JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. I. Alam, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate who appears for the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Mr. R. Borpujari appears for the respondent No. 2 i.e. the Finance Department. 2. A brief narration of the facts of the case may be necessary to appreciate the controversy. The petitioner was appointed as Constable in the Assam Tea Plantation Security Force (ATPSF in short) vide appointment letter dated 09.07.1994 (Annexure-1). Thereafter, he was promoted to the rank of Havildar vide order dated 24.01.2001 (Annexure-2). Since the petitioner and all other similarly appointees under the ATPSF were only being paid a fixed monthly remuneration, the welfare committee of the ATPSF approached this Court by filing Civil Rule No. 1584/1997 seeking direction to the State respondents to give them a permanent status along with consequential time scale of pay as was given to other security force in the State. 3. The writ petition came to be disposed of vide Judgment dated 22.04.2002 (Annexure-3) whereby, the respondents were directed to examine the question as to whether further continuance of the ATPSF was necessary and if so, to give them a permanent status along with the consequential time scale of pay to the members of the force who were on service as on date. 4. As a consequence of the direction of this Court, a decision was taken by the State Government through the Cabinet Sub Committee which held its meeting on 04.08.2007 (Annexure-4) for re-structuring of the ATPSF and the meeting was chaired by the Minister of Planning & Development Department etc. By the said meeting, it was decided that two new battalions in the name and style of Assam Tea Plantation and Industrial Security Force [subsequently named as Assam Industrial Security Force (AISF)] would be accorded in line with the existing two Assam Special Reserve Force (ASRF in short) Battalions. It was decided that the two new battalions would function in line with the ASRF Battalions under the Administrative Control of the Director General of Civil Defence and the Commandant General of Home Guards, Assam. The eligible of the ATPSF personnel would be examined by a Board to be constituted by the Government. It was decided that the two new battalions would function in line with the ASRF Battalions under the Administrative Control of the Director General of Civil Defence and the Commandant General of Home Guards, Assam. The eligible of the ATPSF personnel would be examined by a Board to be constituted by the Government. On the basis of a suitable report of the Board, the selected personnel would be put through six months training under Police. After successful completion of such training, suitable personnel of the ATPSF would be selected for absorption in the new Battalions. It may be noted herein that amongst the other terms and conditions, it was decided that the Constables and other staff of the two newly created battalions would be inter-transferable with the first and second ASRF Battalions. 5. The petitioner having being found fit and eligible, was absorbed into the ATPSF along with others with immediate effect vide notification dated 22.04.2008 (Annexure-6). Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Naik by the Commandant of first Assam Industrial Security Force Battalions (AISF) Nagaon and upon such appointment, the Under Secretary to the Government of Assam, Finance (Budget Department) intimated the Treasury Officer of Koliabar, Nagaon/Dibrugarh vide communication dated 07.04.2009 (Annexure-7). In the enclosed list of the appointed personnel, the name of the petitioner appears at Serial No. 92. 6. Although the petitioner and other similarly appointed personnels were absorbed and appointed into the AISF, they continue to receive a fixed pay unlike their counter-parts in other security forces of the State. Consequently, the writ petitioner along with other similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3688/2010. It may be noted herein that another group of employees also filed WP(C) No. 5949/2010. WP(C) No. 5949/2010 came to be disposed of vide Judgment and Order dated 17.06.2014 wherein, the respondent authorities were directed to pay the petitioners therein regular time scale of pay applicable to their 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 first and second Battalions of AISF. The direction was to be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the Judgment. 7. admissible to the other personnel of regular forces of Assam in the erstwhile ATPSF as well as the present permanent structure under the first and second Battalions of AISF. The direction was to be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the Judgment. 7. The case in which the petitioner was one of the petitioner i.e. WP(C) No. 3688/2010 came to be disposed of on 17.06.2015 in terms of the earlier order passed on 17.06.2014. 8. It may be noticed herein that although the petitioner was amongst the petitioners in that case, he however, withdrew from the case by filing Misc. Case No. 2453/2010 and his prayer for withdrawing from the case was allowed by the Court vide order dated 09.08.2010. 9. The State respondents pursuant to the direction passed by this Court as noticed above, issued an order on 24.10.2016 (Annexure-14) by permitting the petitioners who had approached this Court to undergo their respective Cadre Courses of the honorary ranks of the erstwhile ATPSF, they were holding. It was also provided that upon successful completion of the course, they will be conferred regular ranks and pay and allowances holding in the erstwhile ATPSF (Honorary Platoon Commander and Honorary Havildar) without disturbing the seniority position of the person in the ASRF Battalions. It was also provided that the order was issued in compliance with the direction passed by this Court on 17.06.2015 10. In consequence thereof, the personnel’s who had approached this Court by filing the two writ petitions were sent for training in batches and upon completion of their training as indicated in the order dated 24.10.2016, they have been conferred regular pay and allowances against their respective ranks held by them in the erstwhile ATPSF. 11. The petitioner having been left out submitted his representation to the Director General of Civil Defence and the Commandant General of Home Guards on 26.10.2016, requesting the State authority to allow him retain the rank of Havildar as held by him in the erstwhile APTSF and as was extended to the other personnel’s pursuant to the order dated 24.10.2016. The representation of the petitioner having not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court. 12. Appearing for the writ petitioner Mr. The representation of the petitioner having not been considered, the petitioner is before this Court. 12. Appearing for the writ petitioner Mr. I. Alam, submits that since all the other similarly situated persons who were serving in the ATPSF have since been sent for training and thereafter given regular pay and allowances with the rank as held by them in the erstwhile ATPSF, the petitioner should be given similar benefit. He submits that denial of such benefit amounts to discrimination and violation of the petitioner’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the action of the State respondents in conferring such benefits only to those personnels who approached this Court is totally unfair, arbitrary and unjustified. In fact the petitioner took part in the earlier writ proceedings i.e. WP(C) No. 3688/2010, but however, he could not continue since he was facing extreme financial hardship due to the prolong ailment of his mother. He therefore submits that the petitioner should also be conferred similar benefit since he was duly absorbed along with all other similar persons vide notification dated 22.04.2008 and thereafter, appointed to the first Battalion of the ARSF on 15.12.2008. 13. In support of his submission, Mr. I. Alam referred to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh -vs- Arvind Kumar Srivastava reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 . He submits that the Apex Court in the aforesaid case after appreciating various decisions of the same Court came to the conclusion that ordinarily 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. Such principle should be applied in service matters more empathetically as the services jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Mr. I. Alam therefore, submits that although the petitioner participated in the writ proceedings earlier but due to his unavoidable plight, he could not continue in the writ proceedings and therefore, the petitioner should not be singled out merely because of his non-participation in view of the decision of the Apex Court. 14. Appearing for the State respondents i.e. respondent Nos. I. Alam therefore, submits that although the petitioner participated in the writ proceedings earlier but due to his unavoidable plight, he could not continue in the writ proceedings and therefore, the petitioner should not be singled out merely because of his non-participation in view of the decision of the Apex Court. 14. Appearing for the State respondents i.e. respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4, Ms. D.D. Barman, the learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4 submits that the petitioner while in the erstwhile ATPSF had only undergone barely three months training and as per the enlistment of the petitioner, his status was in the nature of daily wage basis and therefore, under such circumstance the question of giving him the same pay and allowances as given to regular members of the Police force under the State does not arise. She submits that the rank of Havildar given to the petitioner was assigned to him at the instance of the local Commander without the petitioner undergoing any training or promotional course and therefore, the question of allowing the petitioner to retain in the same rank held by him in the erstwhile ATPSF also does not arise. The learned counsel submits that when the ATPSF persons including the writ petitioner were brought into the regular structure of AISF, each of them including the petitioner duly signed an undertaking with regard to their willingness to be brought over in the rank of Constable of the AISF. In such circumstances, the petitioner is estopped from claiming the rank of Havildar at a subsequent stage. 15. Ms. D.D. Barman also submits that the petitioner on his own free will withdrew himself from participating in the earlier writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 3688/2010 and by referring to the petitioner’s application, she submits that the petitioner never took the stand about the ailment of his mother and about his financial hardship projected through the instant writ petition. This Court while disposing of the writ petition accorded relief only in respect of the petitioners who had approached this Court and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim similar benefit after having opted to withdraw from the writ proceedings out of his own free will. This Court while disposing of the writ petition accorded relief only in respect of the petitioners who had approached this Court and therefore, the petitioner cannot claim similar benefit after having opted to withdraw from the writ proceedings out of his own free will. She submits that if the petitioner’s case is to be considered in extending him the relief, there are several other persons transferred from the ATPSF/AISF Battalion to ASRF Battalion who will have to be considered. Such being the case, there is no question of granting the petitioner the relief as sought for by him. She thus submits that the writ petition having no merit should be dismissed. 16. I have considered the submissions advanced by the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. 17. It is not in dispute that the creation of the two AISF Battalions by the State Government was pursuant to the direction passed by this Court in the writ petitions as can be noticed above. Pursuant to such creation of the AISF Battalions, the State Government in the Home Department vide notification dated 22.04.2008 absorbed the serving persons of the erstwhile ATPSF under the re-structure Battalions which was named as AISF Battalions. The petitioner as well was absorbed under the re-structure organization and to which, he joined on 15.12.2008. Although the petitioner has been transferred to the ASRB on 07.01.2015, the fact remains that as per the decision taken in the Cabinet Sub Committee on 04.08.2007, the Constables and other Staffs under the AISF Battalion and the ASRF Battalions would be inter-transferable. 18. Considering the decision of the Apex Court as referred to by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra), the normal rule with regard to extending relief to a set of employees on account of Court’s order should not be denied to identically and similarly situated persons, inasmuch as, the same would result in discrimination the same may be appreciated from a simple test as reflected by the Apex Court i.e. whether the judgment is a judgment in rem or a judgment in personam. As already noticed earlier the primary case filed by the personnels of the ATPSF vide Civil Rule No. 1584/1997 was complied with by the State respondents as can be seen from the decision taken in the Cabinet Sub Committee on 04.08.2007. As already noticed earlier the primary case filed by the personnels of the ATPSF vide Civil Rule No. 1584/1997 was complied with by the State respondents as can be seen from the decision taken in the Cabinet Sub Committee on 04.08.2007. A perusal of the decision taken on 04.08.2007 does not disclosed that such benefit would be extended only to those petitioners who had approached this Court. All that is reflected in the said decision is that if the ATPSF persons in service are found to be eligible after due examination by the Board constituted by the Government, such persons would be sent for six months training under the State Police. Furthermore, it was also decided that the Constables and other staff under the AISF and ASRF would be inter-transferable. Furthermore, a perusal of the decision of this Court rendered on 17.06.2014 in WP(C) No. 5949/2010 also does not restrict such benefit to the petitioners therein alone, inasmuch as, a clear reference of those personnel’s working in the erstwhile ATPSF has been made. 19. In the aforesaid background and under the facts and circumstances of the case, it would not be fair on the part of the respondents to bar the petitioner from being given the similar benefit like those who had approached this Court in the earlier writ petitions. Having come to such conclusion, the State respondents more particularly, the respondent No. 4 is directed to send the petitioner to undergo the Cadre course training as has been contemplated vide the decision taken in the Cabinet Sub Committee dated 04.08.2007 as well as the order dated 24.10.2016 to similarly other situated persons. Since the petitioner is said to be currently posted in the ASRF, the said authority shall send the petitioner for training in the next batch of training as scheduled for either the AISF or ASRF personnels. 20. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No cost.