High Court of Meghalaya
The Union Of India & Anr. vs . M/5016452 Rfn/Oramahesh on 20 April, 2022
Serial No. 04-16 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Regular List AT SHILLONG
MC (WA) No. 15 of 2019 with
WA No. 10 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 16 of 2019 with
WA No. 11 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 17 of 2019 with
WA No. 12 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 18 of 2019 with
WA No. 13 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 19 of 2019 with
WA No. 14 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 20 of 2019 with
WA No. 15 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 21 of 2019 with
WA No. 16 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 22 of 2019 with
WA No. 17 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 23 of 2019 with
WA No. 18 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 31 of 2019 with
WA No. 20 of 2022
MC (WA) No. 32 of 2019 with
WA No. 19 of 2022
WA No. 1 of 2019
WA No. 2 of 2019
MC (WA) No. 7 of 2019
MC (WA) No. 8 of 2019
WA No. 13 of 2019
MC (WA) No. 33 of 2019
WA No. 7 of 2019
MC (WA) No. 24 of 2019
Date of order: 20.04.2022
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/5016452 RFN/Oramahesh
Kumar D & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. 358383 HAV/SKT (M) Sanjeev
Kumar & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. E/5018949 RFN/ELECT Ravi
Kumar & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. 2501973 HAV/AMAR Ratan
Borah & Ors.
Page 1 of 12
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. L/390680 H HAV/VM
Surender Kumar & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/371263 HAV/NA Ratheesh
Mohan & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/371071 HAV/NA Maharaj
Singh & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/371230 HAV/NA Sanjeed
Kumar & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. M/370906 HAV/NA
Ravindrarai & Ors.
The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Ratan Singh
The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Vishambar Dutt & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ravichandran R & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. Deepak Kumar VV & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. Ravichandran R & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. Deepak Kumar VV & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. Manish Kumar & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. RFN LMN Vinod Kumar
Gound & Ors.
The Union of India & Anr. Vs. RFN LMN Vinod Kumar Gound & Ors.
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
Appearance:
For the Appellants : Dr. N. Mozika, ASG with
Ms. S. Rumthao, Adv
Mr. R. Deb Nath, CGC
For the Respondents : Mr. M. Chanda, Adv
Mr. S.D. Upadhaya, Adv
Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv
Mr. R. Jha, Adv
Mr. B. Pathak, Adv with
Mr. V. Kumar, Adv
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
JUDGMENT: (per the Hon'ble, the Chief Justice) (Oral)
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. 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. 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 2016 SCC Online Megh 17 (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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
(W. Diengdoh) (Sanjib Banerjee)
Judge Chief Justice
Meghalaya
20.04.2022
"Lam DR-PS"
