JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri A. Mohendro, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri S. Rupachandra, the learned ASG appearing for the respondents. 2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for issuing a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade and re-designate the post of Havildar/Pharmacist held by the petitioners in Assam Rifles to that of Warrant Officer in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 4,500-7000/- with effect from 01-01-1996 by implementing the order dated 18-10-2015 issued by the Office of the Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong. 3.1. According to the petitioners, they are all serving as Havildars/Pharmacist in the Assam Rifles after having obtained educational qualifications of 10+2, Diploma in Pharmacy and after having completed more than 2 years in the entry grade. The matter relating to service conditions and pay scale of the Havildar Pharmacist received due considerations, from time to time, from different Pay Commissions. 3.2. While the petitioners were/are serving as Havildars Pharmacists, the Union of India issued a Notification dated 21-02-2013 notifying the rule called “The Assam Rifles, Pharmacist, Group “C” Combatised Post Recruitment Rules, 2013” and in the said recruitment rules, the educational qualifications prescribed for appointment as Havildar Pharmacist are as under:- “(a) Educational Qualifications: (i) 10th pass from a recognized Board or equivalent; (ii) Diploma in Pharmacy of two years duration from a recognized University of Institute and having registration with State Pharmacy Council.” Being aggrieved by the said recruitment rules, there has been a series of litigations and one of such being W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2013 which was allowed by this court vide its judgment and order dated 20-08-2014 and the para 9 of the said judgment and order is given as under:- “9. Accordingly, we allow this writ petition. Resultantly, the Recruitment Rules for the post of Havildar (Pharmacist) in the Assam Rifles as notified vide notification dated 28-02-2013 (Annexure–A/15) are interfered and set aside to the extent of stipulation of educational qualification only as 10th pass or equivalent, for appointment as Havildar (Pharmacist) in the Assam Rifles, which according to us should be 10+2 Examination pass from a recognized Board or equivalent and accordingly has to be read as such till appropriate amendment is made by the competent authority. Secondly, coming to the issue of revision of pay, as the respondents have failed to prove that the education qualification required for appointment as Pharmacist in the other central police forces is higher than the Pharmacists in the Assam Rifles, and there is no other valid reasons to deny pay parity, the case of the petitioners for up-gradation of the pay on the analogy of CPFs has to be re-examined by the authorities, which we direct to do so now, which exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from today.” In compliance with the said judgment and order, the Office of the Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong issued an order dated 18-10-2015 conveying the approval of the competent authority for up-gradation and re-designation of the post of Havildar Pharmacist held by the petitioners therein only. 3.3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners contending inter-alia that they are similarly situated with the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2013 and that the benefits of up-gradation / designation of the post of Havildar Pharmacist in the Assam Rifles to that of the Warrant Officers in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 4500- 7000/- with effect from 01-01-1996 vide order dated 18-10-2015, be extended to them. The stand of the respondents as reflected in their affidavit-in-opposition is that since the rank in which the petitioners are recruited and educational qualifications prescribed in the recruitment rules, are different from that of the Central Armed Police Forces, the petitioners cannot be equated with them and that no justice has been denied to them. 4. Relying upon the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of K.C. Sharma vs. Union of India, reported in 1997 (7) Supreme 40 ; UP State Sugar Corpn. Ltd Vs. Sant Raj Singh & ors. reported in (2006) 9 SCC 82 and State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & ors. reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 , Shri A. Mohendro, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the benefits granted to the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2013 be extended to the petitioners herein because the petitioners are similarly situated with them. There can be no dispute about the law being laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these cases. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. There can be no dispute about the law being laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in these cases. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was confronted with a situation where there are two sets of earlier judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court - one, by which the benefit of a particular judicial pronouncement is extended to those who are identically situated on the principle of equity and two, by which such a benefit is denied to those who approaches the court afterwards even though they are similarly situated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the said judgments and laying down clear parameters, held: “22. The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: 22.1 The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2 However, this principle is subject to well-recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3 However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & ors. v. Union of India). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” 5. On perusal of the judgment and order dated 20-08-2014 passed by this court, it is seen that the facts and circumstances of the present case are almost identical to that of the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2014 wherein the petitioners were also serving, at the relevant time, as Havildars/Pharmacist in the Assam Rifles and when they questioned the validity of the new Recruitment Rules called “The Assam Rifles, Pharmacist, Group “C” Combatised Post Recruitment Rules, 2013”, the said judgment and order was passed by this court. The petitioners herein are also serving as Havildar Pharmacists in the Assam Rifles and the said recruitment rules are applicable to both of them and therefore, it can be easily inferred that both the petitioners in the present case and the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2014 are similarly situated. The petitioners herein are also serving as Havildar Pharmacists in the Assam Rifles and the said recruitment rules are applicable to both of them and therefore, it can be easily inferred that both the petitioners in the present case and the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2014 are similarly situated. Moreover, there is no specific averment in the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners herein are not similarly situated with the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2014 nor are the petitioners entitled to the benefits extended to them and all that has been submitted by the respondents is that since the rank in which the petitioners are recruited and educational qualifications prescribed in the recruitment rules, are different from that of the Central Armed Police Forces, the petitioners cannot be equated with them and that justice has not been denied to them. But this contention is no longer available with the respondents, as the same had been considered by this court in W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2014 but had not been countenanced at all. As has been held in State of Uttar Pradesh & ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & ors. (supra), the law is now well settled and the short question that arises for consideration by this court in the present case is as to whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefits which have been granted to the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2014 vide order dated 18-10-2015 issued by the Office of the Directorate General, Assam Rifles, Shillong in compliance with this court’s order. As has been stated herein above, the petitioners herein and the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2014 are similarly situated and the recruitment rules which are applicable to both of them, have been interfered with by this court. It may be noted that the said recruitment rules were made by the Central Government by way of a policy decision and since the said recruitment rules as regards the educational qualification, have been set aside by this court, it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to contend that the said portion of the recruitment rules, even after the same having been set aside, will continue to apply to the petitioners herein. The recruitment rules cannot be applied differently to persons who are similarly situated and are in the same footing. This court, while passing the said judgment and order dated 20-08-2013, has not specifically observed that the reliefs granted therein shall be confined to the petitioners therein only and not to any persons nor is there any indication thereof in it. In other words, the said judgment and order dated 20-08-2014 passed by this court can be said to be a judgment in rem. Moreover, the instant case is not the one where the principle of delay and laches would apply. The Notification in respect of the recruitment rules was issued on 21-02-2013 which came to be challenged in the same year by way of a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2013 which was allowed on 20-08-2014 by this court. In compliance with the judgment and order dated 20-08-2014, the order dated 18-10-2015 was issued by the Office of the Directorate General, Assam Rifles, Shillong conveying the approval of the competent authority and hardly a month’s later, the instant writ petition was filed praying for grant of similar relief by implementing the order dated 18-10-2015. Thus, it cannot be held that there is a delay or for that matter, the laches in approaching the court by the petitioners to ventilate their grievances. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that there is no valid reason for denial of such benefits, being granted to the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 820 of 2013 vide order dated 18-10-2015, to the petitioners herein and the denial of such benefits to the petitioners will be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed with the following directions: (a) The benefits of the order dated 18-10-2015, issued by the Office of the Directorate General, Assam Rifles, Shillong, shall be extended to the petitioners herein; (b) The respondents and in particular, the respondent No. 3 shall issue an appropriate order in respect of direction (a) above, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and order. There shall be no order as to costs.