Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/16 vs The Union Of India And 4 Ors on 16 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010175282016
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7045/2016
LABA KT BARO and 36 ORS.
GS NO. 180217K S/O SHRI NAREN BARO EBW GREF, C/O 99 APO
2: DUDHESHWAR SINGH
GS NO. 185706Y S/O SHRI RAM DEW SINGH EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
3: VIJAY PRAKASH SINGH
GS NO. 180224A S/O SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN SINGH EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
4: RAM PRASAD MEHTA
GS NO. 180227N S/O SHRI SINGHESHWOR MEHTA EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
5: LAXMAN VERMA
GS NO. 180285X S/O SHRI RADHA KRISHNA VERMA EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
6: SUDHIR KUMAR
GS NO. 180346K S/O LT. HARI CHAND EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
7: SAMAR SARKAR
GS NO. 178237Y S/O LT. PHANIBHUSAN SARKAR EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
8: GAWANDE PRAMOD SUKHADEO
GS NO. 181164H S/O SHRI SUKHDEO MAHADE GAWANDE EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
9: AJAI PRAKASH GAIROLA
Page No.# 2/16
GS NO. 178655N S/O SHRI HARI PRASAD GAIROLA EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
10: KALYAN SINGH KHOLIA
GS NO. 179824W S/O LT. KRIPAL SINGH EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
11: HARENDRA SINGH MARTOLA
GS NO. 181786K S/O SHRI KHUSHAL SINGH EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
12: BIJENDRA RAWAT
GS NO. 180213N S/O LT. KUNWAR SINGH RAWAT EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
13: KANTAPPA JAWALAGI
GS NO. 177740K S/O BANDAPPA EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
14: MUNNA LAL
GS NO. 179629Y S/O ILAM CHAND EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
15: KRISHNA KUMAR D
GS NO. 180983A S/O DIVAKARAN K EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
16: RAUT PRAKASH LAXMAN
GS NO. 179814M S/O RAUT LAXMAN EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
17: RANJEET SINGH
GS NO. 183453W S/O SHRI HUKAM SINGH EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
18: SENTHIL NATHAN M
GS NO. 182773Y S/O MR. MANICKAM EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
19: A. SHAMIULLA
GS NO. 179902H S/O ABDUL GANI EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
20: SURENDER SINGH
GS NO. 176363M S/O CHARAN SINGH EBW GREF
Page No.# 3/16
C/O 99 APO
21: T. JOSEPH LEO INBRAJ
GS NO. 179813K S/O A THOMAS XAVIER EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
22: ANAND KUMAR
GS NO. 182735H S/O SHRI RAM SARAN EBW GREF
C/O 99 APO
23: NAGENDRA PRASAD
G.S. NO.179639H S/O HARI NARAYAN MAHTO 1068 F/W C/O 99 APO
24: DHARMENDRA SINGH BISHT.
GS NO. 180214W S/O TRILOK SINGH BISHT 1446BCC C/O 99 APO
25: YESPAL SINGH
GS NO. 180225H S/O SHRI NANDAN SINGH RAWAT 1063 FD WKSP C/O 99
APO
26: SHRI KRISHAN
GS NO. 178658F S/O LT. MANGAL SINGH 1072FD WKSP C/O 99 APO
27: RUPESH KUMAR
GS NO. 181355X S/O SHRI BS VERMA 1159I FD WKSP C/O 99 APO
28: DONGARE SHRIRAM SHANKAR
GS NO. 179918N S/O SHANKAR NAGOJI DONGARE 1068 FD WKSP C/O 99
APO
29: SURESH KUMAR
GS NO. 180275N S/O SHRI RAM ASRA 1068 FD WKSP C/O 99 APO
30: BODKHE SANJIV MURLIDHAR
GS NO. 179815X S/O BODKHE MURLIDHAR 62 RCC C/O 99 APO
31: R RAVI
G.S. NO. 179997N S/O RAMA SAMY 1072 FD WKSP C/O 99 APO
32: TUNGAJ DHAWAJ
GS NO. 181329W S/O DURJAN PRASAD 423 RMPL/130 RCC C/O 99 APO
33: A. SATYANARAYANA
GS NO. 185771Y 1079 FD WKSP C/O 99 APO
34: DINESH CHANDRA KHANDURI
Page No.# 4/16
GS NO. 185705W S/O SHRI RAM CHANDRA KHANDURI 1079 FD WKSP C/O
99 APO
35: AWADHSHESH KUMAR RAJAK
GS NO. 178748H S/O SHRI BADRI PRASAD RAJAK 1448 BCC C/O 99 APO
36: JHANTU BISWAS
GS NO. 180973W S/O SHRI KAJDASS BISWAS 71 RCC C/O 99 APO
37: K. BHUVANESWARAN
GS NO. 179996L S/O LT. PS KUPPUSAMY 1066 FW C/O 99 AP
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENSE,
BORDER ROADS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 'B' WING, 4TH FLOOR, SENA
BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
BORDER ROADS
SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN
RING ROAD
NEW DELHI-110010.
3:SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICER-
JOINT DIRECTOR E/G2
HEADQUARTERS
DTC. GENERAL BORDER ROADS
SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN
RING ROAD
NEW DELHI- 110010.
4:CHIEF RECORD OFFICER
RECORD OFFICE
GENERAL RESERVE ENGINEERING FORCE
DIGHI CAMP
PUNE-15.
5:THE COMMANDANT
EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP GREF
C/O 99 APO PIN - 931701
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS.M DUTTA, MR.S K CHAKRABORTY,MS.A
Page No.# 5/16
CHAKRABORTY,MR.P K ROY
Advocate for the Respondent : SR. CGC, MR.Y DOLOI(R- 1-5),ASSTT.S.G.I.,
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
JUDGMENT
Date : 16-05-2025
Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K.
Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Doloi,
learned CGC for the respondents No.1 to 5.
2. Challenge made in this petition is to the letter dated 16.04.2015 issued by
the Senior Administrative Officer, Joint Director EG-2 for DGBR, whereby, the
representation of the petitioners (GREF personnel) who have been promoted
from Vehicle Mechanic to Charge Mechanic has been rejected on the ground
that the order passed in WP(C) 51/2009 pertains to the benefits of higher pay
scale i.e. Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in PB-2 of Rs.9300 - 34,800 is only extended
to the similarly situated non-diploma holders Superintendent B/R-II,
Superintendent E/M-II, Overseer, Charge Mechanic and Charge Electrician, who
were holding on the strength of BRO as on 10.09.2010, the day of verdict,
therefore, the petitioner are not similarly situated as Charge Mechanics/Charge
Electricians who governed by a different set of Recruitment and Promotion
Rules. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities
to grant the benefit of pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (Pay Band- 2) with Grade
Pay of Rs.4200/- to the petitioners on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are working as Charge
Mechanics in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) under the Ministry
Page No.# 6/16
of Defence, Govt. of India. The petitioners were initially recruited as Vehicle
Mechanic, which is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Charge
Mechanic. The qualification prescribed for appointment to the Vehicle Mechanic
is Matriculate with Motor Mechanic (HMV)/Vehicle/Diesel Mechanic/Tractor
Mechanic certificate, issued by ITI, ITC/NCTVT/Defence Trade certificate etc.
Following the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the
respondent authorities, on an apparent error of law, has denied the benefit of
revised higher pay scale at PB-2 with its Grade Pay to the promoted
overseers/Charge Mechanic having the alternative qualification, other than
Diploma in Engineering, on the ground that it has recommended only for having
Diploma Engineering and not to the alternative qualification of having technical
certificate from ITI etc. The aforesaid decision was put to challenge by one Shri
Ghanshyam Vishwakarma by filing WP(C) 51/2009 claiming equal pay for equal
work.
4. The said writ petition was allowed on the principle of equal pay for equal
work by the judgment and order dated 10.09.2010. The aforesaid judgment was
put to challenge in WA 19/2010, which was dismissed by the judgment and
order dated 18.03.2011. Thereafter, an SLP against the judgment and order
dated 18.03.2011 was preferred and the same was also met with similar fate
and accordingly, the SLP was dismissed.
5. Having been denied the benefit of revised higher pay scale at PB-2 to the
persons promoted in the equivalent post of Charge Mechanic having the
alternative qualification of having technical certificate from ITI etc., while
granting it only to the Charge Mechanic having the qualification of Diploma in
Engineering, a writ petition being WP(C) 3756/2009 was filed by Promod Singh
and 20 others Charge Mechanics before this Court. The writ petition was
Page No.# 7/16
allowed on the same principle of equal pay for equal work as that of WP(C)
51/2009 by an order dated 01.02.2011. Again a Writ Appeal No.219/2011, was
preferred, which was disposed of on 27.06.2012 in terms of the judgment dated
09.03.2011 in WA 19/2010.
6. A similar judgments on the principle equal pay for equal work have also
been passed by the various High Courts of the country upon similar challenge
being made by the Charge Mechanics having the qualification other than the
Diploma in Engineering and who were denied the benefit of Higher Pay Scale of
PB-2.
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High
Court, the respondent authorities have granted the Higher Pay Band-2 as per
the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission to the petitioners in the
writ petitions (supra).
8. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are working in the
same cadre of Charge Mechanic and having the same technical qualification like
the petitioners of the aforesaid writ petition and are also performing the similar
work with same responsibility vested on them. However, the respondent
authorities have arbitrarily and illegally denied the same benefit to the
petitioners on the unreasonable ground that the said benefit of higher pay scale
of PB-2 is granted only to those Charge Mechanics having the alternative
qualification, who are promoted to the post of Charge Mechanic up to the date
of the judgment of this Court i.e. on 10.09.1010 in WP(C) 51/2009 and the
petitioners having been promoted to the post of Charge Mechanic in 2014, when
in the meantime, Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2012 has come into force
providing only PB-1 for the Charge Mechanic of the Department.
Page No.# 8/16
9. It is contended that the respondent authorities while passing the
impugned orders/communication holding that the petitioners are not entitled to
the benefit of PB-2 are selectively applying the judgment passed by this Court
as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work
cases of the Charge Mechanics, who approached this Court and seeking to
inaffectuate the said judicial decision in the case of the petitioners by taking
unreasonable ground of not being not a party to the proceedings. It is
contended that the present petitioners and the petitioner in WP(C) 3756/2009
are in the same cadre having same eligibility and qualification for the post and
rendering the same nature of job and discharging the same duties. It is
contended that by passing the impugned order, the respondent authorities are
arbitrarily seeking to create a class without having any intelligible differentia. It
is further contended that there are altogether 1295 nos. of Charge Mechanics in
the GREF at present working in various parts of the country and out of which,
977 Charge Mechanics have been provided with the benefits of PB-2, while the
rest, including the petitioners, are being provided with lower pay band-1
arbitrarily.
10. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs- Atul Shukla, reported in
(2014) 10 SCC 432 has held that, classification of employees based on the
method of their recruitment has long since been declared impermissible by the
court and there can be no differential treatment. So long as two employees are
part of the same cadre, they cannot be treated differently either for the purpose
of pay and allowances or other conditions of service, including the age of
superannuation. It is further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it is trite that
birthmark of an officer, based on how they joined the Cadre is not relevant.
Page No.# 9/16
11. While referring to the case of Ghanashyam Viswakarma, (supra), he
submits that, this Hon'ble Court has pleased to arrive at the finding that
Overseers, without Diploma are doing the same work and performing the same
duty as being performed by Overseers having Diploma qualification and though
the 6th CPC provided higher pay scale to Diploma holder overseers but the
recommendation of the 6th CPC did not indicate that overseers having no
Diploma will not be provided with the higher scale of pay. The report of the 6th
CPC was accepted by the Govt. by enacting CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 2008. This
rule is not amended thereafter and the rule governs the pay scales of various
grades of services. The Hon'ble Court in the said case has held that the report
of the 6th CPC cannot be undone. In the case of Promod Singh (supra), this
Hon'ble court has also took note of the 6th CPC recommendations and held that
the petitioners are also entitled to the benefit of higher pay as granted to the
petitioners in Ghanashyam Viswakarma's case.
12. He submits that since the present petitioners are also holding the post of
Charge Mechanic, having alternative qualification, they are equally entitled to
the benefit of higher pay as provided under the 6th CPC recommendation read
with the CCS (Revision of Pay) Rules 2008. Except giving them the lower pay,
there is no difference with regard to their eligibility for promotion and the duties
performed by all other Charge Mechanic. Upon their promotion to the Cadre of
Charge Mechanics, they are subsumed into the same cadre of Charge Mechanic
under one single gradation list for all purposes, including their Career
progression, transferability etc. The attempt of the respondent authority to in-
effectuate the Hon'ble courts order, more particularly, in the manner in which it
is sought to be done, is not only discriminatory, but also non-est in the eye of
law, the same being violative of the explicit directions and orders of the Hon'ble
Page No.# 10/16
Court.
13. He submits that the above Judgements passed by this Hon'ble Court, after
taking into consideration of the settled law on equal pay for equal work, as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Ghanashyam Viswakarma,
as well as Promod Singh are 'Judgement in rem'. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the Judgement would be a 'Judgement in Personam', when such
an intention is stated expressly in the Judgement or it can be impliedly found
out from the tenor of the Judgement. But 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.
14. Mr. Roy, learned senior counsel submits that the plea of the respondents
that, they are promoted under 2012 rule and therefore cannot get the same
benefits is fallacious in as much as the Rules, 2012 do not restrain/debar the
petitioner charge Mechanics to draw the Higher Pay Band-2. The benefit, which
this Hon'ble Court has held to be entitled to all Charge Mechanic, without having
diploma on the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be denied to the
petitioner. Even otherwise, the order of promotion of the petitioners dated
04.01.2014 with instructions on Promotion-cum-Posting (PCP) order, at Clause
(c) and (h) goes to show that the petitioners are promoted under the
Recruitment and Promotion Rules 1982.
15. In support of his submissions, Mr. P.K. Roy, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners has further placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court:-
Page No.# 11/16
1 Union of India vs. Atul Shukla, reported in (2014)10 SCC 432.
2. State of UP vs. Arvind Kr. Srivastava, reported in (2015) 1
SCC 347.
3. Col. AS Iyer vs. P. Blasubramanium and Ors. reported in
(1980) 1 SCC 634.
4. P. Savita vs. Union of India, reported in (1985) Suppl. SCC 94.
5. Union of India & Ors. Vs. Parul Debnath, reported in (2009)
14 SCC 173.
16. Mr. Y. Doloi, learned Sr. CGSC for the respondents submits that the
petitioners have mainly relied upon the judgements of this Hon'ble High Court in
Ghanshyam Vishwakarma (Non-Diploma Overseer) and Hon'ble Gauhati High
Pramod Singh (Non-Diploma Charge Mechanic) (supra). The The petitioners
(non-diploma holders) in this case were promoted to the post of Charge
Mechanic during the year 2014 as per Recruitment & Promotion Rules 2012,
whereas the petitioners in Ghanshyam Vishwakarma and Pramod Singh cases in
WP(C) 51 of 2009 and WP(C) 3756 of 2009 were promoted to the posts of
Overseer and Charge Mechanic respectively as per Recruitment & Promotion
Rules 1982 and 1996.
17. He submits that in compliance with aforesaid judgements , pay scale of Rs
9300-34800 (Pay Band-2) with grade pay of 4200/- made applicable to all non-
diploma Overseers and Charge Mechanics held on the strength as on the date of
judgment i.e. 10.09.2010. Subsequently, Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2012
came into force which provides pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 (Pay Band-1) with
grade pay of Rs.2400/- only for the post of Charge Mechanic. Keeping in view of
the revised Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2012 and in organizational
Page No.# 12/16
interest, departmental cadre review was carried out in the year 2018 and the
post of charge mechanic has been re-designed as Equipment Mechanic vide Sri
No.60 under para 1 of Border Roads Development Board (BRDB) letter No F.No.
BRDB/02/21/2010/GE I(Vol.II) dated 15th Nov 2016. Accordingly, all the
personnel recruited/promoted in the post of Overseer and Charge Mechanic as
per Recruitment and Promotion Rules 1982 and 1996, wherein there was an
element of direct recruitment and the minimum education qualification of
Diploma in Engineering was an essential minimum education qualification for
direct recruitment, are retained in the post of Overseer and Charge Mechanic as
on date. Whereas, the personnel promoted in the post of Charge Mechanic as
per Recruitment and Promotion Rules 2012 have been kept separately with a re-
designated post as Equipment Mechanic in compliance with the approved cadre
review.
18. He submits that the benefit of higher pay scale i.e. Rs.9300-34800 (Pay
Band-2) with grade pay of 4200/- was granted to the similarly placed non-
diploma holders i.e. Supdt. BR-II, Supdt EM-II, Overseer, Charge Mechanic and
Charge Electricinan who were held on the strength of BRO as on 10 Sep 2010,
the date of verdict. Accordingly, the judgment was implemented in respect of all
eligible personnel. Whereas petitioners in this case, they were all Vehicle
Mechanics and not Charge Mechanics at the time of verdict of Hon'ble Court i.e.
on 10.09.2010. They were later on promoted to Charge Mechanic (re-
designated to Equipment Mechanic w.e.f. 15 Nov 2016) as per provisions of
Recruitment & Promotion Rules, 2012. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled
the benefit of higher pay scale i.e. Rs.9300-34800 (Pay Band-2) with grade pay
of 4200/- and as such this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
19. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the
Page No.# 13/16
parties and perused the record including the judgement and orders padded by
this Court and the Hon'ble supreme Court.
20. The petitioners are holding the posts of Charge Mechanic, on promotion
from the post of Vehicle Mechanic vide orders dated 04.01.2014 and
15.01.2014, in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), under the
Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India. Following recommendation of the 6th CPC,
the respondent authorities, sought to deny the benefit of revised higher scale of
pay (Pay Band-2), with its recommended grade pay, to the promotee
Overseers/Charge Mechanic, having qualification, other than Diploma in
Engineering, on the ground that 6th CPC has recommended the said higher Pay
Band-2 to the Overseers/Charge Mechanic, having Diploma in Engineering and
not Overseers/Charge Mechanic, having alternative qualification. The report of
the 6th CPC was implemented by the Govt. of India w.e.f. 01.01.2006, by
enacting Central Civil Service (Revised pay) Rules 2008.
21. This decision of the respondent authorities was put to challenge before
this Court by one Shri Ghanashyam Vishwakarma in the writ petition (Supra) on
the principle of equal pay for equal work which was allowed vide the judgement
and order dated 10.09.2009. The respondent authorities challenged the said
judgement and order dated 10.09.2009, in W.A. No. 19/2010. The said writ
appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on 18.03.2011. The
SLP preferred by the respondent authorities against the said Judgement of the
Division Bench was also dismissed. When the respondent authorities, after the
judgement rendered in the case of Gynashyam Viswakarma's case (supra),
seeking to deny benefit of revised higher scale of pay (Pay Band-2) to the
persons promoted to the equivalent post of Charge Mechanic, though similarly
placed, a writ petition was filed by Shri Promod Singh and 20 (twenty) others
Page No.# 14/16
Charge Mechanics before this court and same was allowed vide judgement and
order dated 01.02.2011, as being similarly situated with the petitioner in
Ghanashyam Viswakarma's case. The respondents preferred a writ appeal
against the said judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge in
Writ Appeal No. 219 of 2011. But the Division Bench of this Court, having found
that there was no dispute that the matter is covered by earlier Division Bench
Judgement dated 09.03.2011 in Writ Appeal no. 19/2010, passed in the case of
Gynashyam Viswakarma, and has disposed of the writ appeal in the same terms
vide order dated 27.06.2012. The respondent authority did not challenge the
said order any further.
22. The Govt. of India thereafter communicated their decision to the GREF vide
letter dated 25.10.2013 directing GREF to implement/extend the benefit of the
judgment rendered in the case of Ghanashyam Viswakarma (Supra) to similarly
placed persons. The authorities of the GREF however extended the benefit of
the said judgment granting higher pay band-2 to the Non-Diploma Charge
Mechanics, but not to the petitioners, on the ground that, they were promoted
as Charge Mechanic after the date of the judgment rendered in the case of
Ghanashyam Viswkarma (Supra) i.e. on 10.09.2009.
23. This Court in the case of Promod Singh (Supra) has held that there is no
dispute that the petitioners being in the cadre of Charge Mechanic by virtue of
their promotion to the said cadre, discharges the same duty and responsibility
and also enjoy the same status as that of the diploma holder Charge Mechanic.
Nowhere, in the aforesaid recommendation the category of employees
processing alternative qualification has been excluded from the purview of
upgradation to the said pay scale. Due emphasis was given on the post and not
in the incumbents concerned. Since the Charge Mechanics of the GREF are in
Page No.# 15/16
one single cadre and all are identically situated persons, which was the sole
basis for this Hon'ble Court, for treating the petitioners of both Ghanashyam
Viswakarma (Supra) as well as Promod Singh (Supra) cases alike, the said
Judgements, as rendered are 'Judgement in rem'. The petitioners, therefore, in
my view, are entitled to the benefit of the Judgement as they are holding the
same post of Charge Mechanic and performing the same duty.
24. It is also noted that the orders of promotion of the petitioners reflect that
it is to ensure that the individuals under promotion fulfill all conditions laid down
in Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1982 and that the certificates of
academic/Tech education/qualifications/HMVL duly renewed possessed by the
Individual (s) and qualifications are issued by the recognized
University/Institutions are genuine. The Inter-se seniority will be reckoned from
the date mentioned under Column 'DPC held' and the period of service required
for further promotion as per RRP Rules, 1982 reckon from the date of
assumption in the trade. Personnel will be dispatched to new unit immediately.
OSC Units will be personally responsible for the delay in dispatching the
individual.
25. In the case of Col. A.S Iyer Vs. P. Balasubramanium, reported in (1980) 1
SCC 634, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once several persons have
become members of one service, they stand as equals and cannot thereafter be
invidiously differentiated for the purpose of salary, seniority, promotion or
otherwise, based on the source of recruitment or other adventitious factor.
Birthmark of public service are obliterated on entry into a common pool and our
country does not believe in official castism or blue blood as assuring preferential
treatment in the future career. The basic assumption for the application of this
principle is that the various members or groups of recruits have fused into or
Page No.# 16/16
integrated as one common service. Merely because the source of recruitment
are different, there cannot be aparthiedisation within the common service.
26. Coming back to present case, I am of the view that once the Govt. of India
has taken a decision vide dated 25.10.2013 in view of the Judgement in the
case of Ghanashyam Ghanashyam Viswakarma (Supra) and directed the GREF
authorities, that similarly placed persons should be extended the benefit of the
Judgement, the respondents could not have issued the impugned order on
16.04.2015 by stating they would grant benefit only to those persons who were
on the strength of BRO as on 10.09.2010 i.e. on the date of Judgement in the
case of Ghanashyam Viswakarma (Supra).
27. Having considered the matter in its entirety and in view of the judgment
and order of the Division Bench of this Court, which has attained finality, I am of
the considered view that the petitioners are entitled to be provided with similar
benefits of Pay Band-2 as that of the petitioners in Promod Singh (Supra) as
they are similarly situated persons although they have been promoted after the
said judgment.
28. In view of the discussion and conclusion arrived at herein above, the
petitioners are entitled to be provided with the benefits of Pay Band-2 with
corresponding grade pay. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioners be
provided with the similar benefits of Pay Band-2 plus grade pay with that of the
similarly persons/petitioners in in the case of Promod Singh (Supra).
29. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
