Tripura High Court
The Union Of India vs No.-M/371242L on 3 November, 2022
Page - 1 of 15
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No. 21 of 2018
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India,
Having its office at North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Director General,
Assam Rifles, having its office at Mahanirdeshalaya, Assam Rifles Directorate
General, Assam Rifles, Shillong, Meghalaya.
3. The Inspector General,
Assam Rifles (East), C/O 99 APO, having its office at Moushimpur, (Silchar),
Assam.
4. The Deputy Inspector General,
Assam Rifles, C/O 99 APO, having his office at Agartala, Tripura.
----- Appellant(s)
Versus
NO.-M/371242L, Hav/Dental Hygienist, Sri Jagroop Singh,
No.-15 Dental Unit, Assam Rifles, C/O. No.2 Manit Group, Assam Rifles, Jail
Road, Silchar, District Cachar, Assam, Pin 788003.
----- Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Majumder, CGC.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somik Deb, Sr. Adv.
Ms. R. Chakraborty, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 13th December, 2021.
Date of Pronouncement : 3rd November, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting : YES
B_E_F_O_R_E_
HON‟BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
[Per S.G. Chattopadhyay], J
This writ appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 15.01.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.592 of 2017.
WA No.21 of 2018
Page - 2 of 15 [2] The short question which requires our consideration in this writ appeal is whether the original writ petitioner [respondent herein] being a Havildar [Dental Hygienist] is entitled to the rank of Warrant Officer and pay and other service benefits as admissible to the rank of Warrant Officer with retrospective effect from 10.10.1997 along with consequential benefits at par with the Havildar [Radio Mechanic] in Assam Rifles and their counterparts in other Central Police Organizations.
[3] Heard Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellants and Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior advocate appearing along with Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned advocate for Sri Jagroop Singh, original writ petitioner who is the respondent herein.
[4] The factual context of the case is as under:
The original writ petitioner [respondent herein] was appointed as a Nursing Assistant in the Assam Rifles along with the private respondents [respondents No.5 to 18 in the writ petition]. After their induction in the post of Nursing Assistant on diverse dates, all of them were given basic nursing training called Nursing Assistant Basic [Class-IV] and thereafter they had undergone the up-gradation training [Class-III & Class-II] in nursing in various military hospitals. These facts are undisputed. The original writ petitioner and the private respondents also passed the Dental Hygienist Class-III [Diploma course] from the Command Military Hospital Centres situated at Lucknow, New Delhi, Pune and Kolkata etc. which are recognized institutes for imparting such training by the Dental Council of India. They had also undergone further training in nursing [Class-I] in various Command Military Hospital Centres and Armed Force Medical Colleges. The original writ petitioner, thus, acquired efficiency and skill in nursing WA No.21 of 2018 Page - 3 of 15 by undergoing various training courses and obtaining qualifications from the institutions recognized by the Dental Council of India. Thereafter, the original writ petitioner and the private respondents were promoted to the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist] on different dates in Assam Rifles. [5] It has been pleaded by the original writ petitioner that the post of Nursing Assistant, in which he had entered in the service in Assam Rifles is equivalent to the post of Rifleman [Operator Radio Line] which is the feeder post for promotion to Havildar [Radio Mechanic]. After undergoing nursing training in Class-IV, Class-III, Class-II and Class-I, the Nursing Assistants were promoted to the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist] and the Rifleman [Operator Radio Line], after required training were promoted to the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic]. [6] It has been stated in the writ petition that one Radio Mechanic namely, Dineshan K.K. of Assam Rifles filed WP(C) No.497 of 2001 in the Gauhati High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to bring about a parity in the pay scales of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] of Assam Rifles qua the Radio Mechanics of other Central Police Organizations namely, Delhi Police and Border Security Force [BSF]. While articulating his grievance in the said writ petition, said writ petitioner Dineshan K.K. pleaded that though the Union of India and Director General of Assam Rifles accepted that the members of Assam Rifles should be given same rank and pay structure at par with their counterparts in other Central Police Organizations by an order dated 10.10.1997, the Havildar [Radio Mechanics] of Assam Rifles were denied the same rank and pay structure which were given to their counterparts in other Central Police Organizations. [7] Having accepted the contention of petitioner Dineshan K.K., the Gauhati High Court, Agartala bench [as it was then] disposed the matter by WA No.21 of 2018 Page - 4 of 15 judgment and order dated 11.02.2005 in WP(C) No.497 of 2001 with a direction to the respondents that Havildar [Radio Mechanics] in Assam Rifles be given the rank of Warrant Officer and same pay scale and benefits as admissible to their counterparts in CRPF and BSF would be given to the Haviladars [Radio Mechanic] in Assam Rifles. The direction of the Gauhati High Court is reproduced hereunder:
"6. In view of the above admitted position, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the Union of India‟s permission to re- designate the HV (RM) as Warrant Officer communicated by Letter No.27011/103/97-PF.I dated 03.03.1998 shall be carried out and the same pay scale as admissible to the counterparts of CRPF and BSF shall be given with effect from the same date and the rider stated therein shall have no effect and be ignored in view of the acceptance by Union of India that the members of Assam rifles shall get same rank structure with that of other Central Police organization. This direction shall be implemented within a period of three months from the date of this order. No cost."
[8] Union of India and other official respondents assailed the said judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court in the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.25 of 2008 arising out of SLP(C) No.21222 of 2005. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by judgment and order dated 04.01.2008 upheld the judgment of the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench and dismissed the appeal viewing as under:
"20. Thus, the short question requiring our consideration is whether having admitted in their affidavit referred to hereinabove, the „apparent disparity‟ and „anomaly‟ in the pay scales of Radio Mechanics, the administrative authorities, the petitioners herein, could be permitted to perpetuate apparent discriminatory differentiation in the pay scales because of the disparity in pre- revised and revised scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities with other paramilitary forces. In our considered opinion, in view of the total absence of any plea on the part of the Union of India that Radio Mechanics in other paramilitary forces were performing different or more onerous duties as compared to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, the impugned decision of the Government was clearly irrational and arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.WA No.21 of 2018
Page - 5 of 15
21. On a conspectus of the factual scenario noted above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned directions given by the High Court, warranting interference. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with costs."
[9] It is averred that the Director General of Assam Rifles, pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Gauhati High Court [Annexure 1 to the writ petition] upgraded and re-designated the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] of Assam Rifles to that of Warrant Officer. The original writ petitioner has asserted that the qualifications which are required for appointment to the post of Rifleman [Nursing Assistant] in the Assam Rifles are similar for recruitment to the post of Rifleman [Operator Radio Line]. It has also been asserted by the original writ petitioner that after undergoing required training, the Rifleman [Nursing Assistant] are promoted to the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist] and Rifleman [Operator Radio Line] are promoted to the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic]. According to the original writ petitioner, prior to up-gradation of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] to the post of Warrant Officer, pay scale and benefits admissible to the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] were same with the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist]. Therefore, Havildar [Radio Mechanic] and Havildar [Dental Hygienist] are equally situated and as such they cannot be treated differently in terms of service benefits. [10] The writ petitioner placed his foundational reliance on the communication dated 28.07.1998. The relevant part of the said communication dated 28.07.1998 as issued by the Director General, Assam Rifles is extracted hereunder:
"2. Sub Sub Para (1) to para 14(a) of English and Hindi version of „Baat Chit‟ forwarded vide our letter under reference may be amended as under:
Granting of Warrant Officer Rank to technical trade in equivalence with BSF to include the following trades:
(a) Havildar Radio Mechanics WA No.21 of 2018 Page - 6 of 15 (ab) Havildar Ciphers (ac) Havildar Operator Radio and Line (ad) Havildar Store Keeper Technical (ae) Havildar Electrical Fitter Signal (af) Havildar Lineman Field (ag) Havildar Pharmacist and Compounders (ah) Havildar Lab Asstt.
(aj) Havildar Nursing Asstt. (ak) Havildar Operator Room Asstt. (al) Havildar Despatch Rider (am) Havildar Dental Tech (an) Havildar Dental Hygienist (ao) Havildar Veh Mech (ap) Havildar Electrician (aq) Havildar Armr.
(ar) Havildar Draughtsman"
[Emphasis added] [11] According to the petitioner, the benefits of Warrant Officer in terms of the above letter dated 28.07.1998 shall flow to the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist], but that has not been done. The writ petitioner has asserted that the benefits which have been extended to the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] should also be made available to the persons holding the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist]. Hence, the petitioner has urged this court for directing the respondents to extend such benefits to the rank of the Havildar [Dental Hygienist] w.e.f. 10.10.1997, the day when such benefit was extended to the rank of Havildar [Radio Mechanic].
[12] By filing counter affidavit, the respondents pleaded that the duties and responsibilities of Havildar [Dental Hygienist] and Havildar [Radio Mechanic] in Assam Rifles could not be equated with each other because duties and responsibilities assigned to their respective trade were different. Amongst others, the contention of the respondents in Para 10 of their counter affidavit reads as under:
"10. That I submit that Assam Rifles is a Force, in which, the lowest functional and operational unit is a section. In the organization of the WA No.21 of 2018 Page - 7 of 15 Force, a section is commanded by a Warrant Officer. The Section Commander by virtue of his responsibility is duty bound to remain in direct physical contact with his section which entails the Section Commander to occupy the same accommodation and dine with them to supervise his men at all the times. If the status of Warrant Officer is equated to that of a subordinate officer, it will entail authorization of separate accommodation and messing facilities to them. This will lead to dilution in the command and control structure at the basic operational level of the Force and in the long run, create formidable functional issues. In addition thereto, due to the large number of Warrant Officers authorized in each Battalion (64 general duty and approximately 10 from other trades each battalion), there will be enormous financial implications to provide them with the messing and accommodation facilities as entitled to subordinate officers. Keeping this uniqueness of the Force in consideration, the Assam Rifles Act was conceived which was passed the legislature of the Country and came into force in 2006. The Assam Rifles Act, 2006, takes the distinct role and operational environment of the Assam Rifles into consideration and as per Chapter 1 Paragraph 2(1) (z) of the A.R. Act, 2006, the legal status of Warrant Officer has been clearly defined as "under officer means as Warrant Officer, Havildar, Naik and Lance Naik of the Force". It is further submitted that the 6 th Central Pay Commission vide Gazette of India, notification dated 29-08-2008 put the pay band and grade pay of Warrant Officer in Pay Band-I and granted grade pay of Rs.2,800/- which is at par with group "C" non- Gazetted Posts. Therefore, the plea of the writ petitioner is liable to be dismissed on the command and control structure and operational environment of the Force."
[13] Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioner argued, inter alia, before the learned Single Judge that the official respondents had in their letter dated 28.07.1998 and in the rules framed by them had recognized the parity between the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] and Havildar [Dental Hygienist] and therefore the counsel of the petitioner contended that equal pay for equal work having acquired the status of fundamental right, discrimination done to the petitioner was not permissible. Learned senior counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Purshottam Lal and Ors. vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1973) 1 SCC 651 in which the Apex Court has held as under:
"Either the Government has made reference in respect of all Government employees or it has not. But if it has made a reference in WA No.21 of 2018 Page - 8 of 15 respect of all Government employees and it accepts the recommendation it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned."
[14] Counsel of the petitioner urged before the learned Single Judge for granting the reliefs as sought for, to the petitioner. [15] In a nutshell, Mr. Majumder, learned CGC has on the other hand argued before the learned Single Judge that the nature of work and responsibilities attached to the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] and Havildar [Dental Hygienist] are entirely different and as such Havildar [Dental Hygienist] is not entitled to the rank of Warrant Officer. Mr. Majumder, learned CGC has also argued before the learned Single Judge that in terms of the recommendation of 6th Central Pay Commission, the difference between the pay scale were done away with and the Havildar [Radio Mechanic] and Havildar [Dental Hygienist] were given pay scales as per recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission. [16] Having appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the counsel of the parties and the materials placed before the Court, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the official respondents to grant the benefits as indicated in the judgment to the original writ petitioner within a period of 3 [three] months from the date when the petitioner would produce a copy of the judgment to the official respondents. Learned Single Judge made the following observations in the judgment impugned:
"[13] Having scrutinized the records so produced by the respective parties and appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel, the following questions have emerged for decision:
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of Warrant Officer as the benefit of the said post has been extended to the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] in Assam Rifles.WA No.21 of 2018
Page - 9 of 15
(ii) Whether the communication under No.A/Pers/5th-
CPC/Vol-III/98 dated 28.07.1998, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the equivalence as declared thereof, would entitle the petitioner to get the said benefit or not.
[14] At the outset it is to be placed on record that a decision of the High Court of Meghalaya in Union of India vs. K. Jayachandran Havildar Draftsman and others., [judgment and order dated 26.11.2014 delivered in W.A. 25 of 2013 and W.A. No.29 of 2012] as referred by Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner which does not hold any relevance in the present context. In Dineshan K.K. (supra) the apex court has observed that the differentiation in the pay scales of two paramilitary forces is held not based on any substantive dissimilarity of academic qualification or the nature of duties and responsibilities, but only on the ground that there was initial „anomaly‟ in the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendation. It has been further observed in Dineshan K.K. (supra) that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. In this regard, the reference has been made to the apex court‟s decision in Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors. : (1993) Supp.(1) SCC 153 and State of Haryana & Anr. vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association : (2002) 6 SCC 72. The apex court has also observed that it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the Executive or the Legislature, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for the classification of posts is ex-facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene. [15] To have the answer to these questions as formulated by this court, this court is inclined to place on the records that there was equivalence in the pay scale and other benefits between the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] and the Havildar[Dental Hygienist] all through as is evident from the recruitment rules. This parity having been acknowledged historically can only be disturbed on the basis of a very strong logic but such logic has not been advanced by the official respondents in their reply. Secondly, the specific averment, made by the petitioner in Para-3.1 of the writ petition, has not been met by the official respondents in their reply. In Para-3.1 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that it would be crystal clear that in WA No.21 of 2018 Page - 10 of 15 spite of unambiguous decision, the petitioner and similarly situated persons have been deprived of their legitimate benefits. Furthermore, it would surface from a bare reading of the order dated 28.07.1998 that there was a clear direction for granting the benefit of Warrant Officer to the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist] and thus, the petitioner is entitled to the benefits of pay, rank and other service benefits as admissible to the post of Warrant Officer w.e.f 10.10.1997 and as has been extended to the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] along with all consequential benefits. In reply to the said averment as is evident from Para-13 of the reply filed by the official respondents, the respondents have merely evaded any specific reply but they have advanced a plea that the communication dated 28.07.1998 cannot be relied because these are the mere extracts from the magazine, called „Baat Chit‟. This court is constrained to observe that the communication dated 28.07.1998 is not an extract from any magazine but it is a comprehensive order in respect of granting benefits of the Warrant Officer rank to the technical trade at par with the BSF. The said decision was never altered, at least no such record has been produced before this court. Thus, this court is not required to take up the task of making equivalence for purpose of parity. The official respondents have admitted the equivalence for purpose of granting the rank of Warrant Officer. Thus, this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get the rank of Warrant Officer. Thus, this court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to get all benefits, available to the rank of Warrant Officer including the pay and allowances, other miscellaneous allowances and benefits. The denial, therefore, is not only arbitrary but grossly unreasonable and striking at the root of the equality clause, Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the respondents are directed to grant such benefit to the petitioner, as delineated above, within a period of 3[three] months from the date when the petitioner shall produce a copy of this order to the official respondents.
[16] In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above.
However, there shall be no order as to costs."
[17] Aggrieved respondents have challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge mainly on the following grounds:
(i) Learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that the writ petitioner being a Havildar [Dental Hygienist] was not entitled to the rank of Warrant Officer at par with Havildar [Radio Mechanic] since duties and responsibilities attached to their respective trade were completely different.WA No.21 of 2018
Page - 11 of 15
(ii) Letter dated 28.07.1998 which has been relied upon by the learned Single Judge does not have any legislative favour or binding effect because the same was an extract of "Baat Chit" and the learned Single Judge committed error in relying on the said document.
(iii) Learned Single Judge did not appreciate the fact that the principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the present case since the petitioner was not similarly situated with those holding the position of Havildar [Radio Mechanic].
[18] In the course of his arguments, Mr. B. Majumder, learned CGC appearing for the appellants has contended that in a series of judgments, the Apex Court has observed that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters should generally be left to the executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. Counsel contends that qualification of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] are entirely different from the qualification required for recruitment to the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist] and keeping in mind the higher responsibilities and duties attached to the post of Warrant Officer, the Pay Commission has recommended up-gradation of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] to the post of Warrant Officer and allowed them the pay scale and amenities admissible to the Warrant Officers. Counsel contends that the claim of the original writ petitioner that the Havildar [Dental Hygienist] is similarly situated with Havildar [Radio Mechanic] is not true and therefore the original writ petitioner cannot claim similar benefits which are admissible to Havildar [Radio Mechanic] in terms of pay allowances and perquisites. Learned CGC, therefore, urges the Court to set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
WA No.21 of 2018
Page - 12 of 15 [19] Mr. Somik Deb, learned senior advocate appearing for respondent Jagroop Singh [original writ petitioner] submits that the learned Single Judge by a detailed and reasoned judgment has allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to grant all benefits available to the rank of Warrant Officer to Havildar [Radio Mechanic] in Assam Rifles along with all other allowances and miscellaneous benefits admissible to the rank of Warrant Officer. Counsel submits that the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench in the case of Dineshan K.K. vs. Union of India and Ors. [WP(C) No.497 of 2001] has allowed the petition of the Havildar [Radio Mechanic] with a direction to the Union of India to re- designate the Havildar [Radio Mechanic] as Warrant Officer and provide same pay scale to them as admissible to their counterparts in CRPF and BSF. The judgment of the High Court was confirmed in appeal by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.25 of 2008 arising out of SLP(C) No.21222 of 2005. Counsel contends that there was no disparity between the pay scale of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] and the Havildar [Dental Hygienist] before Havildar [Radio Mechanic] was given the benefits admissible to the rank of Warrant Officer pursuant to the judgment of the High Court. As such, the Havildar [Dental Hygienist] and Havildar [Radio Mechanic] were similarly situated before up-gradation of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] to the rank of Warrant Officer. Counsel, therefore, contends that having been similarly situated with Havildar [Radio Mechanic], the Havildar [Dental Hygienist] in Assam Rifles are also entitled to the benefits attached to the rank of Warrant Officer otherwise, it will infringe their right to equality. Counsel, therefore, urges the Court to uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal.
WA No.21 of 2018
Page - 13 of 15 [20] We have gone through the entire record and considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties. [21] There is no dispute that the Ministry of Home Affairs has accepted in principle that the members of the Assam Rifles are entitled to same rank and pay structure with their counterparts in other Central Paramilitary Forces. Grievance of the original writ petitioner is that despite being similarly situated, the Havildar [Radio Mechanic] of Assam Rifles have been given the rank of Warrant Officer and all benefits attached to the rank whereas such rank and benefits are denied to the Havildar [Dental Hygienist] in Assam Rifles. It has been pointed out that there was no disparity in pay and perquisites admissible to the Havildar [Radio Mechanic] and Havildar [Dental Hygienist] of Assam Rifles before the Havildar [Radio Mechanic] was given the rank of Warrant Officer and the pay and perquisites of Warrant Officer. The original writ petitioner has, therefore, asserted that the benefits which have been extended to the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] should also be made available to the persons holding the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist].
[22] The crux of the submissions of the counsel representing the appellants is that Havildar [Dental Hygienist] and Havildar [Radio Mechanic] constitutes different categories of posts and those two posts cannot be equated because of marked difference in the duties and responsibilities attached to those posts. In this regard, learned Single Judge has held that there was equivalence in the pay scale and other benefits between the post of Havildar [Radio Mechanic] and Havildar [Dental Hygienist] all through as is evident from the recruitment rules. It has been observed by the learned Single Judge that this pay parity having been acknowledged historically, the parity can be disturbed only on the basis of a WA No.21 of 2018 Page - 14 of 15 very strong logic but no such logic has been advanced by the appellants. Learned Single Judge also observed that from a bare reading of the order dated 28.07.1998, it would emerge that there was a clear direction for granting the benefit of Warrant Officer also to the post of Havildar [Dental Hygienist]. Learned Single Judge ruled out the contention of the counsel of the appellant that the order/communication dated 28.07.1998 [Annexure 3 to the writ petition] was merely an extract from the magazine called "Baat Chit'. It has been held by the learned Single Judge that the said communication dated 28.07.1998 indicates that it is a comprehensive order in respect of granting of benefits of the rank of Warrant Officer to the technical trade of Assam Rifles at par with BSF and there is no evidence that the decision is altered or recalled at any point of time. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce the said communication dated 28.07.1998 issued from the Office of the Director General of Assam Rifles, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India which is as under:
"Bharat Sarkar Government of India Grih Mantralaya Ministry of Home Affairs Mahanirdeshalaya Assam Rifles Directorate General Assam Rifles Shillong-793011 A/Pers/5th-CPC/Vol-III/98/ 28th July, 1998 List A/B/C/D/E/F 5TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION SALIENT FEATURES AFFECTING ASSAM RIFLES
1. Reference our letter No.A/Pers/5th-CPC/Vol-III/98/123 dated 07 July, 1998.
2. Sub Para (1) to para 14(a) of English and Hindi version of „Baat Chit‟ forwarded vide our letter under reference may be amended as under:
"(i) Granting of Warrant Officer Rank to technical trade in equivalence with BSF to include the following trades":WA No.21 of 2018
Page - 15 of 15
(a) Havildar Radio Mechanics (ab) Havildar Ciphers (ac) Havildar Operator Radio and Line (ad) Havildar Store Keeper Technical (ae) Havildar Electrical Fitter Signal (af) Havildar Lineman Field (ag) Havildar Pharmacist and Compounders (ah) Havildar Lab Asstt.
(aj) Havildar Nursing Asstt.
(ak) Havildar Operator Room Asstt.
(al) Havildar Despatch Rider (am) Havildar Dental Tech (an) Havildar Dental Hygienist (ao) Havildar Veh Mech (ap) Havildar Electrician (aq) Havildar Armr.
(ar) Havildar Draughtsman"
3. Please ack.
(R.S. Dhull) Col DD(A)"
[23] Having examined the said document dated 28.07.1998 and the observations made by the learned Single Judge thereon and the given facts and circumstances of the case, we find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed. [24] The appellants are directed to comply with the direction of the learned Single Judge within a period of 4 [four] months from today. [25] In terms of the above, the appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ
Rudradeep
WA No.21 of 2018