[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
M.G.Radhakrishnan vs Lt.Gen Sukhdeep Sangwan on 11 February, 2026
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
1
2026:KER:12112
CR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2459 OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.06.2015 IN WP(C) NO.24735 OF 2013 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:
1 BIJUKUMAR.S
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. SIVADASAN PILLAI, DEVANANDANAM, KALPPADA, MARUTHOOR
VIA, KALLAYAM P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695304,
(DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
2 UNNIKRISHNAN K. V,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. VISWAMBHARAN, KULIKKANNA PARAMBIL HOUSE, AROOR P O,
CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT,KERALA, (DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
3 HARIKRISHNAN K G
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, HARINIVAS, IMALI EAST, OMALLOOR,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, KERALA, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
4 VASANT KUMAR P
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O. MADHAVAN NAIR, KOMENTHODUKAYIL HOUSE,
KARINGHAMANNA,THAMARASSERY P O, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, KERALA,
(DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
5 AJITHKUMAR C
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O.CHELLAPPAN ACHARI, LAKSHMI BHAVAN, KARITHAKKAM, BEACH P
O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA, (DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2
2026:KER:12112
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE
SHRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW (SR.)
SRI.P.P.BIJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 LT.GEN SUKHDEEP SANGWAN,SM**
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,(NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS),THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG,
MEGHALAYA, PIN-793010.
ADDL.R2. LIEUTENANT GENERAL PRADEEPCHANDRAN NAIR
(AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS)THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA,
PIN-793 011. ADDL.R2. IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
20/07/2022 IN IA 1/2022 IN COC 2459/2019.
ADDL.R3 LIEUTENANT GENERAL, VIKAS LAKHERA
(AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANTS) THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG,
MEGHALAYA PIN-793011 ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
11/09/2024 IN IA 5/2024 IN COC 2459/2019.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
SHRI.SUVIN R.MENON, SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2026, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).1871/2020, 1820/2020 AND CONNECTED
CASES, THE COURT ON 11.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
3
2026:KER:12112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1871 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.06.2015 IN WP(C) NO.24695 OF 2013 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:
1 VENUGOPAL.K.V
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, ARYABHAVAN, TC 10/1641, VATTIYURKAVU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, ( DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO
AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
2 MURALEEKRISHNAN UNNITHAN
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. RAGHAVAN PILLAI, SARAYU, ELAMADU, AYOOR, KOLLAM
DISTRICT, ( DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM
ASSAM RIFLES)
3 SHAJI.S.,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O. SREEDHARAN, KUZHIVILLAYIL HOUSE, VALLIKUNNAM,
ALAPPUZHA, ( DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM
ASSAM RIFLES)
4 SIMON.K.,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.K.KUMARAN, KANNEL HOUSE, KALLIKADU, ARATTUPUZHA P.O.,
MUTHUKULAM, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT ( DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
5 CHAKO A.K.
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. LATE KURIAN,ALLUNKAL HOUSE, THACHAMPOYIL P.O.,
PODUPPIL, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, ( DISCHARGED
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
4
2026:KER:12112
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
6 CHANDRAN.U.N.,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. LATE UNNIAMAN, SILPASREE, CHETTIPADI P.O., MALAPPURAM
DISTRICT, ( DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM
ASSAM RIFLES)
BY ADV SRI.P.P.BIJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 LT.GEN SUKHDEEP SANGWAN**SM
AGED 45 YEARS
SM , THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG,
MEGHALAYA,PIN-793 010
ADDL.R2 LIEUTENANT GENERAL, VIKAS LAKHERA
(AGED AND NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANTS)
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA ,
PIN - 793 011. ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
27/06/2025 IA 1/2025 IN COC 1871/2020
BY ADV SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2026, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).2459/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
5
2026:KER:12112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1820 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.06.2015 IN WP(C) NO.30020 OF
2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER:
1 MURALI.K.N
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, KALATHIVILAYIL THEKETHIL HOUSE,
PANANGADU P.O, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,(DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
2 ASOKAN P
AGED 63 YEARS
S/O.LATE GOPALAN P. PANNIYANNOOR, THELLICHERI,KANNUR
DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM
ASSAM RIFLES)
3 SATHISH KUMAR V.M
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O. LATE V.K. MADHAVAN, VETTUKUZHIPARAMBIL, ITHITHANAM P.O,
CHENGANASSERI, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
4 CHANDRABABU M.T
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O. THANKAN P.K. MANAVATHARAYIL HOUSE, PEROOR PO,
ETTUMANOOR, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
5 ANIL DUTT B
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O. R. BAHULAYAN PILLAI, PALAZHI HOUSE, THEMPAMMOODU,
MYLAMOODU PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
6
2026:KER:12112
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
6 GOPI N.P
AGED 61 YEARS
S/O. RAMAN PAPPU, GOPIVILASOM, NIRANAM CENTRAL P O.
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND
LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
7 T.K. MURALEEDHARAN,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. DHAMODHARA KURUP, SREERAM HOUSE, KAKOOR P O, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT.(DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM
RIFLES)
8 OMANA KUTTAN NAIR M.N.
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, ENKAKAD P.O, VADAKANCHERI,
THRISSUR DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES
FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
9 SELVAKUMAR
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O. SHRI.BALAKRISHNAN AVITTOM, VELANCHERRY, KILIMANOOR,
TRIVANDRUM DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND
LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
10 SIBY MATHEW
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. LATE T.K.MATHEW, THUNDIYIL HOUSE, KANJIKULAM P O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES
FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
11 SASIDHARAN UNNITHAN
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O. KARUNAKARAN PILLAI, ATHIRA HOUSE, KURIYODU P.O,
CHADAYAMANGALAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
12 SREEKUMARAN NAIR K
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, KOCHITTALAYAM VEEDU, NEAR
ARAPPURAVILAKAM TEMPLE, KARIKKAKOM BEACH P O, TRIVANDRUM
DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM
ASSAM RIFLES)
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
7
2026:KER:12112
13 ANILKUMAR T
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O. THAMPI D, SREE KARTHIKA HOUSE, MUKHATHALA P O,
THRIKKOVILATTOM, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
14 CHADRAKUMAR S
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O. SUKUNARAN NAIR K, DIVYALAYAM, POTHENCODE P O,TRIVANDRUM
DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM
ASSAM RIFLES)
BY ADV SRI.P.P.BIJU
RESPONDENTS:
1 LT.GEN SUKHDEEP SANGWAN,**SM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, (NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS) THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG,
MEGHALAYA, PIN - 793010.
ADDL.R2 LIEUTENANT GENERAL, VIKAS LAKHERA
(AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANTS) THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA,PIN -
793 011. ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 27/06/2025
IA 1/2025 IN COC 1820/2020
BY ADV SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2026, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).2459/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11.02.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
8
2026:KER:12112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1855 OF 2020
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 05.06.2015 IN WP(C) NO.26353 OF 2013 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:
1 M.G.RADHAKRISHNAN
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.N.GOPALAN ACHARY,MANNOOR HOUSE,
KARIMULACKAL,KOMALLOOR.P.O,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.(DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
2 SANTHOSH KUMAR.S.V,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O SURESH KUMAR,TC 68/2392,SV NIVAS,
THIRUVALLAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.(DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
3 ASHOK KUMAR,
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O GOVINDHAN,AS LAND,KAPPIL,EDAVA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM THE
ASSAM RIFLES)
4 BINU THOMAS,
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O LATE T.L.THOMAS,JESSEY BHAVANAM,
THAMARAKULAM.P.O,ALLEPPEY DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
5 THILAKAN.B,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O BALAKRISHNAN PILLAI,THIRUVATHIRA HOUSE,
THODUVEY,VARKALA.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
9
2026:KER:12112
(DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
6 S.SIVAN PILLAI,
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O LATE SIVARAMA PILLAI,MAMPAZHATHU HOUSE,
AYIKUNNAM,SASTHANKOTTA.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
7 V.VIDHYADHARAN,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O LATE VELUKUTTY NAIR,THIRUVATHIRA,
MAYILAKKOLAM,VITHURA.P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, (DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
8 JAYAPRAKASHAN.P,
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O NARAYANAN ADIYODI,VARIYAM VEEDU, KAKKUR.P.O, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM
ASSAM RIFLES)
9 RAJENDRAN.P,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O RAVUNNI NAIR,PUNATHIL HOUSE,CHOOLOOR.P.O,
CHATHAMANGALAM,KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
10 RAJESH KUMAR,
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,MANGATTU HOUSE, MANGATTU
HOUSE,PULINCUNNU.P.O,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
11 SANTHOSH RAJ.G,
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.GANGADHARAN.V.E,TYPE-III,QTRS
NO.Y,C.G.O.COMPLEX,KOONAKULAM,VELLAYANI.P.O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO
AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
12 RAVEENDRAN.N.P,
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O PAPPU.M.R,NAALAM VEETTIL THEKETHIL, NIRANNOM
CENTRAL.P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.(DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
10
2026:KER:12112
BY ADV SRI.P.P.BIJU
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
1 LT.GEN SUKHDEEP SANGWAN,
AGED 45 YEARS
SM,(NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS),THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL,ASSAM RIFLES,SHILLONG,MEGHALAYA,PIN-793010.
2 LIEUTENANT GENERAL, VIKAS LAKHERA,
(AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANTS),
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA, PIN
- 793 011. (ADDL. R2 IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED
23/06/2025 IN IA 1/2025 IN COC 1855/2020).
BY ADV SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON02.02.2026, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).2459/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE
COURT ON 11.02.2026, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
11
2026:KER:12112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 22ND MAGHA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1890 OF 2020
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 05.06.2015 IN WP(C) NO.30022 OF
2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:
1 MURUKA DAS.N.B
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI N.MURUKA VILASOM (DAS BHAVAN),
KULAKKADA EAST P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
2 LIJIMON K.N.
AGED 52 YEARS
S/O.N.S.NARAYAN, KRISHNALAYAM, SOUTH ARYAD, AVALOOKUNNU
P.O., ALLEPPY DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND
LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
3 AJAI KUMAR K.
AGED 51 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNA NAIR M., SAPNA HOUSE, VELLAYANY, OOKODE P.O.,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO
AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
4 ANILKUMAR R.
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, MAYAMANDIRAM, CHOOTTAYILKAVU,
THUMPODU, KALLRA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT
S/O.GOVINDAN K., KALTHIL HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADY P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND
LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
5 VINOD KUMAR S.
AGED 55 YEARS
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
12
2026:KER:12112
S/O.GOVINDAN K., KALTHIL HOUSE, PARAPPANANGADY P.O.,
MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND
LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
6 CHANDRAN N.
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.K.NANOO, BEENA BHAVANAM, PAVUMBA NORTH, PAVUMBA P.O.,
KOLLAM DISTRICT (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES
FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
7 KUTTAPPAN V.R.
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.LATE RAMAN, MANNATHUPARAMBU HOUSE, KANNAMBRA P.O.,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES
FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
8 RAVEENDRAN N.
AGED 58 YEARS
S/O.K.V.KUNHIRAMAN, KUNHIVEETTIL HOUSE, PALERI, MAMBA P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES
FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
9 ANILKUMAR
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.ARJUNAN K., PARAVATHINILAYIL HOUSE, MARKET ROAD,
ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED
HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
10 THOMAS C.V.
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.VARKEY C.O., CHIRAYAMALLIL HOUSE, NEDUMBURAM P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND
LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
11 UNNIKRISHNAN M.
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR P., KRISHNAKRIPA HOUSE, KAMBALAKALLU P.O.,
MANIMOOLY VIA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
12 RAJENDRAN B.
AGED 55 YEARS
S/O.BHASKARAN PILLAI, MEENATHERIL HOUSE, OCHIRA P.O., KOLLAM
DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES FROM
ASSAM RIFLES)
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
13
2026:KER:12112
13 HARIDAS P.K.
AGED 57 YEARS
S/O.PACHAN KUTTAPPAN, SINDHU SADANAM, NIRANAM NORTH P.O.,
PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND
LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
14 SOMASEKHARAN K.C.
AGED 56 YEARS
S/O.LATE PADMANABHAN PANICKER, SOPANAM, PERUMBAYAL P.O.,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR RADIO AND LINES
FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
15 SURESH D.
AGED 53 YEARS
S/O.N.DIVAKARAN, PULLATTUKARI HOUSE, KARIYIL, KAZHAKOOTTOM
P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. (DISCHARGED HAV/OPERATOR
RADIO AND LINES FROM ASSAM RIFLES)
BY ADV SRI.P.P.BIJU
RESPONDENT/2ND RESPONDENT:
1 LT.GEN SUKHDEEP SANGWAN, SM**, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, (NAME OF
THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS) THE DIRECTOR
GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA, PIN 793 011
2 LIEUTENANT GENERAL, VIKAS LAKHERA
(AGE AND NAME OF THE FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE APPLICANTS) THE
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ASSAM RIFLES, SHILLONG, MEGHALAYA ,PIN
793011. ADDL R2 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.09.2025 IN
IA 01/2025 IN COC
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA
O.M.SHALINA, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2026, ALONG WITH Con.Case(C).2459/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT
ON 11.02.2026, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
14
2026:KER:12112
CR
JUDGMENT
[Con.Case(C) Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020, 1820/2020, 1855/2020, 1890/2020]
1. These five Contempt Cases (Civil) arise from Annexure-I
common judgment dated 05.06.2015 of a learned Single Judge
of this Court by which six Writ Petitions were disposed of by the
learned Single Judge. Petitioners are the Petitioners in five out
of the said six Writ Petitions.
2. Since the pleadings and documents are on record in Contempt
Case (Civil) No.2459/2019, the said case is treated as the
leading case, referring to the pleadings and documents of the
said case in this judgment.
3. Petitioners are the retired personnel from Assam Rifles, which
is a Central Paramilitary Force. Petitioners entered into service
as Operator Radio and Lines (ORL) in the rank of Rifleman (Rfn)
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
and they were promoted to the rank of Havildar. They worked
during the period between 1984 and 2013 and were discharged
from service on voluntary retirement. In the Writ Petitions they
sought for the Pay Scale of their counterparts in other
Paramilitary Forces on the basis of the Annexure R1(f) Division
Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 22.09.2011 in
W.A.No.50(SH) of 2010 and the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. [(2008) 1 SCC 586].
Annexure R1(f) Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High
Court was Ext.P1 in the Writ Petition.
4. By Annexure-I judgment, the learned Single Judge disposed of
all the Writ Petitions holding that the Petitioners are entitled to
get benefit of Ext.P1 judgment therein (Annexure R1(f) herein)
and hence they are to be redesignated with replacement scale
of pay in the scale of Rs.3,200 - 85 - 4,900; that they are
entitled to get their retirement benefits refixed on the basis of
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
the pay fixed on such upgradation along with arrears of
pensionary benefits. The learned Single Judge directed the
Respondent No.2 therein/the Director General of Assam Rifles
to consider the Representations of each of the Petitioners
already submitted, in the light of the above declarations and
grant all benefits on the basis of the upgradation/restructuring
and replacement of the scale of pay of the post from which they
retired, by a refixation of their pay and pensionary benefits. It
was further directed that the arrears of pensionary benefits on
the basis of such re-fixation of pay and pension, along with all
other monetary benefits, shall be paid within a period of four
months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. As
per the Order dated 02.06.2016 in I.A. No.6135/2016, the words
and figures "in the scale of Rs.3,200 - 85 - 4,900" in the
concluding paragraph of the common judgment were deleted.
Though the Respondents therein filed Writ Appeals before the
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
Division Bench of this Court, the same were dismissed as per
Annexure-II judgment dated 19.07.2019. In the said judgment,
it is recorded that the Appellants therein, i.e., the Respondents
in the Writ Petitions, have absolutely no objection in extending
the benefit of Ext.P1 judgment to the Writ Petitioners. It is also
observed that the parties are at variance as to whether the
benefits under Ext.P1 judgment have already been extended to
the Respondents or not, and it is a matter to be agitated in the
proceedings for contempt if any initiated and not in the Writ
Appeals. It is further observed that the deletion in the concluding
part of the judgment impugned does not alter its basic fabric.
Though the Appellants in the Annexure-II judgment filed R.P.
No.937/2019 to review the Annexure-II judgment, the same was
dismissed as per the Annexure-III order holding that there is no
error apparent on the face of the record.
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
5. The Director General of Assam Rifles, who was the Respondent
No.2 in the Writ Petition, is personally impleaded as the
Respondent in this case. On retirement, the successors in office
were personally impleaded as Additional Respondents.
6. The learned Single Judge of this Court passed an Order dated
11.09.2023 in Contempt Case(C) No.2459/2019 directing the
DSGI to place before this Court the Calculation Sheet to enable
this Court to conclude as to whether the amounts due to the
Petitioners in terms of the Ext.P1 judgment have been paid to
the Petitioners. The said Order was passed, taking note of the
contention of the Respondent that the benefit of the Ext.P1
judgment has been extended to all the Petitioners. Thereafter,
the learned Single Judge of this Court passed Order 05.12.2023
in Contempt Case(C) No.2459/2019 directing the Respondent
to forthwith comply with the direction issued by the Division
Bench and to extend the benefits of the Annexure R1(f)
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
judgment herein, as has been done in Annexures V and VI
within a period of eight weeks, and if orders are not issued as
ordered, the Respondent shall appear in person and show
cause why action shall not be taken for flouting the direction of
this Court. In the said Order, the learned Single Judge has found
that in terms of Ext.P1 judgment of the Gauhati High Court, the
Respondents were bound to redesignate the rank of
Havildar/RM as Warrant Officer and were bound to disburse the
pay scale as admissible to their counterparts in the CRPF and
the BSF which was in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4,000
- 100 - 6,000 as has been done as per the orders produced as
Annexure-V and Annexure-VI and that the Respondent has not
complied with the direction issued by this Court. Annexure-V is
an Order dated 09.01.2009 passed by the Respondent by which
the Havildar/Radio Mechanic mentioned therein were
redesignated and upgraded to Warrant Officer/Radio Mechanic
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
in the pre-revised scale of Rs.4,000 - 100 - 6000 in deference
to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 11.02.2005.
Annexure-VI is an Order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the
Respondent by which certain Havildar/Cipher mentioned
therein were upgraded to the rank of Warrant Officer (Cipher) in
the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4,000 - 100 - 6,000 in
compliance with the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya
in W.P.(C) No.403/2014. The Respondent filed I.A. No.2/2024 to
vacate the Order dated 05.12.2023 and the same was rejected
by the same learned Single Judge as per the Order dated
15.07.2024, reiterating the same findings in the Order dated
05.12.2023.
7. The Respondents filed Contempt Appeal(C) No.1/2025
challenging the Orders dated 05.12.2023 and 15.07.2024
before the Division Bench and the Division Bench dismissed the
Contempt Appeal as per judgment dated 03.03.2025 holding
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
that the same is not maintainable but without prejudice to the
right of the Appellants to challenge those orders of the learned
Single Judge in an intra-court Appeal filed under Section 5(i) of
the Kerala High Court Act, in case those orders fall under the
category of appealable orders, i.e., orders in which any issue is
decided or a direction is issued on merits of the matter,
independent of the contempt proceedings. Thereafter, the
Respondents filed W.A. No.1467/2025 before the Division
Bench challenging the Order dated 05.12.2023, and the same
was dismissed by the Division Bench as per the judgment dated
27.06.2025, holding that the said Appeal is not maintainable
against the Interim Order passed in the Contempt Case. Though
the Respondents filed a Special Leave Petition before the
Supreme Court challenging the said judgment of the Division
Bench in W.A. No.1467/2025, the same was dismissed as per
the Annexure-VIII Order dated 01.12.2025. In the said Order,
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if it is the case of the
Petitioners that they have already complied with the directions,
it is for them to demonstrate the same before the learned Judge
and that in that context, an appeal could not have been filed
before a Division Bench of that Court. Thus, all these Contempt
Cases are listed before me for final hearing.
8. The Petitioners have produced Annexures I to IV along with the
Contempt Case. The Respondents have filed Affidavit dated
10.01.2023 producing Annexure R1(a), Affidavit dated
24.11.2023 producing Annexure R1(b), I.A. No.2/2024 to vacate
the Order dated 05.12.2023 producing Annexures R1(c) to
R1(e), Statement dated 21.02.2024 producing Annexures R1(f)
to R1(h) and Affidavit dated 06.01.2026 producing Annexures
R1(i) & R1(j). The Petitioners filed Reply Affidavit dated
05.02.2023 producing Annexures V & VI and Reply Affidavit
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
dated 26.11.2023 producing Annexure-VII and I.A. No.1/2025 to
receive Annexure-VIII producing the same.
9. I heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Santhosh Mathew,
instructed by Adv. Sri. P.P. Biju for the Petitioners and the
learned Additional Solicitor General, Sri.A.R.L.Sundaresan,
instructed by Central Government Counsel, Sri.Suvin R.Menon
for the Respondents.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contended that
in view of the Orders dated 05.12.2023 and 15.07.2024 passed
in these contempt proceedings, this Court has already found
that the Respondents have not complied with the directions in
the Annexure-I judgment. All the attempts of the Respondents
to set aside Annexure-I judgment and the aforesaid Orders
dated 05.12.2023 & 15.07.2024 were failed. In such case, this
Court has to initiate contempt of court proceedings to punish the
Respondents in accordance with law. The learned Senior
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
Counsel invited my attention to the Affidavit dated 06.01.2026
filed by the Respondents which is not sworn by the
Respondents in the Contempt Case. The said Affidavit could not
be looked into, as the same is not filed by the Respondents in
the Contempt Case. In Annexure-II judgment of the Division
Bench in Writ Appeal, the Respondents have specifically
submitted that they have absolutely no objection in extending
the benefit of Ext.P1 judgment of the Gauhati High Court. In the
Orders dated 05.12.2023 & 15.07.2024, this Court has
specifically found that the Respondent has passed Annexures
V & VI Orders extending the benefit of the said Ext.P1 judgment
to the persons mentioned therein, and hence the Respondents
have no reason to deny the same benefits to the Petitioners
herein. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora [2025 KHC
OnLine 6377 (SC)], to substantiate the point that when the learned
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
Single Judge of the High Court found the Respondent therein is
guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating the orders and has
committed contempt of the orders of the Court, it is not
permissible for another learned Single Judge who is considering
the matter later to revisit the issue as to whether the Respondent
has in fact committed contempt or not. In light of the Orders
dated 05.12.2023 & 15.07.2024 passed in this Contempt Case,
it is to be concluded that the Respondent has committed
contempt of court and what remains is to proceed against the
Respondent for punishing him for the contempt committed by
him. The learned Senior Counsel concluded his arguments,
praying to pass an order imposing punishment for the contempt
of court committed by the Respondent.
11. Per contra, the learned ASGI contended that at present this
Court is finally hearing the case to pass final order in the
Contempt Case. In such case, the earlier Orders dated
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
05.12.2023 & 15.07.2024 are not to be considered as the
findings therein are interlocutory in nature. Learned ASGI tried
to distinguish the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajan
Chadha (supra) by contending that the Order therein considered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was final Order in the Contempt
case, whereas the Orders passed in these Contempt Case are
not final Orders disposing of the Contempt Case. This Court
dismissed the Writ Appeal No.1467/2025 challenging the Order
dated 05.12.2023 on the ground that the Writ Appeal is not
maintainable against an interim order passed in the Contempt
Case. When the judgment in W.A. No.1467/2025 was
challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, as per Annexure-VIII Order, permitted
the Respondents to demonstrate before this Court that they
have already complied with the directions in Annexure-I
judgment. Hence, this Court has to consider whether the
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
Respondents have committed contempt of the directions in
Annexure-I judgment dehors the Orders dated 05.12.2023 &
15.07.2024. It is clear from Annexure-I judgment that this Court
directed the Respondents to consider the Representations of
the Petitioners in the light of the declarations therein. The
declarations therein are that the Petitioners are entitled to the
benefit of the Ext.P1 judgment of the Gauhati High Court therein
(Annexure R1(f) herein) and hence they are to be redesignated
with replacement scale of pay. The Respondent has passed
Annexure R1(g) Order in compliance with Annexure R1(f)
judgment, in which the Petitioner in Annexure R1(f) judgment is
redesignated and upgraded to Havildar/ORL in the pre-revised
pay scale of Rs.3,200 - 85 - 4,900. In this case, the Respondent
has passed Annexure R1(a) in compliance with Annexure-I
judgment upgrading and redesignating the Petitioners to the
rank of Havildar/ORL in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.3,200
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
- 85 - 4,900 with effect from 10.10.1997 or from the date of
passing of Tech Trade Test ORL CI - III whichever is later.
Annexures V & VI Orders relied on by the Petitioners are passed
not on the basis of the directions in the Annexure R1(f)
judgment. It is clear from those orders itself that the said orders
are passed based on the directions in some other Writ Petitions.
Hence, the Petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of
Annexures V & VI Orders. The learned ASGI invited my
attention to Annexure R1(h) series of Representations
submitted by the Petitioners in which their claim is only for
upgradation from the post of RFN/ORL to Havildar/ORL. In
Annexure-I judgment also, the learned Single Judge has
recorded that the Representations of the Petitioners are for
redesignating them as Havildars. Now the claim advanced by
the Petitioners is for redesignating them as Warrant Officers in
the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4,000 - 100 - 6,000 on the
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
basis of Annexures V & VI Orders which are not applicable to
the case of the Petitioners and which were not prayed for either
before the Respondents or before this Court. The learned ASGI
cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director of
Education, Uttaranchal and Others v. Ved Prakash Joshi and Others
[(2005) 6 SCC 98] to substantiate the point that the Court
exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself the
power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt
with by the court passing the judgment or order. The learned
ASGI cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
Workmen through the Convenor FCI Labour Federation v. Ravuthar
Dawood Naseem [(2021) 13 SCC 563] to substantiate the point that
in order to constitute civil contempt, it must be established that
the disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full
knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom that if two
interpretations are possible and if the action is not
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be
maintainable. The learned ASGI cited the Division Bench
judgment of this Court dated 24.02.2025 in W.A. No.284/2025 in
which this Court held that, in various decisions, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has disapproved passing new orders in
contempt jurisdiction. The learned ASGI invited my attention to
Annexure R1(j) judgment in a Contempt Case alleging violation
of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.33599/2015 which was passed
relying on Annexure-I judgment, in which this Court closed the
Contempt Case finding that there is no deliberate contempt that
has been committed by the Respondents. The learned ASGI
concluded his arguments, praying dismissal of all Contempt
Cases, holding that the Respondents have not committed
contempt of any of the directions contained in the Annexure-I
judgment.
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
12. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the records
of the cases.
13. The learned Single Judge of this Court considered this
Contempt Case and passed the Order dated 05.12.2023,
specifically finding that the Respondents have not complied with
the directions of this Court in the Annexure-I judgment. It is
further held that in terms of the Annexure R1(f) judgment of the
Gauhati High Court, the Respondents were bound to
redesignate the rank of Havildar (RM) as Warrant Officer and
were bound to disburse the pay scale as admissible to their
counterparts in the CRPF and BSF which was in the pre-revised
scale of pay of Rs.4,000 - 100 - 6,000 as has been done as per
Annexures V & VI Orders. The Respondent No.2 was directed
to comply with the direction issued by the Division Bench of
Gauhati High Court in Annexure R1(f) as has been done in
Annexures V & VI within eight weeks from the date of passing
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
of the said Order and if orders are not issued, the Respondent
No.2 shall appear in person and show cause why action shall
not be taken for flouting the directions issued by this Court. Even
though the Respondents filed I.A. No.2/2024 to vacate the
Order dated 05.12.2023, the same was dismissed by this Court
as per the Order dated 15.07.2024, reiterating the same
findings. Even though the Order dated 05.12.2023 was
challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and further
before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Respondents did not
succeed in the said challenge. As such, the Order dated
05.12.2023 has become final, and the findings therein have
attained finality. The contention of the learned ASGI is that the
said Order dated 05.12.2023 is only an interim order and that is
why the Writ Appeal against the same was dismissed by the
Division Bench and hence the findings therein are interlocutory
in nature and should not influence this Court when this Court
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
finally decides the Contempt Case. I am unable to accept the
said contention. While passing the previous orders by the
learned Single Judge of this Court, this Court has been
proceeding with the Contempt of Court Case. When at one
stage the learned Single Judge of this Court has found that the
Respondents have flouted the directions of this Court, then
another learned Single Judge who has been considering the
matter later cannot reconsider the issue again to find out
whether the Respondents have flouted the directions of this
Court or not. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajan Chadha (supra) cited by the
learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in which the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has clearly held that it is not permissible for a
subsequent learned Single Judge to revisit the issue as to
whether the Respondent has committed contempt or not when
the previous learned Single Judge has found that the
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
Respondent has committed contempt of court. In that view of
the matter, in normal case, I have to proceed with the Contempt
Case after the stage of passing the Order dated 05.12.2023. But
there is one distinguishing factor available in this case. While
considering the challenge against the Order dated 05.12.2023
and dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the
Respondents in Annexure-VIII Order dated 01.12.2025, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that if it is the
case of the Petitioners therein that they have already complied
with the directions, it is for them to demonstrate the same before
the learned Single Judge. Annexure-VIII Order of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court dated 01.12.2025 specifically refers to the Order
of this Court dated 05.12.2023. It shows that while making the
above observation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note
of the findings of the learned Single Judge in the Order dated
05.12.2023, and thereafter liberty was given to the Respondents
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
to demonstrate before this Court that they have already
complied with the directions in Annexure-I judgment. Hence, I
find that in view of the said observation of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Annexure-VIII Order, the Respondents can
demonstrate before this Court that the directions in the
Annexure-I judgment have been complied with, dehors the
Orders dated 05.12.2023 and 15.07.2024.
14. Now the question is whether the Respondents have succeeded
in demonstrating before this Court that they have complied with
the directions in the Annexure-I judgment.
15. An affidavit dated 06.01.2026 is filed by the Officiating Staff
Officer (SO1 - Legal) of the Directorate General Assam Rifles.
He is not a Respondent in these Contempt Cases. It is stated in
the Affidavit that he is authorised to swear the affidavit on behalf
of the Respondents. It is stated that the Respondent has utmost
regard and respect for the honour of justice and judicial process
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
and at no point of time, either intentionally or deliberately or by
act or omission has violated or flouted the Order passed by this
Court in Contempt Case (C) No.2459/2019 in W.P.(C)
No.24735/2013 or the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24735/2013; that
the Respondent holds that this Court and Orders passed by this
Court in the highest esteem and regard; and that the
Respondent respects and honour the majesty of the court and
is duty bound to honour the orders passed by this Court. As per
the title, it is stated that the said Affidavit is in pursuance of
Annexure-VIII Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said
Affidavit is sworn as if the Deponent is the Respondent in this
Contempt Case. The Contempt of Court action is a personal
action against the Respondent therein. The allegation in the
Contempt of Court Case is to be personally answered by the
Respondent therein. The Respondent is impleaded in the
Contempt Case in personal capacity and not in official capacity.
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
Hence, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for
the Petitioners, the Affidavit dated 06.01.2026 filed by some
other person on behalf of the Respondent could not be
accepted. Hence, I ignore the said Affidavit dated 06.01.2026
and the documents produced along with the same for
consideration of this Contempt Case.
16. The contention of the learned ASGI is that by passing Annexure
R1(a) Order, the Respondents have complied with the directions
in Annexure-I judgment. The directions in Annexure-I judgment
are to consider the Representations of the Petitioners in the light
of the declarations and grant them all benefits on the basis of
the upgradation and restructuring and replacement of the scale
of pay of the post from which they retired by re-fixation of their
pay and pensionary benefits. The declarations contained in
Annexure-I judgment is that the Petitioners are entitled to the
benefit of the Annexure R1(f) judgment of the Division Bench of
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
Gauhati High Court. In Annexure R1(f), the Division Bench of
the Gauhati High Court considered the Writ Appeal filed by the
employee against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
allowed the same, directing to give appropriate rank and pay
scale to the Petitioner therein as per the recommendation of the
5th Pay Commission and Office Memorandum dated
22.01.1998. In the 5th Pay Commission, the pay scale of the last
rank of Rfn in Assam Rifles started from Rs.3,050/-, whereas
the Pay Scale of the last rank of Havildar in other Paramilitary
Forces started from Rs.3,200/-. In order to remove the disparity,
it was directed to give appropriate rank to the Petitioner therein,
who was working as Rfn/ORL. In such case, the redesignation
of the Petitioner therein, viz., Rfn/ORL, can only be as Havildar
in the scale of pay starting from Rs.3,200/- and not Warrant
Officer whose scale of pay starts from Rs.4,000/-.
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
17. In Annexure R1(f), the judgment of the learned Single Judge
was set aside, taking into account the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dineshan K.K. (supra). In Dineshan K.K. (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the claim of a
Havildar/Radio Mechanic for redesignation as Warrant Officer.
It arose from W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the Gauhati High Court,
which was allowed, ordering the redesignation of
Havildar/Radio Mechanic as Warrant Officer. In Dineshan K.K.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment in
W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the Gauhati High Court. In Annexure
R1(f), no direction was given to redesignate the Petitioner
therein as Warrant Officer.
18. It is seen from Annexure R1(g) that the said Order is passed by
the Respondent in deference to Annexure R1(f) judgment. In
Annexure R1(g), the Petitioner in Annexure R1(f), namely,
Savendra Singh Chauhan, has been redesignated/upgraded
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
from the rank of Rfn/ORL to the rank of Havildar/ORL in the pre-
revised scale of pay of Rs.3,200 - 85 - 4900. In Annexure R1(a)
passed in compliance with Annexure-I judgment also, the
Petitioners are upgraded and redesignated from the rank of
Rfn/ORL to the rank of Havildar/ORL in the pre-revised scale of
pay of Rs.3,200 - 85 - 4,900. In Annexure-V Order, the
redesignation and upgradation is from the rank of Havildar/RM
to the rank of Warrant Officer/RM in the pre-revised scale of pay
of Rs.4,000 - 100 - 6,000. In Annexure-VI Order, the
redesignation was from the rank of Havildar/Ciph to the rank of
Warrant Officer (Ciph) in the pre-revised scale of pay of
Rs.4,000 - 100 - 6,000. Both Annexures V & VI Orders are
passed not as per the directions in the Annexure R1(f) judgment
of the Gauhati High Court, but, as per the judgment of the
Gauhati High Court and Meghalaya High Court respectively in
some other Writ Petitions. In both Annexures V & VI Orders, the
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
redesignation and upgradation is not from the rank of Rfn/ORL,
but from Havildar/RM and Havildar/Ciph. On the basis of the
directions in Annexure R1(f), the Petitioners cannot claim that
they should be redesignated as Warrant Officers. There is no
such direction in Annexure R1(f).
19. Dineshan K.K. (supra) arose from W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the
Gauhati High Court which was allowed ordering redesignation
of Havildar/Radio Mechanic as Warrant Officer. In Dineshan K.K.
(supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment in
W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the Gauhati High Court. It is pursuant
to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the Gauhati High
Court, the Respondent No.1 issued Annexure-V ordering the
redesignation of the rank of Dineshan K.K. and others from
Havildar/Radio Mechanic to Warrant Officer/Radio Mechanic.
The Petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the decision in
Dineshan K.K. (supra) as they were not Havildar/Radio Mechanic.
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
There is no direction in the Annexure-I judgment to extend the
benefit of the decision in Dineshan K.K. (supra) to the Petitioners.
The direction in the Annexure-I judgment is to extend the benefit
of the Annexure R1(f) judgment. Hence, Annexures V & VI
relating to Havildar/Radio Mechanics are not applicable to the
case of the Petitioners. It is Annexure R1(g), which is passed
pursuant to the direction in Annexure R1(f), that is applicable to
the case of the Petitioners.
20. As rightly pointed out by the learned ASGI, in Annexure R1(h)
series of Representations submitted by the Petitioners, their
demand is for the grant of monetary benefits on redesignation
of the post of Rfn/ORL to that of HAV/ORL consequent to
Annexure R1(f) judgment and the same has been granted as
per Annexure R1(a) Order passed by the Respondent.
21. The Petitioners claim that the reason for deleting the pay scale
Rs.3,200-85-4,900 from the directions in Annexure-I judgment
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
is that the Petitioners are entitled to get the pay scale Rs.4,000-
100-6,000 on their redesignation. It is seen from Annexure
R1(d) judgment in W.A. No.1672/2016 that it arose from the
judgment dated 03.08.2015 in W.P.(C) No.22407/2015, which
was disposed of following the directions in Annexure-I
judgment. In the said case also, I.A. No.10028/2016 was filed
for correcting the pay scale in the concluding part of the
judgment and the pay scale of Rs.3,200-85-4,900 was
substituted with the pay scale of Rs.4,000-100-6,000. But in the
Annexure-I judgment, the pay scale of Rs.3,200-85-4,900 was
deleted instead of substitution with the pay scale of Rs.4,000-
100-6,000. If the Petitioners are entitled to get the pay scale of
Rs.4,000-100-6,000, there was no need to delete the
substitution of the pay scale of Rs.4,000-100-6,000. That apart,
in Annexure-II Judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal
arising from Annexure-I judgment, it is made clear that the
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
deletion appearing in the concluding part of Annexure-I
judgment does not alter its basic fabric. In such case, the
deletion of the pay scale of Rs.3,200-85-4,900 will not be
beneficial either to the Petitioners or to the Respondents.
22.Hence, I hold that the Respondents have demonstrated that
they have complied with the directions in the Annexure-I
judgment by granting the benefits of the Annexure R1(f)
judgment of the Gauhati High Court.
23. Accordingly, I dismiss these Contempt of Court cases.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Shg/jma
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) NO. 2459 OF 2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2015 IN
WP(C) NO.24375/2013(N) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2019 IN
WA NO.1671/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE III CERTIFIED COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 IN RP
NO.937/2019 IN WA NO.1602/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED 1.8.2019.
ANNEXURE-V True copy of the order No.1.17019/1/2001/Adm-
1/2008 dated 09.01.2009 issued by the Director
General of Assam Rifles
ANNEXURE VI True copy of the order No.19012/01/Prom-Cipher
(Court case)/Adm-1/2019/325 dated 08.02.2019
issued by the Director General of Assam Rifles
ANNEXURE VII True copy the easy reference the arrears
calculation sheet prepared by the petitioners as
per the 5th Pay Commission of the petitioners
Annexure VIII TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2025 IN SLP
(CIVIL) DIARY NO. 52439/2025 OF HON'BLE SUPREME
COURT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) True copy of the order No. 19012/01/311/Prom-OR
(Court Case/Adm-1/2016/053 dated 03.02.2016 issued
by Directorate General of Assam Rifles
Annexure R1(b) A true copy of the Records Branch proceedings dated
29-09-2023
Annexure R1( c ) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN CONTEMPT CASE (C
) 66 OF 2016 DATED 06-09-2016
Annexure R1 (d) A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14 MARCH 2022
PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO. 1672 OF 2016
Annexure R1(e) A TRUE COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT ISSUED VIDE MEMO
NO.I. 12016/RECT BRANCH/2022/195 DATED 13-04-2022
Annexure R1(f) A true copy of judgement of the Hon'ble Gauhati
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
High Court in Writ Appeal No. 50(SH) of 2010 dated
22-09-2011
Annexure R1 (g) A true copy of the administrative order No.
19012/02/0089/Prom-ORL/2012/Adm-I/415 dated
26-12-2012
Annexure R1 (h) A true copy of the representations produced by the
Petitioners in the original proceedings in WP(C)
24735 of 2013
Annexure R1(j) A true copy of the judgment dated 23.10.2020 of
this Hon'ble Court in Con.Case (C) No.153 of 2017
Annexure R1(i) True copy of the judgment dated 05.06.2015 of this
Hon'ble Court in WP(C) No. 23361 of 2013
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) NO. 1871 OF 2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2015 IN
WPC NO.24695/2013(J) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE-II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2019 IN
WA NO.2099/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
ANNEXURE-III TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 IN RP
NO.937/2019 IN WA NO.1602/20187 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT
ANNEXURE-IV TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED 23.08.2019
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) NO. 1820 OF 2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2015 IN
WP(C)NO.30020/2013 (C) OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE II CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2019 IN
WA NO.2055/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE III TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 IN RP
NO.937/2019 IN WA NO.1602/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
ANNEXURE IV TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED 23.08.2019.
Cont.Case(C)Nos.2459/2019, 1871/2020,
1820/2020 ,1855/2020&1890/2020
2026:KER:12112
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) NO. 1855 OF 2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
ANNEXURE 1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.6.2015 IN
WP(C)NO.26353/2013(T)OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE 2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.07.2019 IN
WA.NO.2060/2016 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE 3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2019 IN RP
NO.937/2019 IN W.A.NO.1602/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
ANNEXURE 4 TRUE COPY OF THE CONTEMPT NOTICE DATED 23.08.2019.
