to continue the appellants on the scales of pay of Draughtsman even after promotion as Senior Draughtsman, which is destructive of all incentive and initiative in the service. In our judgment, the High Court was in error in declining relief to the appellants. We accordingly, set aside the judgment of the High Court and allow this appeal and direct the Union of India to fix the seal of pay of appellants at Rs. 425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-640-EB-20-700. The appellants will be entitled to costs from respondent 1." 15. It is further contended by the petitioners that even the Civilian Draughtsman working in the Assam Rifles with exactly similar qualifications are getting much higher scale i.e. pre revised scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-, corresponding revised scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000/- at their initial entry grade when the petitioners herein being in the combatant side performing more onerous nature of work, duties and responsibilities/The Central Administrative Tribunal, in OA. No. 1072001 by the judgment and order dated 08.10.2001 granted the initial scale of pay to the Civilian Draughtsman working in the Assam Rifles i.e. Rs. 1400-2300/-, corresponding revised scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000/-, in substitution of the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040/- (revised scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/-) as contained in Part-B of CCS, RP Rules 1997. The said decision was confirmed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 100(SH)/2002, which was also confirmed by the Apex Courth in C.C. No. 8424/2005 by order dated 19.09.2005 by way of dismissing the SLR 16. The petitioners further contended that only by way of implementing the O.M. dated 22.01.1998, a part of the discrimination can be undone by the respondents, but they have declined even to do so. The petitioners further contended that only by way of implementing the O.M. dated 22.01.1998, a part of the discrimination can be undone by the respondents, but they have declined even to do so. In para-9 of the said affidavit, a reference has been made to the Ministry of Home Affairs vide O.M. dated 31.10.1997, where it has been stated as under: "Our intention was that the CPMFs concerned will continue to have the nomenclature equivalent to what has been provided in the rationalized rank structure of non-gazetted personnel vide our order dated 10.10.1997. An identical clarification given to I.B. is enclosed." "Assam Rifles may continue to use the nomenclature for the non-gazetted cadre of Assam Rifles equivalent to Constable, Head Constable, Sub-Inspector and Inspector. As regards the issue of ASI (Warrant Officer) in Assam Rifles, the matter is under examination and the position will be communicated to Assam Rifles separately." The said O.M. dated 31.10.1997 is available at Annexure-H to the additional affidavit as filed by the petitioners. 17. In the Central Pay Commission Report, the following observations has been made: "7.19.36. The Commission has also noted that bearing the CISF, all other CPMFs have removed the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector from their hierarchy. Since the restructuring of Central Para Military Forces was done in 1997 to establish one to one parity with Delhi Police, such a removal was not correct. The orders dated 10.10.1997 for restricting of the CPMFs, included the rank of ASI which also exists in Delhi Police. CPMFs, with the exception of CISF, did not, however, post any person in their respective executive cadres in the grade of ASI. Consequently, a Head Constable in CPMFs (barring CISF) is presently eligible for promotion/financial up-gradation under ACPS to the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 (being proposed for up-gradation by this Commission to Rs. 6500-10500). As against this, a Head Constable of Delhi Police on promotion or on financial up-gradation under ACPS gets the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 (being recommended for up-gradation by this Commission to Rs. 4500-7000). The rank of ASI in CPMFs also appears to be functionally necessary because the duties of heading independent Unit could be given to ASIs with Head Constables performing the job of Second-in-Command. This would also address the problem presently being faced by various CPMFs regarding inexperienced Head Constable having to lead independent Units. 4500-7000). The rank of ASI in CPMFs also appears to be functionally necessary because the duties of heading independent Unit could be given to ASIs with Head Constables performing the job of Second-in-Command. This would also address the problem presently being faced by various CPMFs regarding inexperienced Head Constable having to lead independent Units. The Commission, accordingly, recommends that the post of ASI should exist in the executive cadres of all the CPMFs." 18. The purpose is obvious of such recommendation that is to establish one to one party with the Delhi Police. But in the Assam Rifles, the respondent No. 2 had introduced a new structural concept and introduced the post of Warrant Office Clerk as a one time measure, thereby extending the benefit to a limited section of employees of the Assam Rifles who were on roll of Havildar Clerks as on 10.10.1997 without considering the case of the Rifleman Draughtsman/Havildar Draughtsman. This stand also stands contrary to the scheme as formulated by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India. In all the CPMFs, the said structural change has occurred in regular scale except in the Assam Rifles, even after Dineshan K.K. (supra), when the Apex Court rejected the plea of the respondent that the caderes of the Assam Rifles cannot be compared with the other CPMFs. 19. Mr. M. Chanda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners based his argument on the principles as laid down by the Apex Court in Dineshan K.K. (supra), where the Apex Court observed that "undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene." The Apex Court in Dineshan K.K. (supra) further observed as follows: "24. From the afore-extracted paragraphs of the counter-affidavit and the resume of correspondence referred to above, it clearly stands admitted by the petitioners herein that (i) all the paramilitary forces, including Assam Rifles are on a par with each other and (ii) there was apparent "disparity" in the pay scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles with their counterparts in other Central paramilitary forces. In order to rectify this disparity, Director General, Assam Rifles, Petitioner 2 herein, vide his letter dated 18.2.1998 had, in fact, taken up the grievance of the respondent with the Ministry of Home Affairs, inter alia, recommending re-designation of Havildar (RM) Grade-I and I of Assam Rifles as warrant officer and for replacement of pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 to bring them on a par with their counterparts in other Central Police Organizations. 25. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letter dated 3.3.1998 while accepting the said proposal had recommended re-designation of Havildar/RM as warrant officer but subject to the condition that the pre-revised and revised pay scales of Havildar/RM in other paramilitary forces were identical to the pay scales of Head Constable (RM) in CRPF and BSF. Manifestly, in the instant case, the differentiation in the pay scales of the two paramilitary forces is sought to be achieved not on the ground of dissimilarity of academic qualification or the nature of duties and responsibilities but only on the ground that there was "initial anomaly" in the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report. The counter affidavit does not even attempt to explain how the case of Havildar/RM in Assam Rifles is different from that of Radio Mechanics in other Central Paramilitary Forces. 26. In the present case therefore, in the light of the admitted factual position, the question of examination for external comparisons, internal relatives and other factors, to be kept in view for job evaluation, considered to be a complex issue to be studied only by expert bodies, does not arise. As a necessary corollary, the issue as to whether there is a complete or wholesale identity between the said paramilitary forces does not survive for consideration. 27. Thus the short question, requiring our consideration is whether having admitted in their affidavit referred to herein above, the "apparent disparity" and "anomaly" in the pay scales of Radio Mechanics, the administrative authorities, the petitioners herein, could be permitted to perpetuate apparent discriminatory differentiation in the pay scale because of the disparity in pre revised and revised scale of the personnel of Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Forth Pay Commission, irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities with other paramilitary forces. In our considered opinion, in view of the total absence of any plea on the part of the Union of India that Radio Mechanics in other paramilitary forces were performing different or more onerous duties as compared to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, the impugned decision of the Government was clearly irrational and arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution." 20. Mr. Chanda, learned counsel for the appellant further relied a decision of the Apex Court has rendered in Union of India & Ors. vs. Debashis Kar & Ors., as reported in 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 528, wherein the Apex Court held: "16. Dealing with Draughtsman in Army Base Workshops in the EME, the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has observed that in the EME for the post of Draughtsmen, the qualifications that are prescribed are "Matriculation or its equivalent with two years' Diploma in Draughtsmanship Mechanical or its equivalent". The Tribunal has referred to the Report of the Third Pay Commission wherein, while dealing with Draughtsman who were in the pay scale of Rs. 150-240 (as per report of Second Pay Commission), it is stated (ii) for the next higher grade of Rs. 150-240 the requirement is generally a Diploma in Draughtsmanship or an equivalent qualification in Architecture (both of 2 years' duration after Matriculation). 17. The Tribunal has observed that tracer in the EME could not be treated in any other manner but on a par with Grade III Draughtsman of CPWD, keeping in view their recruitment qualifications. The Tribunal held that the benefit of Office Memorandum dated 13.3.1984 had been rightly extended to Draughtsman in EME and that its withdrawal was illogical and irrational. The learned counsel for the appellants has been unable to show that the said view of the Tribunal suffers from an infirmity which would justify interference by this Court." 21. Relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., as reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618 , Mr Chanda, learned counsel for the petitioners, further submitted that it is a broader parity, not the hyper technical dissimilarities which are required to be considered. 22. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents, relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. 22. On the other hand, Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the respondents, relying on a decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors., as reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153 and State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, as reported in (2002) 6 SSC 72, submitted that fixation of pay scale or determination of parity in duties is in the domain of the executive and while offering the pay scales, financial capacity of the Government, the prevailing policies of the Government and types of post to which priority are to be given all are considered, sometimes by aid of the expert body. The court's jurisdiction only comes into when the fixation of pay or the pay parity is found to be abundantly irrational and unjust. In the case in hand, there is no irrationality in the action of the respondents. Mr. Shyam, learned CGC further submitted that though the catalogue of duties and responsibilities vis-a-vis the counterparts working in the other CPMFs are not provided but the respondents have categorically denied any parity. 23. Mr. Shyam, learned CGC further submitted that the writ petition is hit by the doctrine of laches as the petitioners approached this Court for implementation of the Office Memorandum dated 22.01.1998 after more than a decade and confronted thus, this petition deserves to be dismissed in view of the decision as rendered by the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar, as reported in (1995) 4 SCC 683 . In Digambar (supra), the Apex Court held that when the writ petitioner was guilty of laches or undue delay in approaching the High Court, the principle of laches or undue delay adverted to above, disentitled the writ petitioner for discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution from the High Court, particularly, when virtually no attempt had been made by the writ petitioner to explain his blameworthy conduct of undue delay or laches. The High Court, therefore, was wholly wrong in granting relief in that case. 24. It is no more res integra that this Court should interfere with the administrative decision pertinent to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. 24. It is no more res integra that this Court should interfere with the administrative decision pertinent to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. The Apex Court in K.T. Veerappa & vs. State of Karnataka & Ors., as reported in (2006) 9 SSC 406 has culled out the law as under: "13. He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. (2002) 6 SSC 72 and Union of India vs. S.B. Vohra: (2004) 2 SSC 150. There is no dispute non can there by any to the principle as settled in the State of Haryana V. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the Courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors." 25. In this context, another decision of the Supreme Court may be referred to, as rendered in State of Haryana & Ors. vs. Charanjit Singh & Ors., as reported in (2006) 9 SSC 321, wherein the Apex Court held: "19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Tarun K. Roy lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work "has no mechanical application in every case. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of "equal pay for equal work "has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matter, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by the competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different, it is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by expert body. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event, the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments and prove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a Court, the Court must first see that there are necessary averments and there is a proof. If the High Court is, on basis of material placed before it, convinced that there was equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors." 26. Even thereafter, in West Bengal Registration Service Association (supra), the Supreme Court sounded the warning about the principle of caution by holding that nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by the arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking the doors of the executive or the legislature, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust it is open to the Court to intervene. Therefore, the jurisprudential objection as raised by Mr. Therefore, the jurisprudential objection as raised by Mr. S.C. Shyam, learned CGC must find its imminent rejection as there is no blanket bar but in appropriate cases the Court has the power of judicial review as regards the pay fixation and the parity. 27. The fundamental principles, on whom the burden lies to affirmatively establish the rational principle on which the classification founded correlated to the object sought to be achieved, has been quite elaborately discussed and culled out in D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India, as reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 . Gainfully, para-16 of the said decision is reproduced hereunder: "16. As a corollary to this well established proposition, the next question is, on whom the burden lies to affirmatively establish the rational principle on which the classification is founded correlated to the object sought to be achieved? The thrust of Article 14 is that the citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of laws. In the very nature of things the society being composed of un equals a welfare State will have to strive by both executive and legislative action to help the less fortunate in the society to ameliorate their condition so that the social and economic inequality in the society my be bridged. This would necessitate a legislation applicable to a group of citizens otherwise unequal and amelioration of whose lot is the object of state affirmative action. In the absence of doctrine of classification such legislation is likely to flounder on the bed rock of equality enshrined in Article 14. The Court realistically appraising the social stratification and economic inequality and keeping in view the guidelines on which the State action must move as constitutionally laid down in Part IV of the Constitution, evolved the doctrine of classification. The doctrine was evolved to sustain a legislation or State action designed to help weaker sections of the society or some such segments of the society in need of succour. Legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained if it satisfied the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved . The State, therefore, would have to affirmative satisfy the Court that the twin tests have been satisfied. Legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained if it satisfied the twin tests of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved . The State, therefore, would have to affirmative satisfy the Court that the twin tests have been satisfied. It can be only be satisfied if the State establishes not only the rational principle on which classification is founded but correlate it to the objects sought to be achieved. The approach is noticed in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCR 1014 ,when at SCR page 1034 (SCC p. 506), the Court observed that a discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be stuck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory." 28. In State of Mysore & Anr. vs. P. Narasinga Rao, as reported in AIR 1968 SC 349 , the Apex Court culled out the principle as follows: "It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or stationary provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group; and the second test is that achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basic of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule." 29. Law, therefore, has been crystalised that the onus lies with the Government to show that classification is based on rational principle, correlated to the objects sought to be achieved else the Government action is liable to be struck down. On a deeper scrutiny of the materials placed on records and also on the rival averments, it appears before this Court that the respondents have miserably failed to discharge the burden regarding the rational principle and to affirmatively establish on which the classification is founded. Some bald statements cannot substitute the required discharge of the burden. On a deeper scrutiny of the materials placed on records and also on the rival averments, it appears before this Court that the respondents have miserably failed to discharge the burden regarding the rational principle and to affirmatively establish on which the classification is founded. Some bald statements cannot substitute the required discharge of the burden. Moreover, in Dineshan K.K. (supra), a substantial part of the dispute has dwelled upon and held that simply because the petitioners were working under the different establishments of the Ministry of Home Affairs despite having established the similar nature of duties, denial of the benefits as illustrated in the order dated 10.10.1997 read with the O.M. dated 22.01.1998 is absolutely unreasonable and such arbitrary State action cannot be sustained. In the present case, the petitioners have established that they are discharging similar nature of duties as a combatised Rifleman Draughtsman/Havildar Draughtsman, and the respondents could not furnish a single example of the dissimilarities as claimed by them. As such, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners are entitled to reliefs as claimed in the writ petition. 30. Regarding the two categories of Draughtsman, this Court refrains from making any declaration regarding the parity and scales, but it would be in the fitness of things to declare, following the Dineshan K.K. (supra), that both the Rifleman Draughtsman and Havildar Draughtsman working in the Assam Rifles are entitled to be redesignated as the Warrant Officer/Asstt. Sub-Inspector (ASI) following the restructuring of the rank and the pay scale as emanated from the order dated 10.10.1997 and the Office memorandum dated 22.01.1998 meaning the replacement scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/- w.e.f. 10.10.1997 or from the date of appointment of the petitioners in the entry post, whichever is later. 31. The objection that has been raised by the learned Central Govt. Counsel on laches, this Court finds that in the writ petition, the petitioners have provided an explanation stating that denial of the financial benefits so far it relates to the structuring in the rank coupled with the replacement pay scale, gives rise the cause of action on every and each day. 32. Counsel on laches, this Court finds that in the writ petition, the petitioners have provided an explanation stating that denial of the financial benefits so far it relates to the structuring in the rank coupled with the replacement pay scale, gives rise the cause of action on every and each day. 32. The Apex Court, on consideration of M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India as reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 and Union of India vs. Tarsem Singh, as reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 , re-enunciated the law in regard to the doctrine of laches in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, as reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 in no uncertain terms: "18. We cannot agree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, the challenge is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Though the lesser payment may be a consequence of the error that was committed at the time of appointment, the claim for a higher allowance in accordance with the Rules (prospectively from the date of application) cannot be rejected merely because it arises from a wrong fixation made several years prior to the claim for correct payment. But in respect of grant of consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period, the principle relating to recurring and successive wrongs would apply. Therefore the consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the original application." 33. For the reasons as assigned, this Court directs the respondents to provide the petitioners the rank of Asstt. Sub-Inspector/Warrant Officer in conformity with the Ministry of Home Affair's. Order dated 10.10.1997 read with the O.M. dated 22.01.1998 with replacement scale of pay of Rs. 4000-6000/- w.e.f. 10.10.1997 or from the date of appointment of the petitioners in the entry post, which ever is latter. This direction shall invariably be complied with within a period of 2 (two) months from today. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.