Research › Search › Judgment

Meghalaya High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 91 (MEG)

Union of India v. Oramahesh Kumar D.

2022-04-20

SANJIB BANERJEE, WANLURA DIENGDOH

body2022
JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - In view of the good grounds shown, the delays - of varying days in the several matters - to prefer the appeals are condoned and all the appeals are taken on board and decided on merits by this common order. 2. The appeals are directed against similar, if not identical, judgments and orders dated August 14, 2018, August 30, 2018, September 14, 2018, and October 8, 2018 and it is a matter of some regret that in this Court the appeals are taken up after such a long delay. The reference herein is to the impugned judgment and order of October 8, 2018. 3. A batch of writ petitions, which involved similar issues pertaining to the appropriate pay scales for certain categories of employees in Assam Rifles, was taken up together. The writ court referred to the pleadings from the earliest of the several matters before it and, in particular, to the legal contention asserted that a judicial decision in a matter of general nature should govern all similarly placed persons and similarly placed persons cannot be treated differently only because one of them may have approached the Court and obtained an order and the others may not have. 4. Indeed, the principle is of salutary importance in service jurisprudence, which has developed as a kind of specialised branch of law in this country as a part of administrative law. When an individual complaint confined to a particular employee is brought to a Court or like judicial forum and such employee obtains an order in his favour, the effect thereof may be confined to that specific employee. However, when a particular employee from out of a large number of employees complains of, say, any illegality or irregularity in the pay-scale or of any like matter that pertains to the entire cadre, and a favourable order is obtained, the principle embodied in the judicial decision would apply to all similarly placed persons. 5. The matter can be seen from another perspective. Once a particular employer has suffered an adverse judgment on an issue and the order becomes final, the principle embodied therein would apply to all similarly placed employees by the operation of the principle of res judicata or issue estoppel as far as the employer is concerned. 5. The matter can be seen from another perspective. Once a particular employer has suffered an adverse judgment on an issue and the order becomes final, the principle embodied therein would apply to all similarly placed employees by the operation of the principle of res judicata or issue estoppel as far as the employer is concerned. Thus, if a particular employee holding a particular post complains of a general irregularity that prejudices not only such petitioning employee but also others in the same cadre; and, a favourable judgment is obtained by such employee on the broad issue that afflicts others of his ilk, the decision becomes binding on the public employer for it to be given effect to in the cases of all other similarly placed persons. 6. It is this principle which is at the heart of the present appeals. 7. The Assam Rifles is the common employer. According to the appellants, till or about the end of the last century, the ranks and designations in Assam Rifles were manifold and may not have been in tune with the ranks and designations in other paramilitary or Central armed police forces. The appellants say that a notification was issued by the Union in 1997, primarily merging those in the rank of Lance Naik with Rifleman and those in the rank of Naik with Havildar. It may be noted that, in ascending order, the four lowest ranks in Assam Rifles at the relevant time were: Rifleman, Lance Naik, Naik and Havildar. 8. The appellants assert that in addition to the combat cadres in Assam Rifles, there were several employees in the technical services including Radio Mechanics, Draughtsmen, Carpenters and other persons engaged in specialised areas. Such technical services personnel were not required to engage in any combat duty and were responsible for manning the offices and doing the incidental activities to support the combatants in Assam Rifles. 9. According to the appellants, in 1998, a further notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home clarified that personnel belonging to three of the 18 technical services in Assam Riles then - Radio Mechanics, Draughtsmen Grade-I and Draughtsmen Grade-II - would be absorbed in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, which was the rank immediately above the Havildar. The appellants maintain that the relevant notification was silent regarding the personnel in the other 15 technical services in the then Assam Rifles. The appellants maintain that the relevant notification was silent regarding the personnel in the other 15 technical services in the then Assam Rifles. According to the appellants, all the personnel in the other 15 technical services were recruited to the entry-level post of Rifleman and, as there was no provision for promotion for such personnel, they had always to be treated as Riflemen, subject to any career progression scheme that may have been in place. 10. It transpires that the personnel belonging to some of these 15 technical branches in Assam Rifles instituted WP(C) No. 56 SH)/2013, which was allowed by a judgment and order of May 8, 2014. It is necessary to notice paragraph 7 of the relevant judgment of the writ court. The writ court observed that in the light of a judgment and order of September 22, 2011 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in WA No. 50(SH) of 2010, the issue raised was squarely covered and Assam Rifles was obliged to extend the same benefits to the writ petitioners in terms of the order dated September 22, 2011. 11. The relevant order of May 8, 2014 was assailed in appeal. In WA No. 66 of 2014, a Division Bench of this Court, by its order of March 1, 2016 which is reported at (Union of India v. Madhuvendra Singh) recorded that 'it was admitted on behalf of the appellants on 26.11.2014 that steps were being taken to comply with the directions of the learned Single Judge in the order impugned and on request, the matter was adjourned.' The appeal was disposed of by the order of March 1, 2016 with the observation that when it was the specific case of the appellants that the matter did not survive for appellate consideration, the proceedings deserved to be closed. The appeal was treated as redundant and dismissed. 12. It appears that an earlier order of November 12, 2014 passed in WA No. 66 of 2014 by this Court was carried to the Supreme Court by way of a special leave petition. Such petition came to be considered on August 28, 2015. The Supreme Court noticed that the order that was challenged merely granted the Union a fortnight's time to file its affidavit and indicate the status of the matter. Such petition came to be considered on August 28, 2015. The Supreme Court noticed that the order that was challenged merely granted the Union a fortnight's time to file its affidavit and indicate the status of the matter. The Supreme Court then noticed that several orders were passed by this Court thereafter in the relevant appeal, including an order of May 13, 2015. After expressing surprise that the subsequent orders had not been referred to in the petition before it, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking special leave to appeal 'both on the ground of delay as well as on merits.' 13. Since several other petitions seeking to challenge further interlocutory orders passed in the same appeal had been filed. Such other petitions were directed to be listed and, presumably, were disposed of by the Supreme Court on the basis of the order dated August 28, 2015. 14. It does not, however, appear that the final appellate order of this Court passed on March 1, 2016 was challenged before the Supreme Court. At least, the appellants cannot demonstrate that such order was challenged. As such, the order dated March 1, 2016 attained finality and, as a corollary thereto and a necessary consequence thereof, the writ court's order of May 8, 2014 became binding on the appellants herein for the same benefits to be extended to the similarly placed persons as directed by the earlier order of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court of September 22, 2011. In view of the finality attained by the order of May 8, 2014 as a result of the dismissal of the appeal therefrom and there being no challenge to the appellate order of March 1, 2016, the writ petitioners covered by the order of May 8, 2014 and others similarly placed were entitled to the same benefits as granted by the previous Division Bench order of the Gauhati High Court of September 22, 2011. It may be noticed in this context that the jurisdiction of this High Court, which was born in March, 2013, was carved out of the jurisdiction of the parent Gauhati High Court. As such the Division Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court of September 22, 2011 was binding on the Single Bench of the subsequently formed Meghalaya High Court. 15. Further, the judgment of September 22, 2011 had itself attained finality. As such the Division Bench decision of the Gauhati High Court of September 22, 2011 was binding on the Single Bench of the subsequently formed Meghalaya High Court. 15. Further, the judgment of September 22, 2011 had itself attained finality. The appellants here contend that the writ petitioners covered by the order dated May 8, 2014 were not similarly placed as the writ petitioners covered by the order dated September 22, 2011. However, upon the order of May 8, 2014 having become final and binding, such issue cannot be raked up at this stage. That is really the crux of the present matter. 16. A bit of the history as narrated above was necessary to see the matter in its proper perspective, particularly since the major part of the similar judgments and orders impugned herein contain copious quotations from the previous orders or from the pleadings; and the decision-making aspect therein is confined to a couple of paragraphs. This is, however, not to detract from the orders impugned since they clearly indicate that in view of the order of May 8, 2014 which had attained finality and which the Assam Rifles could no longer question, the writ petitioners were entitled to the same benefits as the petitioners in the matters that culminated in the order dated May 8, 2015 being passed. 17. Paragraph 5 of the judgment of May 8, 2014 has been quoted in several of the impugned judgments, particularly the notification of March 3, 1998 referred to therein. A further memorandum of January 22, 1998 has also been quoted from the order dated May 8, 2014. Upon noticing the issues involved in the matters that culminated in the order dated May 8, 2014 and that had attained finality as a result of such order, the writ court in the present case recorded that it was satisfied that the relevant judgment of May 8, 2014 was equally applicable to the petitioners before the writ court and others who were holding 'the same category'. In the light of such findings, the appellants herein were directed to give the benefits to the writ petitioners and others as indicated in the impugned order, within four months of the date of receipt of a copy of the relevant order. 18. In the light of such findings, the appellants herein were directed to give the benefits to the writ petitioners and others as indicated in the impugned order, within four months of the date of receipt of a copy of the relevant order. 18. It is possible that what the appellants assert is justified: that the personnel in the 15 other technical branches of Assam Rifles at the relevant point of time entered in the post of Rifleman and were not promoted and, as such, could not have claimed the benefits conferred specifically to three of the technical branches. It is equally possible that the writ petitioners covered by the order of May 8, 2014 were not similarly placed as the writ petitioners covered by the previous Division Bench order of the Gauhati High Court passed on September 22, 2011. 19. However, for reasons that do not require to be looked into at this stage, the issues have attained finality by virtue of the appeal from the order dated May 8, 2014 being dismissed on March 1, 2016 and such appellate order not being assailed. In view of the principle of issue estoppel, it is no longer open to the Assam Rifles to urge to the contrary; at least not at this level. This Court is bound by its previous order of March 1, 2016 and the matter cannot be permitted to be agitated for being adjudicated afresh. The finality of an order does not depend on its correctness; the principle of finality is based on the larger public policy of giving quietus to a decision that could have been questioned but was not, or that was questioned but the challenge failed. The reasons for not assailing the decision or the reasons why the challenge failed are irrelevant, only the result is material. 20. Considering that the issues remained settled from about 2011, it appears extremely unlikely that there may be any cheer for the appellants herein at any other level. 21. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgments and orders impugned dated August 14, 2018, August 30, 2018, September 14, 2018, and October 8, 2018 do not call for any interference as the basis therefor is in tune with the expected decorum and judicial propriety upon noticing that the issues had been previously decided and such decision had attained finality. 22. 21. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgments and orders impugned dated August 14, 2018, August 30, 2018, September 14, 2018, and October 8, 2018 do not call for any interference as the basis therefor is in tune with the expected decorum and judicial propriety upon noticing that the issues had been previously decided and such decision had attained finality. 22. Accordingly, WA No. 10 of 2022, WA No. 11 of 2022, WA No. 12 of 2022, WA No. 13 of 2022, WA No. 14 of 2022, WA No. 15 of 2022, WA No. 16 of 2022, WA No. 17 of 2022, WA No. 18 of 2022, WA No. 19 of 2022, WA No. 20 of 2022, WA No. 1 of 2019, WA No. 2 of 2019, WA No. 13 of 2019 and WA No. 7 of 2019 are dismissed. 23. MC (WA) No. 15 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 16 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 17 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 18 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 19 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 20 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 21 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 22 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 23 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 31 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 32 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 7 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 8 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 33 of 2019 and MC (WA) No. 24 of 2019 are disposed of. 24. It is hoped that the entire benefits will be extended to the writ petitioners respondents and to all similarly placed personnel of Assam Rifles within six months from date, failing which the monetary benefits and the monetised value of the other benefits will carry interest at the simple rate of six per cent per annum from January 1, 2019 till the date when the entire benefits are made available to the relevant individual. 25. There will be no order as to costs.