UNION OF INDIA Vs. DHARAMVIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.11.2012 passed in WP(C) No. (SH)283/2009 and order dated 08.02.2013 passed in Review Petition No. (SH) 1/2013 (Ref: -WP(C) No. (SH)283/2009); and learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment and order held that the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to get the revised scale.

(2.) HEARD Mr. SC Shyam, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B Deb, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. The graphic statement of facts leading to the filing of the WP(C) No. (SH)283/2009, had been mentioned in the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2012. However, for deciding the grounds for appeal in the present writ appeal, the concise fact of the case of the parties is briefly noted. After joining Assam Rifles in 1981 as Nursing Assistant in the rank of Sepoy, the respondent/writ petitioner on 19.08.1983, through the process of selection was directly recruited to the post of Draughtsman in the rank of Havildar in the Engineering Setup under the Draughtsman Recruitment Rules, 1981. The posts of Draughtsman in Assam Rifles in both civilian and combatant categories have common recruitment rules. The Draughtsman of both streams were enrolled and appointed under the Assam Rifles Draughtsman Rules, 1981. As the posts of Draughtsman in the Assam Rifles are in both civilian and combatant categories, not only the qualification for recruitment but also the nature of the work are same. The Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India vide Office Memorandum No. F -5 (59) -E -III/82 dated 13.03.1984, revised the pay scale of the Draughtsman Grade -III, II and I in all offices and departments of Govt. of India whose recruitment qualifications are similar to CPWD Draughtsman. It is the case of the respondent/writ petitioner that he was entitled to get the benefits of the revised scale of pay prescribed by the said Office Memorandum of the Govt. of India dated 13.03.1984. Since the promotion and other benefits remain stagnant, the respondent/writ petitioner approached the erstwhile Gauhati High Court by filing a writ petition being Civil Rule No. 12 of 1995, but the same was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 29.08.2002. On appeal being WA No. 27(SH)2008, learned Division Bench disposed of the appeal vide judgment and order dated 25.11.2008, which reads as follows: - WA No. 27(SH)2002 25.11.2008 Heard Mr. TT Diengdoh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. SC Shyam, learned CGC appearing on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) IN the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. (SH)283/2009, as directed by the Division Bench under the judgment and order dated 25.11.2008, had considered, if the respondent/writ petitioner is entitled to get the revised pay scale as per the Office Memorandum dated 19.10.1994. Before the learned Single Judge, Mr. SC Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) submitted that the respondent/writ petitioner was not qualified as per the term of CPWD hence, he cannot be allowed to get the revised pay scale and the said submission had been elaborately discussed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2012 passed in WP(C) No. (SH)283/2009. Mr. SC Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants (respondents in the writ petition), further contended that even if the respondent/writ petitioner is found fit as per the Office Memorandum dated 19.10.1994, it should not be given effect retrospectively, as the respondent/writ petitioner approached the Court lately. Learned Single Judge had considered in threadbare the said submission of Mr. SC Shyam, learned senior counsel appearing for the present appellants (respondents in the writ petition) in the impugned judgment and order dated 27.11.2012 Mr. SC Shyam, learned senior counsel reiterated before us the same submission made before the learned Single Judge.