Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 52 (MEG)

Vinod Kumar Gound v. Union of India

2018-08-14

S.R.SEN

body2018
JUDGMENT : S.R. Sen, J. 1. Heard learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners as well as learned CGC on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that: "Assailing the validity and legality of the order dated 25th day of June, 2010 passed in WP(C). No. 32 (SH) of 2008, and claiming pay scale and rank structure as recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission and as per Office Memorandum dated the 22nd day of January, 1998 one 358916Y Rfn/ORL Savendra Singh Chauhan approached the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench by way of Writ Appeal No. 50 (SH) of 2010 and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench by the Judgment and Order dated 22nd day of September, 2011, allowed the said Writ Appeal." 3. The operative portion of the Judgment and Order dated the 22nd day of September, 2011 passed in Writ Appeal No. 50 (SH) 2010 is reproduced below: "22. On a totality of the consideration of the above facts, reasons and discussions as well as taking into account the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dineshan KK (Supra), we are inclined to set aside and quashed the Judgment and Order dated 25/06/2010, passed by the Learned Single Judge in WP(C). No. 32 (SH) of 2008. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed. 23. The Union of India is directed to give appropriate rank and pay scale to the petitioner as per recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission and Office Memorandum dated 22/01/1998." Thereafter claiming pay scale and rank structure as recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission and as per Office Memorandum dated the 22nd day of January, 1998, the similarly situated employees of Assam Rifles approached Hon'ble High Court, by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2013 [357918 RFN/ORL Madhuvendra Singh and 2268 others). The Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya after hearing submissions of both sides by the Judgment and Order dated the 8th day of May, 2014 disposed of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2013 and the operative portion of the said Judgment and Order is reproduced below: "7. The Hon'ble High Court of Meghalaya after hearing submissions of both sides by the Judgment and Order dated the 8th day of May, 2014 disposed of the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 56 of 2013 and the operative portion of the said Judgment and Order is reproduced below: "7. In the above factual backdrop, it is clear that the Judgment and Order dated 22.09.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Writ Appeal No. 50 (SH) of 2010 shall squarely cover the case of the present writ petitioners and accordingly, the respondents are directed to give the benefit of the Judgment and Order of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court dated 22.09.2011 to the writ petitioners and in other words, the respondents shall provide/give appropriate rank and pay scale to the petitioners as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission and Office Memorandum dated 22.01.1998 within a period of 8 (eight) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment and Order. 8. With the above observation and directions this writ petition is disposed of." In the case of Purshottam Lal v. Union of India [ AIR 1973 SC 1088 ], the Hon'ble Apex Court settled it that incomplete implementation right. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashwani Kumar and Others v.State of Bihar and Others [ (1997) 2 SCC 1 ] held that cases of affected persons who failed to approach the court cannot be ignored and the benefit of the judgment-in-rem should also be granted to them. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav v. Union of India [ 1985(2) ScC 648 ] held that the relief granted by court is to be given to other similarly situated employees without forcing them to go to court for similar benefits. The same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lal Berry v. CEE [1975 (4) SCC 14]. The 5th Central Pay Commission also expressed the same view to extend judicial decision in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed persons. The similarly situated persons cannot be treated differently and if treated differently, same is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The 5th Central Pay Commission also expressed the same view to extend judicial decision in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed persons. The similarly situated persons cannot be treated differently and if treated differently, same is violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. In the case of State of Karnataka v. C Lalitha [2006 (2) SCC 745] it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that similarly situated should be treated similarly and not differently." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pay fixation was done by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India on 30th September, 1997 and pointed out to paragraph 4, 5 and 7 of the said order at Annexure-I which is reproduced herein below: "Ministry Of Finance [Department of Expenditure] Resolution New Delhi, the 30th September, 1997 4. The Commission's recommendations and Government decision thereon with regard to revised scales of pay and dearness allowance for civilian employees of the Central Government and personnel of All India Services as detailed in the part-A of the Annexure shall be made effective from 1.1.1996. 5. The revised allowances, other than dearness allowance, will be effective from 1st day of August, 1997. 7. In respect of personnel of Central Police Organizations, in the rank from Constable to Subedar Major, Ministry of Home Affairs will carry out an exercise for rationalization of ranks so as to achieve parity with Delhi Police, pending which the scales recommended by the Fifth CPC will be applied." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that on the basis of the decision of the Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Home Affairs has categorized and defined the different categories of employees who are entitled to the benefit of the Resolution of the Ministry of Finance at Annexure-I and on 10th October, 1997 which is at Annexure-II and further argued that as per these two Resolutions, the petitioners are entitled the salary, allowances and rank structure as per the Resolution dated 30th September, 1997 as well as 10th October, 1997. To support his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on (2014) 2 MJ 41 A.K.Barbuiya and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. 5. In reply to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned CGC submits that the petitioners are non-ministerial cadre and recruitment rules are different. To support his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied on (2014) 2 MJ 41 A.K.Barbuiya and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. 5. In reply to the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned CGC submits that the petitioners are non-ministerial cadre and recruitment rules are different. As such, Notification dated 10th October, 1997 as well as Office Memorandum dated 22nd January, 1998 at Annexure-IV will not apply. 6. After hearing the submission of the learned counsels for the parties and going through the Annexures as referred to above, specifically Annexure-II dated 10th October, 1997, it is understood that His Excellency the President of India was pleased to rationalized the rank structure and pay scale of non-gazetted cadre of Central Police Organizations and as a result, the rank of Lance Naiks & Naiks in the Central Police Organizations has been merged with the rank of Constables and Head Constables respectively. It is also an admitted fact by the learned counsel that Assam Rifles Constables are all Riflemen. If it is so, in my view Annexure I, II and IV are applicable. Similar view has been taken in the case of A.K.Barbuiya and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2014) 2 MJ 41 para 4 which is as follows: "4. The 5th Pay Commission setup by the Govt. of India passed a Resolution dated 30.09.1997 and under Para 7 of the said Resolution, it was resolved that "in respect of personnel of Central Police Organizations, in the rank from Constable to Subedar Major, Ministry of Home Affairs will carry out an exercise for rationalization of ranks so as to achieve parity with Delhi Police, pending which the scales recommended by the Fifth CPC will be applied. In pursuance of Para 7 of the said Resolution, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India issued the order that "the President of India is pleased to rationalize the prerevised pay scales and replacement pay scales in respect of the categories of officers in the Central Police Organizations. For easy reference, the order dated 10.10.1997 is quoted hereunder:- "No. 27012/1/97 PC Cell/PF-1 Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the 10th October, 1997. For easy reference, the order dated 10.10.1997 is quoted hereunder:- "No. 27012/1/97 PC Cell/PF-1 Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, the 10th October, 1997. In pursuance of para 7 of the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, Resolution No. 50(1)/IC/97 dated 30 Sept, 1997, the President is pleased to rationalize the rank structure and pay scales of non-gazetted cadre of Central Police Organizations. As a result of this exercise the rank of Lance Naiks and Naiks in the Central Police Organization will be merged with the rank of Constables and Head Constables respectively. Accordingly, the rank structure in the Central Police Organizations will be as indicated below:- 1. Constable/Security Assistant 2. Head Constable 3. Asstt. Sub-Inspector 4. Sub-Inspector/ACIO-I 5. Inspector/ACIO-I 6. Subedar major 2. The President is also pleased to rationalize the pre-revised pay scales and replacement pay scales in respect of the above cadres as indicated below:- S. No. Rank Structure Rationalized Pre-revised pay scales Replacement pay scales 1. Constable/Security Assistant Rs. 950-1400 Rs. 3050-70-4590 2. Head Constables Rs. 975-1660 Rs. 3200-85-4900 3. Asst. Sub-Inspector Rs. 1320-2040 Rs. 4000-100-6000 4. Sub-Inspector/ACIC-II Rs. 1640-2900 Rs. 5500-175-9000 5. Sub-Inspector/ACIC-I Rs. 2000-3200 Rs. 6500-200-10500 6. Subedar Major Rs. 2000-3500 Rs. 6500-200-10500 3. The existing lance Naiks and Head Constables in these Organizations will be allowed a Special Pay/Appointment pay of Rs. 30/- and Rs. 50/- per month respectively. These personnel 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 decided to allow in appointment pay of Rs. 200/- per month to the Subedar Major in the Central Police Organizations. 5. The above orders will be effective from the date of issue. For the period from 01.01.96 till the issue of this order, the pay in the revised scale will be regular in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Service (Revised) Pay Rules, 1997. 6. This issue with the concurrence of Department of Expenditure vide their UC No. 2130/Director (P)/97 dated 9th October, 1997 and Integrated Finance Division of MHA vide their Dy. No. 1670/Fin -III/97 dated 10.10.97. Sd/-xxxx (O.P. Arya) Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India." 7. 6. This issue with the concurrence of Department of Expenditure vide their UC No. 2130/Director (P)/97 dated 9th October, 1997 and Integrated Finance Division of MHA vide their Dy. No. 1670/Fin -III/97 dated 10.10.97. Sd/-xxxx (O.P. Arya) Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India." 7. Therefore, after considering all the points, I am of the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to pay, allowances and rank structure as per the Office Memorandum dated 22nd January, 1998 which is at Annexure-IV. 8. With this, the writ petition is allowed and stands disposed of. 9. Respondents are directed to comply with the judgment and order within 3(three) months from the date of this judgment and order.