JUDGMENT AND ORDER : M.R. Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Supu Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K Angami, learned Govt. Advocate, Nagaland for the respondents. 2. The Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Mokokchung Forest Division, Govt. of Nagaland by his order dated 12.03.1973 appointed the petitioner as Forester Grade-I with his Head Quarter at Mokokchung and accordingly, he joined his service as Forester-I in the Forest Department of the State. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Deputy Ranger vide order dated 30.07.1982 issued by the DFO, Mokokchung Forest Division and was posted in the Mokokchung Forest Division of the State w.e.f. 15.04.1982. Subsequently, after his said service, the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Nagaland in the Department of Forest, Ecology & Environment and Wildlife by his order dated 09.03.1991 promoted the petitioner to the post of Forest Ranger in the Forest Department of the State with immediate effect. The petitioner retired from service on 31.10.2009 on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. Considering the genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the State Government employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues, the Government of Nagaland in the Finance Department formulated a scheme, namely, Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme and accordingly, issued an Office Memorandum vide No. FIN-ROP/19/2001 dated 28.02.2002 providing and granting 2 (two) financial up-gradations to its Group 'B' and 'C' employees on completion of their 12 years and 24 years of regular service, provided no regular promotion has been given to any of such employee during that period. 4. Petitioner has submitted that some of his colleagues, senior and junior to him, who were promoted to the post of Forest Ranger from their initial appointment of Forester Grade-II or Grade-I, were given such financial benefits under the said ACP Scheme in terms of the said O.M. dated 28.02.2002. 5. 4. Petitioner has submitted that some of his colleagues, senior and junior to him, who were promoted to the post of Forest Ranger from their initial appointment of Forester Grade-II or Grade-I, were given such financial benefits under the said ACP Scheme in terms of the said O.M. dated 28.02.2002. 5. The contention of the petitioner herein is that from his last promotion to the post of Forest Ranger, a Group 'B' post of the State, since 09.03.1991 till his retirement from service on 31.10.2009, during his said service period of more than 18 years, he remained stagnant in the said post of Forest Ranger without any promotion to the next higher post, without any financial up-gradation, though some of his colleagues got the benefit of said ACP Scheme and therefore, to consider his claim under the said ACP Scheme of the State in terms of the said OM dated 28.02.2002 of the Finance Department, the petitioner on 20.02.2014 submitted a representation before the Commissioner & Secretary, Forest Department of the State. It is submitted that though the Forest Department of the State forwarded his name in August 2014 for grant of financial benefit under the Modification Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACP) and ACP Scheme of the State with his detailed service particulars, but his name was not reflected in the Notification dated 09.02.2015 of the Forest Department by which it granted benefits of financial up-gradation to some of the Forest Ranger, Deputy Ranger and Ranger of the Forest Department under the MACP Scheme. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition praying for necessary direction to the State respondents to grant him the benefits of financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme in terms the O.M. dated 28.02.2002 of the Finance Department of the State. 7. The State respondents, both in the Forest Department as well as the Finance Department have filed their affidavits in the matter. Mr. K. Angami, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State from the said affidavits brought to the notice of the Court that from his initial appointment order dated 12.03.1973 as Forester-I, the petitioner was first promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 15.04.1982 vide order dated 30.07.1982 within a period of 12 years. Mr. K. Angami, learned Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State from the said affidavits brought to the notice of the Court that from his initial appointment order dated 12.03.1973 as Forester-I, the petitioner was first promoted to the post of Deputy Ranger w.e.f. 15.04.1982 vide order dated 30.07.1982 within a period of 12 years. Thereafter, within a period of next 12 years from his first promotion to the post of Deputy Ranger on 30.07.1982, the petitioner was promoted to the next higher post of Forest Ranger vide order dated 09.03.1991 and accordingly, the petitioner has availed two promotions within the first 24 years of his service, first on 30.07.1982 within the first block of 12 years and the second on 09.03.1991 in the second block of 12 years. 8. Mr. K. Angami, learned Govt. Advocate by placing the said O.M. dated 28.02.2002 of the Finance Department of the State brought to the notice of the Court that the Clause (ii) of the Conditions for Grant of Benefits under the said ACP Scheme provides that- 'the first financial up-gradation shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second after another 12 years of regular service, counted from the date of the first financial up-gradation, provided no regular promotion is availed during each of the two blocks of 12 years'. Mr. Angami submitted that since the petitioner has already been granted 2 (two) regular promotions during his regular service, one each, in both the blocks of 12 years on 30.07.1982 and 09.03.1991, therefore, he is not entitled to any benefit of financial up-gradation as per said OM dated 28.02.2002 under the ACP Scheme, otherwise it would amount to third benefit, which is not prescribed in the said Scheme. 9. Mr. Angami also brought to the notice of the Court that State respondents in their affidavits have categorically mentioned that some of the Rangers (Forest Ranger/Deputy Ranger) including retired personnel of the Forest Department have been wrongly granted such financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme of the State and accordingly, the Finance Department have been asked to take correct measures against such erroneous beneficiaries. To that extent Mr. To that extent Mr. Angami has also placed a communication of the Finance Department bearing No.FIN/ESTT-1/39/Court/2015 dated 04.05.2016 directing the Forest Department of the State to immediately examine the cases in respect of the officers who were wrongly given financial up-gradation under the ACP Scheme and to take corrective measures accordingly. 10. As the petitioner submitted his representation in February 2014 and considering the fact that after his promotion to the post of Forest Ranger on 09.03.1991 no regular promotion was granted to him till his retirement from service on 31.10.2009; the respondents in the Forest department forwarded his case before the concerned authority for necessary consideration of any such financial up-gradation. The authorities accordingly examined his case and on finding that he was already promoted twice, each in the first and second block of 12 years, therefore, rejected the case of the petitioner for the benefit of such financial up-gradation under the said ACP Scheme of 2002, as he is not entitled to the same as per the provisions of the said Scheme. 11. The petitioner's only contention now is that as some of the Group 'B' and 'C' Forest Officers of the State including retired Forest personnel like him were considered and granted benefit of such financial up-gradation under the said ACP Scheme of 2002, he being a retired person should also be considered. For the said purpose Mr. Supu Jamir, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of Jaipal v. State of Haryana, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 354 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted such benefit under the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' as some similarly placed persons under the same employer have been granted such financial up-gradation in spite of being promoted during their service tenure. In this regard Mr. Jamir has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.K. Mehta v. Union of India, reported in 1988 Supp SCC 750. 12. Mr. In this regard Mr. Jamir has also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Y.K. Mehta v. Union of India, reported in 1988 Supp SCC 750. 12. Mr. Jamir submitted that as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in both the aforesaid cases have laid down that the State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work, the petitioner herein also entitled to the benefit of financial up-gradation under the said 2002 ACP Scheme of the State as the same employer i.e. Forest department have already granted similar benefits to its Group 'B' and 'C' Officers similarly placed with the petitioner. 13. It is seen that the State respondents in their affidavits have stated that some of Group 'B' and 'C' Forest Officers of the State have been wrongly given the benefit of the financial up-gradation under the said 2002 ACP Scheme & MACP Scheme, though during their regular service, they were given regular promotion each during those two blocks of 12 years and accordingly they have taken steps to examine the cases of those forest personnel of the State and are going to take corrective measures accordingly. 14. In case of Cha in the case of another person similarly situated can never Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down that – "Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent-authority has passed a particular order the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. The extraordinary and discretionary power of the High Court cannot be exercised for such a purpose. Merely because the respondent-authority has passed one illegal/unwarranted order, it does not entitle the High Court to compel the authority to repeat that illegality over again and again. The illegal/unwarranted action must be corrected, if it can be done according to law - indeed, wherever it is possible, the Court should direct the appropriate authority to correct such wrong orders in accordance with law - but even if it cannot be corrected, it is difficult to see how it can be made a basis for its repetition. By refusing to direct the respondent-authority to repeat the illegality, the Court is not condoning the earlier illegal act/order nor can such illegal order constitute the basis for a legitimate complaint of discrimination. Giving effect to such pleas would be prejudicial to the interests of law and will do incalculable mischief to public interest. It will be a negation of law and the rule of law. Of course, if in case the order in favour of the other person is found to be a lawful and justified one it can be followed and a similar relief can be given to the petitioner if it is found that the petitioners' case is similar to the other persons' case. But then why examine another person's case in his absence rather than examining the case of the petitioner who is present before the Court and seeking the relief. Is it not more appropriate and convenient to examine the entitlement of the petitioner before the Court to the relief asked for in the facts and circumstances of his case than to enquire into the correctness of the order made or action taken in another person's case, which other person is not before the case nor is his case. In our considered opinion, such a course - barring exceptional situations - would neither be advisable nor desirable. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. In other words, the High Court cannot ignore the law and the well-accepted norms governing the writ jurisdiction and say that because in one case a particular order has been passed or a particular action has been taken, the same must be repeated irrespective of the fact whether such an order or action is contrary to law or otherwise. Each case must be decided on its own merits, factual and legal, in accordance with relevant legal principles. The orders and actions of the authorities cannot be equated to the judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts nor can they be elevated to the level of the precedents, as understood in the judicial world." 15. In case of Gursharan Singh v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, reported in (1996) 2 SCC 459 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court have laid down that – "There appears to be some confusion in respect of the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees equality before law to all citizens. This guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. To put it in other words, if an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court, that the same irregularity or illegality be committed by the State or an authority which can be held to be a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, so far such petitioners are concerned, on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been extended to others although in an irregular or illegal manner. Such petitioners can question the validity of orders which are said to have been passed in favour of persons who were not entitled to the same, but they cannot claim orders which are not sanctioned by law in their favour on principle of equality before law. Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Neither Article 14 of the Constitution conceives within the equality clause this concept nor Article 226 empowers the High Court to enforce such claim of equality before law. If such claims are enforced, it shall amount to directing to continue and perpetuate an illegal procedure or an illegal order for extending similar benefits to others. Before a claim based on equality clause is upheld, it must be established by the petitioner that his claim being just and legal, has been denied to him, while it has been extended to others and in this process there has been a discrimination." 16. In the case of Union of India v. International Trading Co., reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437 , the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that – "Two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality'. 17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushanta Tagore v. Union of India, reported in (2005) 3 SCC have held that – "It is trite law that there is no equality in illegality'." 18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 737 have held that – "When a grievance of discrimination is made, the High Court cannot just examine whether someone similarly situated has been granted a relief or benefit and then automatically direct grant of such relief or benefit to the person aggrieved. The High Court has to first examine whether the petitioner who has approached the court has established a right, entitling him to the relief sought on the facts and circumstances of the case. In the context of such examination, the fact that some others, who are similarly situated, have been granted relief which the petitioner is seeking, may be of some relevance. But where in law, a writ petitioner has not established a right or is not entitled to relief, the fact that a similarly situated person has been illegally granted relief, is not a ground to direct similar relief to him. That would be enforcing a negative equality by perpetuation of an illegality which is impermissible in law." 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Prasana Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 129 , have laid down that – "It may be that some other persons similarly situated have been appointed. But Article 14 as is well known contains a positive concept. A writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court only when there exists a legal right in the writ petitioner and corresponding legal obligation in the State. Only because an illegality has been committed, the same cannot be directed to be perpetuated by a court of law. It is also well settled that there cannot be equality in illegality." 20. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, reported in (2009) 15 SCC 705 , have laid down that – "Article 14 of the Constitution declares that: "14. Equality before law.-The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India." The concept of equality enshrined in that article is a positive concept. The Court can command the State to give equal treatment to similarly situated persons, but cannot issue a mandate that the State should commit illegality or pass wrong order because in another case such an illegality has been committed or wrong order has been passed. The Court can command the State to give equal treatment to similarly situated persons, but cannot issue a mandate that the State should commit illegality or pass wrong order because in another case such an illegality has been committed or wrong order has been passed. If any illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of an individual or a group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court and seek a direction that the same irregularity or illegality be committed in their favour by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities. In other words, Article 14 cannot be invoked for perpetuating irregularities or illegalities." 21. The provision of the ACP Scheme under the O.M. dated 28.02.2002 is very clear that the benefit of two financial up-gradation are granted to the Group 'B' and 'C' employees of the State on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service, provided they were not given any regular promotion, during their completion of 12 years and 24 years of such regular service. Further, the said O.M. dated 28.02.2002 also clarified that first financial up-gradation is allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second after another 12 years of regular service from the date of first financial up-gradation, subject to the condition that no regular promotion is availed by the concerned Government employee of Group 'B' and 'C' during each of the two parts of 12 years. It is not denied by the petitioner that he was not granted promotion twice during the first 24 years of his service, first to the post of Deputy Ranger on 30.07.1982 and second to the post of Forest Ranger on 09.03.1991. As the petitioner got his regular promotion, once each in each of the two blocks of 12 years, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of financial up-gradation as per the provisions of said 2002 ACP Scheme in terms of the O.M. dated 28.02.2002. 22. As the petitioner got his regular promotion, once each in each of the two blocks of 12 years, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of financial up-gradation as per the provisions of said 2002 ACP Scheme in terms of the O.M. dated 28.02.2002. 22. In the present case, as seen from the above, the petitioner does not have any legal right to get the benefit of the financial up-gradation under the said 2002 ACP Scheme of the State and only because some personnel of the Forest department have been wrongly granted such benefit of the Scheme, the High Court for the said reason cannot issue any writ and/or direction to the State or its agencies and instrumentalities to commit same illegality or irregularity in favour of the petitioner, granting him such financial up-gradation. As because an illegality has been committed, the same cannot be directed to be perpetuated by the Court of law by issuing any writ or direction, since there cannot be any equality in illegality. 23. Accordingly, this writ petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. No order as to cost. 24. However, before parting with the case, as the State respondents both in the Finance Department and Forest Department have initiated action regarding examination of the cases in respect of whom wrong and erroneous benefit of financial up-gradation have been granted in terms of the said 2002 ACP Scheme of the State Government as per the aforementioned O.M. dated 28.02.2002 and decided to take corrective measures accordingly, therefore, the said respondents are directed to complete the said exercise at an early date and to recover the amount from those persons who have been enriched unjustly, in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.