1. Both these writ petitions involving a common question of the facts and of law were heard together, and are now being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are Ex-servicemen are said to have a common grievance, and are filing the writ petitions jointly. 2. The petitioners were recruited to the Assam Tea Plantation Security Force (‘ATPSF’) between 1993 and 1996 under the Ex-servicemen quota, and were placed under {he disposal of the tea estates where deemed necessary for imparting training to the freshly recruited persons in ATPSF. They are, however, placed under the administrative control of the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police. The ATPSF was raised by the, Government of Assam to combat the extremist activities in the tea estates of Assam when rampant extortion and abduction of executives were unleashed by militants thereby causing terror to the industry. The, Government of Assam had, therefore, entered into an agreement with the Tea Association of India to raise the force and impart adequate training to the rank and file for the purpose while the tea industry “had agreed to bear the expenses towards the salaries and other benefits like ration, dress, etc., of the force. 3. The grievance of the petitioners is that despite the hazardous task assigned to them in the course of combating militants, there were not paid the salaries drawn by the regular members of the Assam Police Battalion. Nevertheless, the respondents allowed promotion to the petitioners in the higher ranks such Platoon Commander, Lance Naik, Naik and Havildar on the basis of their performance and selection but are never paid regular pay scales for such higher posts on par with similar rank holders of the regular force. Feeling discriminated against, the association of the petitioners approached this Court in Civil Rule No. 1584/1997 for regularization of their services under the Government of Assam with all service benefits. This court by the judgment dated 22.4.2002 allowed the writ petition by directing the State-respondents either to give permanent status to the petitioners or, in case they did not like to continue them in the force, to rehabilitate them elsewhere. 4. Even after obtaining favourable order from this court, no tangible benefits were given to the petitioners, which prompted them to take recourse to agitational paths thereby inviting repressive measures from the State-respondents. 4. Even after obtaining favourable order from this court, no tangible benefits were given to the petitioners, which prompted them to take recourse to agitational paths thereby inviting repressive measures from the State-respondents. When such repressive measures resorted to by the State-respondents failed to curb the movement, the State-respondents ultimately adopted a Cabinet Memorandum to create two new battalions in the names and style of Assam Tea Plantation and Industrial Security Force under the control of the Director General of Civil Defence and Commandant General of Home Guards, Assam (respondent No. 4) with the strength of 1326 in each battalion as per the Scheme depending upon the number ATPSF personnel found suitable, and 2571 personnel including the petitioners were thus selected and the Treasury Officers. Kaliabor, Nagaon and Dibrugarh were informed accordingly on 14.7.2009 about such appointments with the approval of Finance Department. The petitioner were thereafter absorbed against the posts they were holding while working in the ATPSF and have been discharging their duties in various ranks, namely Platoon Commander, Naibsubedar and Havildar but with the fixed salary of Rs. 10,224 per month but showing them as appointed on contractual basis without giving any increment or any other service benefits such as earned leave, etc. The refusal/failure on the part of the State-respondents to grant the visual regular pay scale corresponding to their ranks despite discharging their duties in such 8 ranks has once again become the source of resentment to them and the same is considered by them to be arbitrary, discriminatory and is in violation of Ex-Servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in the State Service and post Class III and Class IV) Rules, 1986. Aggrieved by this, they are again initiating this second round of litigations to claim the elusive regular pay scales. 5. The writ petitions are contested by the State-respondents by filing their affidavits-in-opposition in both the cases. The common thread which runs through the two affidavits filed by them is that/the petitioners were always a part of Assam Tea Plantation Security Force till they came over to Assam Industrial Security Force (AISF) under the control of the respondent No. 4 and that the two battalions came under the Assam Home Guards (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 1991, which is silent about promotion on contractual personnel. There is no provision for annual service increment to the persons appointed on contractual basis. There is no provision for annual service increment to the persons appointed on contractual basis. As per the Scheme, the petitioners will remain in contractual service till they attain the age of 60 years or till they are otherwise remain fit for service, whichever is earlier where-after the resultant vacancies will be filled up by regular Home Guard personnel after observing formalities under the provisions of the Assam Home Guards (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules. According to the answering respondents, there is no question of allowing the petitioners to be, brought under regular structure by granting the pay scales of the corresponding ranks of the regular personnel. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (EC-II) Department, it is stated that the Finance Department vide the endorsement dated 8.9.2008 concurred to the proposal of the Home Department for creation as well as for filling up of 2,564 posts of different categories on different pay scales for the two battalions of the Assam Industrial Security Force under the respondent No. 4 and that the personnel of the said ATPSF would be absorbed in the new two battalions of AISF by re-structuring the ATPSF pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 28.1.2008. It is also stated therein that by the same endorsement, the Finance Department also approved the transfer of another 88 posts of different categories from the Assam Home Guards Battalion/ATPSF to these two new AISF battalions. The deponent further states that the information about filling up these 2,571 posts of different categories in the 1st and 2nd AISF battalions by, the incumbents indicated in Annexure 6 to the writ petition was communicated to the respective Treasuries by the Finance Department on the basis of the proposal of the Home Department. 7. In their reply affidavit, the petitioners point out that their recruitment was done by a central recruitment body constituted by the State-respondents. They were appointed against sanctioned posts. In their anxiety to get re-employment to support their families, they had to give an undertaking to the effect that they agreed to work in the AISF at the fixed pays on contractual basis. As they were in dire need of Government job with hardly any option available to them at the relevant time, such undertaking had to be given by them. As they were in dire need of Government job with hardly any option available to them at the relevant time, such undertaking had to be given by them. In other words, according to the petitioners, they were hardly in a bargaining position vis-a-vis the State authorities, who are always in an advantageous position. It is thus contended by the petitioners that such undertakings given by them when they had no bargaining power cannot operate as waiver, acquiescence or estoppel so as to approach this court for the relief’s claimed herein. 8. Before proceeding further, I am tempted to quote the observations of this court in paragraphs 8 and 9 of judgment dated 22.4.2002 in Civil Rule No. 1584 of 1997 which may offer a clue to resolving the current dispute : “8. Mr. B.J. Talukdar, learned State counsel has been emphatic in asserting that there is no Master and Servant relationship between the State of Assam and the members of the Force exists in the facts of the present case. The argument advanced, taken to its logical conclusion, is that members of the Force are really the employees of the Tea Estate as their salaries and entitlements are being paid by the garden authorities. This question has been dealt with in the foregoing paragraphs from a slightly different perspective. To more specifically answer the argument advanced, the principles applicable in industrial law for determining the existence of a Master and Servant relationship may be conveniently referred to. What is paramount for determination of such a relationship, is existence of a right of supervise (supervision?) and control (of?) the work done. There is no reason why the same principles cannot be applied to normal service jurisprudence if such a precise question is raised. On application of the aforesaid test, the results are in favour of the petitioners. 9. Consequently, for the reasons alluded to in the foregoing paragraphs, this writ petition has to be allowed. The State respondents will now examine the question as to whether further continuance of the force in the future would be necessary and, if so, to give permanent status along with consequential time scale of pay to such members of the force who may be in service as on date. The existing framework under which the Force continues to operate will naturally have to undergo certain structural changes at the hands of the authority. The existing framework under which the Force continues to operate will naturally have to undergo certain structural changes at the hands of the authority. If, however, the continuance of the Force raises any room for doubt and speculation in the minds of the authority, the concerned State authorities will ensure continuance of the employment of the members of the Force till such time that the Force remains in operation and simultaneously embark upon a package of phased rehabilitation of the members of the Force. The directions in favour of the members of the Force, as herein above, is naturally subject to their being found fit and eligible for continuance in active service. No time limit has been fixed to compel performance of the obligations cast upon the State authorities by this order as this court sees no reason as to why the authorities will not carry out such obligations within a reasonable time.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Even though the aforesaid directions were issued by this court as early as 22.4.2002, the State-respondents, after much prevarication, finally constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee to examine the proposal for restructuring the Assam Tea Plantation Security Force. The Committee, as already noticed, recommended the creation of two new Battalions in the name and style of “Assam Tea Plantation and Industrial Security Force” in the line of the existing two ASRF Battalions basically to provide security related duties in the Tea Gardens. According to the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, the strength of the Battalion would be 1326 posts in each of the Battalions as per the Scheme depending upon the number of ATPSF personnel found suitable. The services of the existing 88 personnel then serving in the Assam Home Guards (Border Wing) Battalion against the sanctioned posts and the personnel in the ATPSP should be utilized in the two new Battalions, and as a result, the number of the new posts would be 2564 in the two new Battalions. The eligibility of the ATPSF personnel would be examined by a Board to be constituted by he Government and on the basis of suitability report of the Board, the selected personnel would be put through six months ‘ training under the police and only after successful completion of the police training, the suitable personnel of the ATPSF would be selected for absorption in the new Battalion. The Sub-Committee also recommended specific pay scales for the posts of Commandant, 2nd-in-Command, Medical Officer, Assistant Commandant, Subedar, Platoon commander, Hayildar, Naik, Lance Naik, Constable, Followers, Pharmacist/Compounder and Dresser and not honoraria or fixed pays. Thereafter, the State Government in the Home Department issued the Notification dated 22.4.2008, the relevant portion is in the following terms: “No. HMB. 32/2008/19: The Governor of Assam is pleased to order raising of two new Battalions under the name and style of: 1. “No. 3 Assam Industrial Security Force Battalion” (No. 3 AISF) 2. “No. 4 Assam Industrial Security Force Battalion” (No. 4 AISF Bn.) to absorb the eligible personnel of the Assam Tea Plantation Security Force under permanent structure with immediate effect. The Commandant, Assam, Tea Plantation Security Force, Beltola, Guwahati shall be in charge of No. 3 A.I.S.F. Battalion till the appointment of the incumbent on regular basis. The Commandant, Assam Home Guards (Border Wing) Battalion, Beltola, Guwahati shall be in charge of the No. 4 A.I.S.F. Battalion till appointment of an incumbent on regular basis. Sd/-S.C.Das, Principal Secy., to the Govt. of Assam Home Department.” 10. The aforesaid notification was followed by the letter dated 14.7.2005 issued by the Under Secretary, Finance (Budget) Department, Govt. of Assam, which said that 2571 persons have been appointed by the Commandant 1st AISF Bn. Nagaon and by Commandant 2nd AISF Battalion under the Directorate General of Civil Defence and Commandant General of Home Guards, Assam by indicating the names of the new appointees, their designations and date of joining, etc., in the statement enclosed therewith. Interestingly, the scales of pay or the fixed pays payable to the new appointees are conspicuous by their absence. What is significant to note is that the Cabinet Sub-Committee had recommended payment of regular pay scales and issue of rations to the appointees. However, the petitioners were paid and have been paid a fixed pay plus other allowance but not a regular pay scales. A typical example of the appointment order issued to the petitioner is found at Annexure 1 to the affidavit of the respondent No. 5, which says that the appointment is on contractual basis at fixed pay plus other allowances as admissible under the rules and is purely temporary and might be terminated at any time without notice. A typical example of the appointment order issued to the petitioner is found at Annexure 1 to the affidavit of the respondent No. 5, which says that the appointment is on contractual basis at fixed pay plus other allowances as admissible under the rules and is purely temporary and might be terminated at any time without notice. At this stage, it may recalled that even before their absorption, the petitioners were not paid pay scales at par with similar ranks holders of the regular force. Aggrieved by that, they had approached this court in C.R. No. 1584/ 97 and had also resorted to the path of agitations whereupon the State-respondents constituted the Cabinet Sub-Committee, which, as noticed earlier, made recommendation for absorption of the petitioners with regular pay scales like regular force. Ironically, the positions of the petitioners remain the same even after the said notification dated 22.4.2008: as the saying goes, the more things change, the more they remain the same. 11. The question which now falls for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to regular pay scales? The fact that they have been continuing to discharge their duties till now eloquently demonstrates that their services are still required by the State-respondents in one way or another. This court in its judgment dated Civil Rule No. 1584/97, had clearly directed that if further continuance of their services were found to be necessary, they should be given permanent status along with the consequential time scale of pay to such members of the Force who might be in service as on date. Instead of challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 22.4.2002, the State-respondents chose to honour the same by constituting the Cabinet Sub-Committee for examining the issue. Apparently, acting upon the recommendations of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, the State-respondents issued the notification dated 22.4.2008 absorbing the eligible personnel of the Assam Tea Plantation Security Force including the petitioner under permanent structure. The term ‘absorption ‘ came up for discussion, albeit in the context of the effect of inter se seniority after absorption, before the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Kartar Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1990 P&H 1 . In his concurring judgment, Justice M.M. Punchhi (as his Lordship then was) observed, thus: “39. In his concurring judgment, Justice M.M. Punchhi (as his Lordship then was) observed, thus: “39. According to the meaning found in Chanters 20th Century Dictionary, the word ‘absorption ‘ means the act of absorbing and ‘absorb ‘ means to such in; to swallow up: to imbibe: to take in: to incorporate: to take up and transform (energy) instead of transmitting or reflecting: to engage wholly. According to Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, the word ‘absorption’ is explained as a term used in collective bargaining agreements, to provide seniority for union members, if business is merged with another. Humphrey v. Moore, 375 US 335, 84 S Ct. 363,369. According to the Dictionary of English Law by Sweet & Maxwell the word ‘absorption’ is equal to the word ‘amalgamation’. ‘Amalgamation has been explained to say that this takes place where to incorporated companies or societies become united by one of them being merged in the other. 40. Absorption thus (does?) have the effect of sucking and imbibing into what is originally existing. On absorption thus an employee becomes part and part of the department absorbing him and partakes the same colour and character of the existing employees of the department, classified as promotees, direct appointees or transferees on the loss of his identity. If this is understood in this perspective, there is no difficulty in assigning the absorbees seniority in accordance with seniority R. 15. Nothing more need be added.” 12. In my opinion, once the petitioners have been absorbed under permanent structure, they are deemed to have become members of the regular force with the entitlement of regular personnel with consequential time scales of pay. Any other view will be contrary to the intended consequence of the notification dated 22.4.2008 and will also be inconsistent with the direction of this court contained in the judgment dated 22.4.2002. You cannot take away with the left hand what you have given with your right hand. If that were not so, the very object of the direction of this court would be defeated. It will be absurd and unreasonable if the conditions of the petitioners remain the same even after the intervention of this court and the fruits of their agitations are still frustrated. The observations of the Apex Court in Bhupender Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2013) 2 SCC 516 instantly come to mind: “65. It will be absurd and unreasonable if the conditions of the petitioners remain the same even after the intervention of this court and the fruits of their agitations are still frustrated. The observations of the Apex Court in Bhupender Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, (2013) 2 SCC 516 instantly come to mind: “65. We have stated the role of the State as a model employer with the fond hope that in future a deliberate disregard is not taken recourse to and deviancy of such magnitude is not adopted to frustrate the claims of the employees. It should always be borne in mind that legitimate aspirations of the employees are not guillotined and a situation is not created where hopes end in despair. Hope for everyone is gloriously precious and a model employer should not convert it to be deceitful and treacherous by playing a game of chess with their seniority. A sense of calm sensibility and concerned sincerity should be reflected in every step. An atmosphere of trust has to prevail and when the employees are absolutely sure that their trust shall not be betrayed and they shall be treated with dignified fairness then only the concept of good governance can be concretised. We say no more.” 13. The fact that the intention of the respondent-authorities was to give permanent status to the petitioners with regular time scales for the various ranks can be safely inferred from paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the finance Department, which reads, thus : “4. That as regards to the statements made in paragraphs 9 to 11 of the writ petition, the deponent respectfully begs to state that the Finance Department vide endorsement dated 8.9.2008 in Home Department’s file No. HMB. 20/2008 concurred to a proposal of Home Department for creation as well as for filling up of 2,564 numbers of posts of different categories on different scales of pay for the 2 (two) new Assam Industrial Security Force (AISF) Battalions under the Director General of Civil Defence and Commandant General of Home Guards for absorption of the personnel of the Assam Tea Plantation Security Force (ATPSF) in these 2 (two) new AISF Battalions by re-structuring the ATPSF in pursuance of the Cabinet decision dated 28.1.2008. By this endorsement dated 8.9.2008, the Finance Department also approved transfer of another eighty-eight number of posts of different categories from the Assam Home Guards Battalion/ATPSF to these two new AISF Battalions. Copy of the endorsement dated 8.9.2008 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A.” 14. Annexure A plainly shows that the absorption of the petitioners as proposed by the Home Department and as subsequently concurred by the Finance Department obviously envisages the absorption of the petitioners in a permanent structure with normal time scales of pay extended to members of the regular force and not appointment on contractual basis with fixed pays. In my judgment, from a combined reading of the recommendation of the Cabinet Sub-Committee, the notification dated 22.4.2008 and the affidavit of the Finance Department extracted above, the inference is irresistible and the conclusion inescapable that the respondent-authorities have held out a promise that the petitioners will be paid time scales of pay for the respective ranks held by them and they cannot now back off from the promise held out by them. On «the basis of such promise held out by the respondent-authorities, the position of the petitioners has now been altered even though not necessarily to their prejudice or detriment. This is, therefore, a fit case for invocation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel. The doctrine is restated by the Apex Court in Monnet Ispat & Energy Ltd. v. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1 in the following manner : “182.2. The doctrine of promissory estoppel may be applied against the Government where the interest of justice, morality and common fairness dictate such a course. The doctrine is applicable against the State even in its Governmental, public or sovereign capacity where it is necessary to prevent fraud or manifest injustice. However, the Government or even a private party under the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be asked to do an act prohibited in law. The nature and function which the Government discharges is not relevant. The Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this doctrine are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it. 182.3. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not limited in it application only to defence but it can also furnish a cause of action. The Government is subject to the rule of promissory estoppel and if the essential ingredients of this doctrine are satisfied, the Government can be compelled to carry out the promise made by it. 182.3. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is not limited in it application only to defence but it can also furnish a cause of action. In other words, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can by itself be the basis of action. 182.4. For invocation of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, it is necessary for the promisee to show that by acting on promise made by the other party, he altered his position. The alteration of the position by the promisee is the sine qua non for the applicability of the doctrine. However, it is not necessary for him to prove any damage, prejudice or detriment because of alteration of such promise.” (emphasis supplied) 15. It is, however, contended by Mr. B.J. Ghosh, the learned State counsel, that the petitioners, having accepted the offer made by the respondent-authorities for contractual appointment with fixed pays and having already rendered their services on such terms, cannot now turn around and demand that they be paid time scales of pay; they are, therefore, estopped from making such a claim. In my judgment, such contention is not expected from the State Government, which is supposed to be a model employer. A beggar cannot be a chooser. If a contract or a clause in a contract is found to be unreasonable or unfair or irrational, one must look to the relative bargaining power of the contracting parties. In dotted line contracts, there would be no occasion for a weaker party to bargain or to assume to have equal bargaining power. He has either to accept or leave the service or goods in terms of the dotted line contract. His option would be either to accept the unreasonable or unfair terms or forgo the services forever. With a view to have the service or the goods, the party enters into unreasonable or unfair terms contained therein and he would be left with no option but to sign the contract. An unfair or untenable or irrational clause in a contract is unjust and amenable to judicial review. In common law a party was relieved from such contract. In USA, the standard forms of contracts are called “Contracts of Adhesion”. An unfair or untenable or irrational clause in a contract is unjust and amenable to judicial review. In common law a party was relieved from such contract. In USA, the standard forms of contracts are called “Contracts of Adhesion”. Whether the presence of the correlative social role of the drafting party and adherent is available in equal terms is the test? See LIC of India v. Consumer Education Research Centre and Another, (1995) 5 SCC 482 , In the instant case also, the petitioners cannot be held bound by the unconscionable, unfair and unreasonable condition of employment imposed upon them by the respondent-authorities while joining the respective posts held by them. This calls for the interference of this court. 16. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, both the writ petitions are allowed. The respondent-authorities are, therefore, directed to pay to the petitioners regular time scales of pay applicable to the respective ranks held by them and other allowances, dry ration, etc. admissible to the other personnel of regular forces of Assam in the erstwhile ATPSF as well as the present permanent structure under the 1st and 2nd Battalions of AISF. The entire exercise shall be carried out by the respondent-authorities within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. No costs.