[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/6 vs The Union Of India And 5 Ors on 6 January, 2026
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010124092014
2026:GAU-AS:146
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2329/2014
UGRASEN PATHAK and 27 ORS.
GS NO. - 174786F SKT, S/O- LT. H.N. PATHAK, R/O VILL. and P.O.-
KISHUNDASPUR, DIST.- AZAMGARH, UTTAR PRADESH, PIN- 276208.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECY., MINISTRY OF SHIPPING AND ROAD TRANSPORT AND
HIGHWAYS, BORDER ROAD DEVELOPMENT BOARD, "B" WING, 4TH
FLOOR, SEENA BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
Linked Case : WP(C)/2325/2014
MOTI LAL GONDIA and 29 ORS
GS NO. 165175L SKT
S/O LT. OM PRAKASH
R/O NANDPURI COLONY
NEAR CHOUDHURY NIWAS DIST. SAHARANPUR UTTAR PRADESH
PIN- 247001.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING AND ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
BORDER ROAD DEVELOPMENT BOARD
"B" WING
4TH FLOOR
SEENA BHAWAN
NEW DELHI.
Page No.# 2/6
Linked Case : WP(C)/2334/2014
DALBIR SINGH SODHI and 29 ORS
GS NO. 178234L
SKT
S/O SUB. AYA SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 200
DIGIANA CAMP
P.O. GANGYAL JAMMU
JAMMU AND KASHMIR PIN- 180010.
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF SHIPPIN GAND ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
BORDER ROAD DEVELOPMENT BORDER
"B" WING
4TH FLOOR
SEENA BHAWAN
NEW DELHI.
Linked Case : WP(C)/2330/2014
KULDIP SINGH and 24 ORS.
GS NO.165148F SKT
S/O SRI NAND SINGH
R/O KUTHER
P.O. SIONITE
DIST- PATHANKOT
PUNJAB
PIN-145001
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA and 5 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF SHIPPING AND ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
BORDER ROAD DEVELOPMENT BOARD
B WING
4TH FLOOR BHAWAN
NEW DELHI
Page No.# 3/6
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
For the petitioner (s) : Mr. H. K. Das, Advocate
Mr. M. P. Sarma, Advocate
For the respondent (s) : Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, Dy. SGI
Mr. B. Gogoi, AAG
Date on which judgment is reserved : NA
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 06.01.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment? : NA
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced? : Yes
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners in the batch of four writ petitions and
Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, the learned Deputy SGI who appears on
behalf of the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioners in the present batch of writ
petitions is that the post of Store Keeper (Technical) in the
Border Roads Organization, General Reserve Engineering Force,
is at parity with the post of Senior Technical Assistant in the
Bureau of Mines as well as General Storekeeper in the
Page No.# 4/6
Government of India Press, and therefore, the post of Store
Keeper (Technical) in the Border Roads Organization, General
Reserve Engineering Force should be accorded the scale of pay
of Rs. 9,300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/-
retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
3. At the outset, Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the filing
of the instant batch of writ petitions in the year 2014 and the
affidavit filed by the respondents in the year 2015, Draft Model
Recruitment Rules have been framed wherein the post of Store
Keeper (Technical) has been re-designated as Store Keeper
Grade-I, and further, three additional posts have also been
created. In that regard, an additional affidavit has also been filed
by one of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2334/2014.
4. Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, the learned Deputy SGI, submitted
that the question of parity of treatment with the post of Store
Keeper (Technical) of the Border Roads Organization does not
arise in view of the settled principles of law as laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Secondary
Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and Others , reported in
(2019) 18 SCC 301.
5. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Page No.# 5/6
the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners may not be
entitled to pay parity, yet in view of the Model Recruitment Rules
which have been adopted by the Department, as instructed to
him, the petitioners are entitled to certain additional benefits,
which, however, is not a pleaded case in the instant writ petitions
and have been sought to be developed by way of an affidavit-in-
reply.
6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the respective
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and has also
perused the materials on record. In the opinion of this Court,
taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the
case of Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and
Others (supra), the claim of pay parity vis-à-vis the post of Store
Keeper (Technical) of the Border Roads Organization with that of
the Senior Technical Assistant of the Indian Bureau of Mines or
the General Storekeeper in the Government of India Press do not
arise, and as such, the reliefs sought for in the present batch of
writ petitions cannot be granted.
7. This Court has also enquired with Mr. H. K. Das, the learned
counsel for the petitioners as to whether the Model Recruitment
Rules formulated by the Department of Personnel and Training,
Government of India, have been adopted or not. Mr. H. K. Das,
the learned counsel submitted that he has been instructed that
Page No.# 6/6
the same has been adopted, but he does not have any
notification in that regard.
8. Considering the above, it is also the opinion of this Court
that merely on the basis of the Model Recruitment Rules, no writ
can be issued unless those Model Recruitment Rules have been
duly adopted by the concerned Department.
9. Consequently, the instant batch of writ petitions stands
disposed of with the following observations and directions:--
(i) This Court does not find merit in the claim of the
petitioners with respect to pay parity for entitlement to a
higher pay scale and Grade Pay as sought for in the writ
petitions for which the instant batch of writ petitions stands
dismissed.
(ii) The dismissal of the instant writ petitions, however,
shall not preclude the petitioners from claiming additional
benefits, if otherwise entitled to, under the Recruitment
Rules as well as the policy of the Central Government.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
