Meghalaya High Court · 2025

Page 7 of 35 224. 5025389, Hav (Clk), Tej Raz Thapa 225. 5025389, Hav (Clk), Anand Kumar Singh 226. 5027688, Hav (Clk), Vibhor Kumar 227. 5027799, Hav (Clk), Kilangtemsu Kichu 228. 5028572, Hav (Clk), Santosh Singh Rawat 229. 5015672, Hav (Clk), Rajesh Singh 230. 5015895, Hav (Clk), Sandeep Adiwal 231. 5018131, Hav (Clk), Shankar Deb Barma 232. 5019603, Hav (Clk), Pintu Kumar 233. 5021025,Hav (Clk), Chandra Shekhar Kandpal 234. 5021058, Hav (Clk), Manish Kumar 235. 5025286, Hav (Clk), Arvind Kumar Ram 236. 5025327, Hav(Clk),Thokchom Bisanta Singh 237. 5028585, Hav(Clk), Langewar S Panduranji 238. 5028573, Hav (Clk), Sagar Kumar Prasad 239. 5020383, Hav (Clk), Sharad Yadav 240. 5020617, Hav (Clk), Durga Muang 241. 5025257, Hav (Clk), Polash Chakma 242. 5025275, Hav (Clk), NG Albert Moyon 243. 5027732, Hav (Clk), Shiv Kumar Yadav 244. 5028586, Hav (Clk), Lohar Arjun Shrirang 245. 5017799, Hav (Clk), Rohit Singh Bora 246. 5019055, Hav (Clk), Srikanta Ghosh 247. 5021085, Hav (Clk), Vinay Pal 248. 5021098, Hav (Clk), Amit Kumar Limbu 249. 5021099, Hav (Clk), Rajinder Kumar 250. 5021100, Hav (Clk), Pradeep Kumar 251. 5027737, Hav (Clk), Dhruv Kant Tiwari 252. 5017303,Hav (Clk), Deepak Kumar Pandey 253. 5017306, Hav (Clk), Sukesh Kumar 254. 5023320, Hav (Clk), Ajay Kumar Singh 255. 5025287, Hav (Clk), Rahul Chhetry 256. 5025570, Hav (Clk), Pradeep Kumar 257. 5027755, Hav (Clk), Rahul M Prasad 258. 5016816, Hav (Clk), Bimal Koirala 259. 5019277, Hav (Clk), Bikram Rana 260. 5022869, Hav (Clk), Mitul Chakma 261. 5025540, Hav (Clk), S Rahul Singha Page 8 of 35 262. 5027730, Hav (Clk), Vaibhav Ananat Patil 263. 5028591, Hav (Clk), Deepak Sharma 264. 5016055, Hav (Clk), Prabir Kumar Adhikari 265. 5017243, Hav (Clk), Sunil Kumar 266. 5021024, Hav (Clk), Subhankar Samai 267. 5022846, Hav (Clk), Sahindra Tripura 268. 5023002, Hav (Clk), Ashish Kumar 269. 5023080, Hav (Clk), Khuplenmang Haokip 270. 5025369, Hav (Clk), Narendra Kumar Meena 271. 5025404, Hav (Clk), Ram 272. 5027619, Hav (Clk), Prakash Rabidas 273. 5028600, Hav (Clk), Rupam Chakma 274. 5015894, Hav (Clk), Pradeep Kumar 275. 5016682, Hav (Clk), Rajeev Sharma 276. 5017685, Hav (Clk), Ch Umanda Singh 277. 5020681, Hav (Clk), Kishan Limbu 278. 5021023, Hav (Clk), Prodyut Chakma 279. 5021032, Hav (Clk), Navin Singh Farfijal 280. 5025305, Hav (Clk), Vikrant Singh 281. 5027625, Hav (Clk), Neeraj Kumar 282. 5016746, Hav (Clk), Shashi Kant Yadav 283. 5021029, Hav (Clk), Anil Kumar 284. 5023315, Hav (Clk), Shiv Shankar Ram 285. 5023333, Hav (Clk), Anil 286. 5023390, Hav (Clk), Bhagirah Singh 287. 5023395, Hav (Clk), Md Arif Khan 288. 5025586, Hav (Clk), Mavatmi Kashungao 289. 5028431, Hav (Clk), Pappu Kumar 290. 5028435, Hav (Clk), Utsav Bhardwaj 291. 5021026, Hav (Clk), Dhan Kumar Sonar 292. 5021103, Hav (Clk), Yogesh Chandra Dani 293. 5025293, Hav (Clk),Manoj Singh Shekhawat 294. 5025297, Hav (Clk), Sumit Kumar Sharma 295. 5025308, Hav (Clk), L Roman Saemah 296. 5025400, Hav (Clk), Chandan James Singh 297. 5014894, Hav (Clk), Sanal Kumar S 298. 5016599,Hav (Clk), Shyam Kumar Paswan 299. 5017242, Hav (Clk), Mintu Page 9 of 35 300. 5023074, Hav (Clk), Chandan Kumar 301. 5027667, Hav (Clk), Bipin Kumar Yadav 302. 5028617, Hav (Clk), Rakesh Singh 303. 5018753, Hav (Clk), Ramesh Kumar 304. 5020264, Hav (Clk), Dinesh Choudhary 305. 5021072, Hav (Clk), Paradhaman R 306. 5022989, Hav (Clk), Amit Singh 307. 5025385, Hav (Clk), Nishant Kumar 308. 5025538, Hav (Clk), Bikram Das 309. 5027706, Hav (Clk), Soutan Biswas 310. 5018476, Hav (Clk), Rodingliana 311. 5018998, Hav (Clk), Abhay Kumar Tiwari 312. 5019634, Hav (Clk), Herendra Singh 313. 5020349, Hav (Clk), Pankaj Thakur 314. 5021004, Hav(Clk), Moirangthem Sanjoy Singh 315. 5021013, Hav (Clk), Satya Prakash 316. 5021086,Hav (Clk), Purnakanta Biswakarma 317. 5025259, Hav (Clk), Hijam Lakhsmikanta Singh 318. 5016643, Hav (Clk), Jintendra Thakur 319. 5021036, Hav (Clk), Gautam Kumar 320. 5022892, Hav (Clk), Vikram Gujar 321. 5016677, Hav (Clk), Sunil Yadav 322. 5018077, Hav (Clk), D Siva Kumar 323. 5025251, Hav (Clk), T HutoiSema 324. 5025273, Hav (Clk), Abhishek Singh 325. 5025304, Hav (Clk), Nitul Duwarah 326. 5025311, Hav (Clk), Dharmendra Singh Yadav 327. 5025328, Hav (Clk), Asem Dilip Singh 328. 5025335, Hav (Clk), Arun T J 329. 5025383, Hav (Clk), Ajeet Singh Rawat 330. 5027802, Hav (Clk), Ravinder Singh 331. 5017001, Hav (Clk), Shammi Kumar 332. 5017230, Hav (Clk), Rakesh Kumar 333. 5019375, Hav (Clk), Mani Kumar Chetry 334. 5021045, Hav(Clk),OKram Rameshwor Singh 335. 5021067, Hav (Clk), Sujeet Mech 336. 5023324, Hav (Clk), S Hari Krishnan 337. 5025395, Hav (Clk), Narendra Singh Page 10 of 35 338. 5028621, Hav (Clk), Rajput B K Dhanbahadur 339. 5028623, Hav (Clk), Jacob Lalnutluanga 340. 5015661, Hav (Clk), P C Vanlalhuma 341. 5015695, Hav (Clk), Anand Singh Negi 342. 5016934, Hav (Clk), Pradeep Gurung 343. 5018075, Hav (Clk), Sharath Lal S S 344. 5018888, Hav (Clk), Ravinder Singh 345. 5021069, Hav (Clk), K C Vanlalnunpuia 346. 5023299, Hav (Clk), BenrithungKikon 347. 5025317, Hav (Clk), Prinsu Singh 348. 5025372, Hav (Clk), Rajesh Das 349. 5027824, Hav (Clk), Pathan Shahrukkha Faimkha 350. 5015632, Hav (Clk), David Lalramawia 351. 5017386, Hav (Clk), Ram Kumar Chhetri 352. 5021052, Hav (Clk), Mahesh Joshi 353. 5021055, Hav (Clk), Amit Kumar 354. 5025554, Hav (Clk), Rajesh Kumar Ram 355. 5014939, Hav (Clk), Pramod Kumar Yadav 356. 5015868, Hav (Clk), Sajjan Singh 357. 5019598, Hav (Clk), Sujith S 358. 5025284, Hav (Clk), Ashwani Kumar 359. 5018973, Hav (Clk), Pabitra Karmakar 360. 5021093, Hav (Clk), Uday Kumar Singh 361. 5021106, Hav (CIk),Deepak kr Suryawanshi 362. 5025324, Hav (Clk), Rajesh kumar Gupta 363. 5025332, Hav (Clk), Pukhrambam Shanti Kumar 364. 5027624, Hav (Clk), Sunil Yadav 365. 5028444, Hav (Clk), Pankaj Kumar 366. 5025249, Hav (Clk), Gaidinreipou Pamei 367. 5025313, Hav (Clk), Ajay Pal 368. 5025366, Hav (Clk), Ajit Kumar Singh 369. 5025368, Hav (CIk) Shanchuma Boro 370. 5025371, Hav (Clk), Pranjal Pratim Borah 371. 5017292, Hav (Clk), Ranjan Ram 372. 5017378, Hav (Clk), Chanchal Singh Bisht 373. 5017839, Hav (Clk), Y Dharmaraj 374. 5018067, Hav (CIk), L Santosh Kumar 375. 5018977, Hav (Clk), Kishor Oraon Page 11 of 35 376. 5021019, Hav (Clk), Jitendra Kumar 377. 5025255, Hav (Clk), Vikas Kumar Sharma 378. 5025382, Hav (Clk), Pawan Deep Singh 379. 5028445, Hav (Clk), Bishal Gogoi 380. 5021044, Hav (Clk), Neeraj Yadav 381. 5023356, Hav (Clk), Akash Choudhary 382. 5025288, Hav (Clk), Sandip Nath 383. 5025352, Hav (Clk) Dipendra Chhetri 384. 5025555, Hav (Clk), Anoop Singh 385. 5018171, Hav (Clk), Manish Kumar 386. 5018245, Hav (Clk), Janpoi Tesia 387. 5020860, Hav (Clk), Lukram Bidyaraj Singh 388. 5021041, Hav (Clk), Anup Chauhan 389. 5023392, Hav (Clk), Devender 390. 5025329, Hav (Clk), Karan Rajbanshi 391. 5025337, Hav (Clk), Sudip Tirkey 392. 5025597, Hav (Clk), Sunil Kumar Rawat 393. 5027642, Hav (Clk), Naveen Singh 394. 5028450, Hav (Clk), Kapil Kumar 395. 5017608, Hav (Clk), L Rajesh Singh 396. 5018718, Hav (Clk), Arun Saini 397. 5022889, Hav (Clk), Asif Khan 398. 5025278, Hav (Clk), Deepak 399. 5025341, Hav (Clk), Mantu Talukdar 400. 5025350, Hav (Clk), Pawan Kumar 401. 5025576, Hav (Clk) Anil Minj 402. 5027668, Hav (Clk), Amit Kuma 403. 5028457, Hav (Clk), Sunny Dev 404. 5022952, Hav (Clk), Pasang Lama 405. 5023381, Hav (Clk), Paotinthang Haokip 406. 5017690, Hav (Clk), Anil Kumar Sahu 407. 5021010, Hav (Clk), Vinod Kumar 408. 5025321, Hav (Clk), Satendra Kumar Rao 409. 5016529, Hav (Clk), Vinay Kumar Mishra 410. 5022821, Hav (Clk), Dhiraj Pandey 411. 5023078, Hav (Clk), Dev Bahadur Sunar 412. 5021702,Hav(Clk), Yogesh Kumar Dwivedi 413. 5022777, Hav (Clk) Manik Chandra Das Page 12 of 35 414. 5022819, Hav (Clk), Surchandra Singha 415. 5022912, Hav (Clk), Sandeep Yadav 416. 5022930, Hav (Clk), Sanjay Kumar 417. 5025281, Hav (Clk), Ashish Gurung 418. 5025334, Hav (Clk), Ranjit Singh Bhau 419. 5025587, Hav (Clk), Kundan Kumar 420. 5018818, Hav (Clk), Sunil Kumar 421. 5020618, Hav (Clk), Dhruv Kumar 422. 5025342, Hav (Clk), Pradeep Thakur 423. 5025584, Hav (Clk), Praveen Kumar 424. 5015130, Hav (Clk), N Dhanshyam Singh 425. 5016629, Hav (Clk), I L Meetai 426. 5016630, Hav (Clk), Ajay Singh Bijarnia 427. 5017100, Hav (Clk), Sandeep Singh 428. 5017307, Hav (Clk), Deep Tamang 429. 5017333, Hav (Clk), Irphan Khan 430. 5018796, Hav (Clk) Hafizuddin Ahmed 431. 5020261, Hav (Clk), Jatinder Singh 432. 5021420, Hav (Clk), V Nagarjuna 433. 5023077, Hav (Clk), Thoudam Digbijoy Meitei 434. 5025306, Hav (Clk), Pankaj Kumar Jena 435. 5025353, Hav (Clk), Ajit Singh 436. 5025360, Hav (Clk), Shrawan Kumar 437. 5015083, Hav (Clk), Amit Kumar 438. 5014952, Hav (Clk) Lalit Kumar Janoti 439. 5015883, Hav (Clk), Dinesh 440. 5016054, Hav (Clk), Kiran Limbu 441. 5016318, Hav (Clk), Veeraswamy Venkala 442. 5016690, Hav (Clk), Jagat Jyoti Chhetri 443. 5016831, Hav (Clk), Sheesh Pal 444. 5017283, Hav (Clk), Shyam Sunder 445. 5017284, Hav (Clk), Hare Krishna Roy 446. 5017332, Hav (Clk), Lakshmikanth N 447. 5017615, Hav (Clk), Ganesh Chhetri 448. 5017636, Hav (Clk), Ng Omendro Singh 449. 5018081, Hav (Clk), P Sudhakar Reddy 450. 5018493, Hav (Clk), R L Pachuau 451. 5018869, Hav (Clk), Subash Chand Page 13 of 35 452. 5019335, Hav (Clk), Gurmeet Singh 453. 5019489, Hav (Clk), Bikky Lama 454. 5019639, Hav (Clk), Abhay Pratap 455. 5019751, Hav (Clk), Amar Nath 456. 5019757, Hav (Clk), Anish Kumar Singh 457. 5020000, Hav (Clk), Bikram Pun 458. 5020068, Hav (Clk), Brajendra Kumar 459. 5020102, Hav (Clk) Ashis Rai 460. 5020255, Hav (Clk), Vivek Kukrety 461. 5020857, Hav (Clk), Th Jemson Singh 462. 5021001, Hav (Clk), H Vanlallawmkima 463. 5021015, Hav (Clk), N Surajkanta Singh 464. 5021018, Hav (Clk), Surgyan Singh Gurjar 465. 5021028, Hav (Clk), Sandeep Kumar Sharma 466. 5021038, Hav (Clk), Vikash Deoli 467. 5021081, Hav (Clk), Rohit Thakur 468. 5021082, Hav (Clk), Ravi Kumar 469. 5021128, Hav (Clk), Ashu Kumar Ram 470. 5021173, Hav (Clk), Mithlesh Kumar 471. 5021432, Hav (Clk), Manoj Yadav 472. 5022771, Hav (Clk), Goutam Sarkar 473. 5022779, Hav (Clk), Maskare Chunnilal Jagdish 474. 5022780, Hav (Clk), Rugantar Chakma 475. 5022784, Hav (Clk), Atenjenba 476. 5022850, Hav (Clk), Sanjay Rudra Paul 477. 5022860, Hav (Clk), Dilliram Parajuli 478. 5022870, Hav (Clk), Akshay Kumar Sinah 479. 5022874, Hav (Clk), Shimborlang Kharshandi 480. 5022897, Hav (Clk), Dan Singh Rana 481. 5022913, Hav (Clk), Raju Thakur 482. 5022916, Hav (Clk), Pappu Kumar 483. 5022925, Hav (Clk), Tuhinkanti Kar 484. 5022940, Hav (Clk), Hosang Gurung 485. 5022942, Hav (Clk), Gol Mohammad 486. 5022954, Hav (Clk), Neeraj Singh Soun 487. 5022980, Hav (Clk), J Ramchungthang 488. 5022995, Hav (Clk), Daljeet Singh Dogra 489. 5023013, Hav (Clk), Gulshinder Singh Page 14 of 35 490. 5023028, Hav (Clk), Taushif Ahmad 491. 5023029, Hav (Clk), Bikram Tamang 492. 5023031, Hav (Clk), Vikram Singh 493. 5023032, Hav (Clk), Samir Thapa 494. 5023082, Hav (Clk), Mayengbam Johnson Meitei 495. 5023086, Hav (Clk), Ningthoujam Romeo Singh 496. 5023088, Hav (Clk), Dayamo Yendrembam 497. 5023095, Hav (Clk), Haominlen Khongsai 498. 5023361, Hav (Clk), Sandeep Prasad 499. 5025253, Hav (CIk),Minishwrang Mushahary 500. 5025262, Hav (Clk), B Nagabosanam 501. 5025272, Hav (Clk), Sanjay Kumar 502. 5025296, Hav (Clk), Raju Ansari 503. 5025302, Hav (Clk), Bighneswar Samal 504. 5025307, Hav (Clk), Deepak Kharab 505. 5025314, Hav (Clk), Niranjan Kumar 506. 5025319, Hav (Clk), Ravi Ranjan Kumar 507. 5025320, Hav (Clk), Sudhir Yadav 508. 5025323, Hav (Clk), Manoj Saurabh 509. 5025325, Hav (Clk), Shakti Chhetri 510. 5025367, Hav (Clk), Mukul Hazarika 511. 5025379, Hav (Clk), Rakesh Kumar Saroj 512. 5023397, Hav (Clk), Khaijamang Haokip 513. 5025391, Hav (Clk), Abhijeet Brahma 514. 5025541, Hav (Clk), Debendra Sinha 515. 5025545, Hav (Clk), Suresh Kumar 516. 5025553, Hav (Clk), Bulbul Chetia 517. 5025572, Hav (Clk), Deepak Rasaile 518. 5025583, Hav (Clk), Rajan Kumar Singh 519. 5025600, Hav (Clk), Balram Ojha 520. 5017342, Hav (Clk), Manoj Singh Bora 521. 5017889, Hav (Clk), Balaji GR 522. 5017936, Hav (Clk),Emmanuel Lalsanglien 523. 5018788, Hav (Clk), G Arjun Singh 524. 5018909, Hav (Clk), Harvinder Singh 525. 5019316, Hav (Clk), Diwanshu Gaur 526. 5020945, Hav (Clk), Ishrar Khan 527. 5022833, Hav (Clk), Nithin Mohan Page 15 of 35 528. 5022872,Hav (Clk),Vikas Kumar Suryawnhi 529. 5022898, Hav (Clk), Inderpal Yadav 530. 5022932, Hav (Clk), Akhil Raj TR 531. 5022947, Hav (Clk), Manejer Choudhary 532. 5022963, Hav (Clk), Prem Bahadur Kharka 533. 5023042, Hav (Clk), Shashi Bhushan Sharma 534. 5023043, Hav (Clk), Boto I Wotsa 535. 5023061,Hav (Clk), Livingstone Sochinghao 536. 5023068,Hav (Clk), Khiuwangbou Abonmai 537. 5023073, Hav (Clk), Sachin Kumar 538. 5021014, Hav (Clk), Mukesh Sunar 539. 5022823, Hav (Clk), Indrajeet Chakma 540. 5022981, Hav (Clk), Arbind Kumar 541. 5018183, Hav (Clk), Saiful Islam 542. 5022957, Hav (Clk), Avinash Kumar 543. 5023353, Hav (Clk), Michael Kharkhonga 544. 5017915, Hav (Clk), Shaibud Lyngdoh Thabah 545. 5020988, Hav (Clk), Pravin Kumar Rai 546. 5021002, Hav (Clk), Rana Pratap Koach 547. 5022769, Hav (Clk), Radha Kanta Sarkar 548. 5022853, Hav (Clk), Benjamin V Zhimomi 549. 5025271, Hav (Clk), Govindra Nomosudra 550. 5025566, Hav (Clk), Kuldeep Singh 551. 5025592, Hav (Clk), Indrajit Sinha 552. 5016228, Hav (CIk), Rajesh Oraon 553. 5018317, Hav (Clk), Uttom Deori 554. 5018486, Hav (Clk), K Vanlalnghaka 555. 5019970, Hav (Clk), Biju Chetri 556. 5022955, Hav (Clk), Ganga DattKapadi 557. 5023011, Hav (Clk), Satyendra Kumar 558. 5023339, Hav (Clk), Mithlesh Singh 559. 5025343, Hav(Clk), Gyan Prakash Gautam 560. 5025355,Hav (Clk), Brijkishor Singh Tomar 561. 5018028, Hav (Clk), Rambabu Balaka 562. 5019736, Hav (Clk), Vishal Rajbonshi 563. 5020033, Hav (Clk), Shailendra Pratap Singh 564. 5025381, Hav (Clk), Pradeep Kumar Bugalia 565. 5025535, Hav (Clk), Bappa Kumar Nath Page 16 of 35 566. 5015030, Hav (Clk), Sandeep Kumar 567. 5017688, Hav (Clk), Akoijam Jotindro Singh 568. 5018723, Hav (Clk), Ashu Yadav 569. 5020281, Hav (Clk), Jaipal 570. 5014928,Hav (Clk), Lokhande Arjun Baban 571. 5017923, Hav (Clk), Sunil Sharma 572. 5018052, Hav (Clk), Valireddy Pittu 573. 5019026, Hav (Clk), Utpal Barman 574. 5019370, Hav (Clk), Umed Singh Dhami 575. 5020408, Hav (Clk), Anil Kumar 576. 5021006, Hav (Clk), Rojit Singh Ch 577. 5021027,Hav (Clk),S antosh Kumar Sahoo 578. 5021066, Hav (Clk), Ramesh Bahadur Newar 579. 5022901, Hav (Clk), Manoj Basnet 580. 5022986, Hav (CIk), Shailendra Singh 581. 5023047, Hav (Clk), Haveev Khan 582. 5023359, Hav (Clk), Jagbir Singh 583. 5025258, Hav (Clk), Suman Khongsit 584. 5025283, Hav (Clk), Shyam Kishore 585. 5025291, Hav (Clk), Suman Singha 586. 5025315, Hav (Clk), Bishal Rai 587. 5025344, Hav (Clk), Deepak Kumar 588. 5017257, Hav (Clk), Sanjeev Kumar 589. 5021214, Hav (Clk), Haret Singh Gujar 590. 5022834, Hav (CIk), Rajesh Kumar Nayak 591. 5021418, Hav (Clk), Abhishek 592. 5017076, Hav (Clk), Vishu Kumar V 593. 5017092, Hav (Clk), Prasant Limbu 594. 5025596, Hav (Clk), Rakesh Gurung 595. 5021080, Hav (Clk), Sulanthung Ngullie 596. 5025399, Hav (Clk), Sandeep Gurung 597. 5027771, Hav (Clk), Sher Singh 598. 5027631, Hav (Clk), Pratyush Solanki 599. 5028561, Hav (Clk), Sukalyan Saha 600. 5022917, Hav (Clk), Ashish Kumar 601. 5025326, Hav (Clk), Ankit Kumar 602. 5025299, Hav (Clk), Avinash Kumar 603. 5018967, Hav (Clk), Gopeswar Ghosh Page 17 of 35 604. 5021035, Hav (Clk), Sambhu Pradhan 605. 5021037, Hav (Clk), Pushkar Singh 606. 5021092, Hav (Clk), Manoj Kumar 607. 5027722, Hav (CIk), Dharmendr Gupta 608. 5028463, Hav (Clk), Lunminlen Kipgen 609. 5018982, Hav (Clk), Arun Kumar Gurung 610. 5021030A, Hav (Clk), Ashwani Kumar 611. 5025390, Hav (Clk), Debajit Pokrel Chetry 612. 5028481, Hav (Clk), Koushik Mondal …Writ Appellants -VERSUS- 1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi - 110001. 2. The Director General, Assam Rifles, HQ DGAR, Shillong - 793011. 3. The Brigadier (Personnel), HQ DGAR, Shillong -793011. 4. The Colonel (Administration), HQ DGAR, Shillong -793011. …Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice I.P. Mukerji, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. B. Pathak, Adv with Mr. V. Kumar, Adv Ms. P. Chettri, Adv For the Respondent(s) : Mr. R. Debnath, CGC i) Whether approved for Yes reporting in Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication Yes/No in press: Note: For proper public information and transparency, any media reporting this judgment is directed to mention the composition of the bench by name of judges, while reporting this judgment/order. Page 18 of 35 J U D G M E N T I.P. Mukerji, C.J.: I have had the privilege of going through the draft judgment prepared by my learned brother. I am in full agreement with the conclusions and order proposed by his lordship. The facts of this case have been narrated in great detail in the said judgment. I will not try to regurgitate the same. I would only like to add a few observations of my own. Three reasons given by the learned single judge for rejecting the writ petition are as follows: The appellants sat on the fence and waited for the outcome of the writ petitions filed by the other writ petitioners. Secondly, they were recruited after 29th October, 2002 on initiation of the 2002 Rules and were not on the same footing as the earlier writ petitioners. Thirdly, the earlier orders were in personam. The appellants could not take the benefit of those orders. I will take the second point first. The 2002 Rules did not redesignate the rank or alter the pay scale of the appellants, to make it equivalent to that of Warrant Officers in the Central services. It was just that the name of the post was changed. The Page 19 of 35 appellants in terms of rank and pay were in the same category as those of the earlier writ petitioners. Their nature and type of work and all other service conditions were similar to the earlier batch of writ petitioners. As far as the allegation against them of “sitting on the fence” is concerned, I do not think that it is sustainable. It is for the following reasons. There is no period of limitation prescribed for preferring a writ petition. Of course, it has to be instituted within reasonable time. Inordinate and unexplained delay vitiates a writ petition. The Supreme Court on 17th November, 2015 affirmed, with some modification the order of the learned single judge dated 23rd August, 2012. It was implemented by Assam Rifles on 28th June, 2016 leaving out 89 of the 1232 number of writ petitioners who were appointed under the 2002 Rules on the ground that they were not covered by the Supreme Court judgment. Finally, after contempt proceedings were initiated by 87 of them, on 12th April, 2019, Assam Rifles implemented the entire order. In those circumstances, it was only on or after 12th April, 2019 that the appellants could have been aware of the fact that they were also similarly situated as the earlier writ petitioners their legal rights flowing from this knowledge and entitled to the same relief. Page 20 of 35 Moreover, being bound and guided by Article 14 of the Constitution, it became the duty of the government to extend similar benefit to the appellants as the earlier writ petitioners, whether or not they obtained orders of Court. This in my opinion is part of the principle of equality, fairness, transparency and good governance which every State should follow. Therefore, the present writ petition of 2019 could never be dismissed on the ground of “delay”, “fence sitting” or acquiescence. It did not matter even if the earlier writ petition was an action in personam or in rem. I am not expressing our opinion on this issue as it is immaterial. The appellants are entitled to this benefit for the reasons above. The argument of learned counsel for the respondents was that redesignation of 87 employees further to the contempt petition was an irregular or illegal act. He contended that no advantage could be taken of this illegal act, as it could not be acted upon as a precedent relying upon [Union of India & anr v. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & ors reported in (2011) 7 SCC 397 and Director of Horticulture, Odisha v. Pravat Kumar Dash & ors reported in (2019) 8 SCC 294]. This proposition and the above authorities have no application because my reasoning above clearly shows that all the appellants were similarly situated and entitled to the same relief Page 21 of 35 as the earlier batch of writ petitioners and that the 87 employees were rightly redesignated. Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. reported in (2008) 1 SCC 586 cited by learned counsel for the appellants is applicable. Paragraphs 4, 9, and 25 are set out below: “4. The nub of the grievance of the writ petitioner, working in the rank of a Radio Mechanic in Assam Rifles was that the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Director General of Assam Rifles having accepted in principle that the numbers of Assam Rifles, should be given the same rank and pay structure as was given to other Central paramilitary forces, yet the same had been denied to them. …..” 9. ….. the High Court felt that it would be unreasonable and discriminatory if the pay scales given to Radio Mechanics in CRPF and BSF were denied to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, when the qualifications and service requirements in all the three organisations were identical. Consequently, the High Court issued the aforenoted directions, which are questioned in this appeal. 25. However, the Ministry of Home Affairs vide Letter dated 3-3-1998 while accepting the said proposal had recommended redesignation of Havildar/RM as warrant officer but subject to the condition that the prerevised and revised pay scales of Havildar/RM in other paramilitary forces were identical to the pay scales of Head Constable (RM) in CRPF and BSF. ….. The counter-affidavit does not even attempt to explain how the case of Havildar/RM in Assam Rifles is different from that of Radio Mechanics in other Central paramilitary forces.” The following dicta was laid down by the Supreme Court: “12. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of this Court. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” was originally propounded as part of the directive principles of the State policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court had observed that principle of equal pay for equal Page 22 of 35 work is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal, capable of being attained through constitutional remedies and held that this principle had to be read under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This decision was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India. Thus, having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Articles 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” has assumed status of a fundamental right. 13. Initially, particularly in the early eighties, the said principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realising its cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for equal work had no mathematical application in every case of similar work. It has been observed 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 emphasised 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. (Vide Secy., Finance Deptt. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn. and State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn.) Nevertheless, 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 and 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 classification of posts is ex facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the court to intervene.” The conclusion was: “28. On a conspectus of the factual scenario noted above, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned directions given by Page 23 of 35 the High Court, warranting interference. There is no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly with costs.” The appellants are entitled to the same relief as the writ petitioners in WP (C) No.277 (SH) 2010, granted by a learned single judge of this Court on 23rd August, 2012, modified by a division bench of this Court on 30th April, 2013 and finally granted by the Supreme Court with modifications by its judgment and order dated 17th November, 2015. I, direct that the appellants may be granted relief in identical manner as if the said orders of the Court were incorporated in this judgment and order. Similar departmental orders may also be issued. I grant the same relief as in the judgment and order of my learned brother. This appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. No order as to costs. (I.P. Mukerji) Chief Justice B. Bhattacharjee, J.: This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 05-12-2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.244 of 2019 by which the writ petition was dismissed being devoid of merits. Page 24 of 35 The fact of the case is that in the year 2010, 1339 employees belonging to the clerical cadre of Assam Rifles raised the issue of parity in respect of pay, rank and status of Assam Rifles clerical cadre at par with other Central Police Organization (CPO) by filing a writ petition No. WP(C) No.277 (SH) of 2010 and sought for introduction of post of Warrant Officer (Clerk) in Assam Rifles at the Entry Level post. The said writ petition was disposed of by the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 directing the Director General of Assam Rifles to take up the matter with the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to bring parity in respect of rank structure and a pay of the Assam Rifles clerical cadre at par with other CPOs by introducing the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Warrant Officer) at the entry grade w.e.f. 01-01-1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040 (Rs.4000-6000) with all consequential benefits in the light of the communication made through MHA letter No.2701-02/1/97 PC Cell/Pef-1 dated 10-10-1997. The aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 of the learned Single Judge was challenged in W.A. No.40 (SH) of 2012 wherein vide Judgment and Order dated 30-04-2013 the direction of the learned Single Judge was modified with regard to the date of application of the benefit of arrear of financial benefits. Thereafter, the matter reached before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 13445 of 2015 (arising out of SLP (C) No. Page 25 of 35 29908 of 2013) wherein by order dated 17-11-2015 the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge was restored. The Ministry of Home Affairs, thereafter, approved the implementation of the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 by Memo No. MHA U.O. 27013/2/2016.PF.IV dated 21-06-2016 wherein it was communicated that the Ministry of Home Affairs in consultation with the Ministry of Finance has agreed to implement the said Judgment and Order in respect of petitioners therein as well as other similarly placed employees. Accordingly, the Directorate General Assam Rifles implemented the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 extending the benefit of the rank structure and pay of Warrant Officer to 1250 petitioners in WP(C) No.277 (SH) of 2010 by Order No. A/Pers/II-04/Clk/2016/774 dated 28-06-2016. However, the benefits were extended only to the personnel of the clerical cadre who were in service as on 01-01-1986 and who were enrolled thereafter upto 28-10-2002. As a result, 89 petitioners in WP(C) No. 277 (SH) of 2010 were left out and not conferred with the above benefits. The petitioners numbering 87 out of the aforesaid 89, who did not get the benefit, approached this High Court by filing Contempt Case(C) No.21 of 2016. At the stage of the consideration of the contempt matter, the respondents agreed to implement the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 to the remaining 89 writ petitioners. Consequently, the Director Page 26 of 35 General of Assam Rifles issued Order No. Rec (Adm-I) MACPS (Court Case)/2019/320 dated, Shillong the 12-04-2019 extending the benefits to the remaining 89 writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 277 (SH) 2010. Further, another batch of 192 Havildar (Clerks) of Assam Rifles, who were enrolled in service after 28-10-2002, approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 198 of 2019 claiming benefits which fell due upon them consequent to the passing of the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 and the order dated 12-04-2019 of the Directorate General Assam Rifles. The said writ petition was allowed by the Judgment dated 17-02-2023. Upon challenge made, the Apex Court declined to interfere with the said Judgment dated 17-02-2023 and dismissed the SLP bearing No. 15217/2024 by order dated 17-05-2024. As a result, the Directorate General Assam Rifles vide order No. Rec(Adm-I)/Ajay Kumar/Court Case/2024/112 dated 19-07-2024 conferred the rank and status of Warrant Officer at the entry grade to the aforesaid 192 personnel w.e.f. the date of their respective entry into service. The appellants in this present writ appeal, who are serving as Havildar (clerk) in Assam Rifles, have filed WP(C) No.244 of 2019 praying for issuance of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the benefit of rank structure, status and pay-scale of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Warrant Officer) in the pay-scale of Rs.1320-2040 (revised Rs.4000-6000) w.e.f. the date of enrollment in terms of the Judgment and Order Page 27 of 35 dated 23-08-2012 passed by the erstwhile Guwahati High Court, Shillong Bench in WP(C) No.277 (SH) of 2010. The learned Single Judge vide impugned Judgment dated 05-12-2022 dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellants are not entitled to the benefits of the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 passed in WP(C) No. 277 (SH) of 2010 as they did not join the issue with their colleagues in the first round of litigation and the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 is a judgment in personam. The learned Single Judge further held that the appellants cannot seek parity of any kind as they are enrolled under the relevant Recruitment Rules of 2002 and the rules have not been challenged. Moreover, the appellants are fence-sitters as they did not choose to align with the 87(sic 89) petitioners when they filed WP(C) No. 277 (SH) of 2010 and, hence, the principle of delay and latches and acquiescence can be attributed to their action. Assailing the impugned judgment dated 05-12-2022, Mr. B. Pathak, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that the appellants in the present case are similarly situated with the petitioners in WP(C) No. 277 (SH) of 2010 and, therefore, entitled to the similar benefits as they are also serving in the same clerical trade and performing equal duties. He submits that the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 is a judgment in rem as the direction made therein is meant to be implemented for the purpose of bringing parity in respect of rank structure and pay of the Page 28 of 35 Assam Rifles clerical cadre. He further submits that the Recruitment Rules of 2002 was in force when the judgment and order dated 23-08-2012 was passed in WP(C) No. 277 (SH) of 2010 and, hence, the said rules cannot come in the way of conferring benefit to the appellants. By referring to the implementation order dated 21-06-2016, the learned Counsel submits that it is clear from the contents thereof that the competent authority had approved the introduction of the post of Warrant Officer at the entry grade to bring parity in respect of rank structure of Assam Rifles clerical grade at par with other CPOs and such benefit was to be extended to all the persons in the clerical cadre. The learned Counsel further contends that since the benefit of the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 and subsequent implementation order dated 21-06-2016 are to be applied to the entire clerical cadre of the Assam Rifles, the learned Single Judge could not have denied the relief to the appellants on the ground of delay and latches by terming them fence-sitters. He submits that in any view of the matter, the impugned Judgment dated 05-12-2022 cannot be sustained in law and facts and is liable to be interfered with. The judgment of Union of India v. Dineshan K.K., (2008) 1 SCC 586 is pressed into service by the learned Counsel. Mr. R. Debnath, learned CGC, on the other hand, contends that the appellants herein are not similarly situated with the petitioners in WP(C) No. 277 (SH) of 2010 and, hence, cannot claim benefit of the Judgment Page 29 of 35 and Order dated 23-08-2012. He submits that the appellants have entered into service after 28-10-2002 when the amended Recruitment Rules of 2002 was in force and, as such, are guided by the stipulation made in the said rules, wherein the post of Warrant Officer (clerk) is not provided as an entry grade post in the clerical cadre of the Assam Rifles. He further submits that the conferment of benefit to the 89 petitioners in WP(C) No. 277 (SH) of 2010, who were enrolled in the clerical cadre of Assam Rifles after 28-10-2002, was through oversight and inadvertence and the appellants cannot claim any benefit out of that as there can be no claim based on negative equality. For deciding the controversy between the parties, it would be appropriate to refer to the operative part of the Judgement and Order dated 23-08-2012 in WP(C) No.277 (SH) of 2010 which is reproduced below: - “14. In the result, this writ petition stands disposed of with the direction to the respondent No.2, the Director General of Assam Rifles to take up the matter again with the respondent No.1, i.e. the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to bring parity in respect of rank structure and pay of the Assam Rifles clerical cadre at par with other CPOs by introducing rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Warrant Officer) at the entry grade w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in the scale of pay of RS1320-2040 (revised Rs. 4000-6000) w.e.f. 1.1.1996 or any other date as the authority deem it fit and proper with all consequential benefits in the light of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance resolution dated 20-09-1997 communicated through MH. Letter bearing No.2701-02/1/97 PC Cell/Pef-1 dated 10.10.1997. The whole exercise would be completed within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order.” Page 30 of 35 The learned Single Judge denied relief to the appellants by treating the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 as judgment in personam. Normally, a judgment which binds only those who are parties to it, is known as judgment in personam. Judgments, mention of which are made in Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 35 of The Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023), are referred to as judgment in rem. Though, definition of judgment in rem has not been provided anywhere, it has been understood as meaning a judgment which is conclusive not only against the parties, but also against the whole world. Perusal of the operative part of the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 would unambiguously show that the direction was issued for taking appropriate steps for bringing parity in respect of rank, structure and pay of the entire Assam Rifles clerical cadre at par with other CPOs. The direction was not confined to giving benefit only to the persons who were petitioners in that case. It is apparent that the intention was to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. Thus, it is crystal clear that the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 is a judgment in rem and not a judgment of in personam. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. Arvind Jumar Srivastava and Others reported in (2015) 1 SCC 347 has observed as follows: Page 31 of 35 22.1. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2. However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of latches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3. However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. Such a situation can occur when the subject-matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularization and the like. On the other hand, if the judgment of the court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.” Page 32 of 35 It emerges from the above that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, the other identically situated persons shall be treated alike and not doing so would amount to discrimination and, therefore, violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In such a situation, the authorities are obligated to extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated persons. It is settled by now, specially in service law, that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Even, the principles of delay and laches as well as acquiescence are of not much relevance for consideration of relief claimed in the case. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) has been followed in Shoeline Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax & Ors. (2017) 16 SCC 104. Before the coming of the Recruitment Rules of 2002 on 29-10-2002, recruitment of clerks in the Assam Rifles were made in the post of Lance Naik (Writer). The post of Warrant Officer was introduced by the Assam Rifles at the entry grade of the clerical cadre in compliance of the Court’s order as an ex-cadre post in terms of the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission without any provision in the recruitment rules. There is no mention of any rank/post equivalent to Assistant Sub-Inspector (Warrant Officer) in the recruitment rule which was in existence prior to 2002 and also in the Recruitment Rules of 2002. The recruitment rules framed in the year 2002 has only renamed the post of Lance Naik Page 33 of 35 (Writer) as Havildar (Clerk). The concept of Warrant Officer came from the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission. The Recruitment Rules of 2002 was in force when the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 in WP(C) No. 277 (SH) of 2010 was delivered and the Directorate of Assam Rifles had to introduce the rank and pay of Warrant Officer at the Entry Grade of the clerical cadre as Ex-cadre post without the same being provided in the recruitment rule. Hence, the Recruitment Rules of 2002 cannot be an impediment to the grant of relief claimed for by the appellants in the writ petition. There is no dispute to the fact that both the posts of Warrant Officer (Clerk) and Havildar (Clerk) are entry level posts at the Assam Rifles clerical trade. There is no difference of requisite qualification and performance of duty between the two posts. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other similar and identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending the same benefit. There cannot be selective implementation, particularly when the judgement passed by the Court was a judgement in rem, to create unreasonable classification. There cannot be two different entry grades to one Clerical Trade where some employees get higher rank and pay of Warrant Officer and other similarly situated employees get lessor rank and pay of Havildar. Simply because, the appellants herein did not come to Court and joined the first round of litigation, they cannot be deprived of Page 34 of 35 their legitimate rights. The respondents/employers are under legal obligation to grant the benefit to all these similarly situated employees, notwithstanding the fact as to whether they approached the Court or not. It is pertinent to mention that the set of all the 89 persons, who received the benefit of financial upgradation and rank and status of the Warrant Officer by order No. Rec(Adm-I)/MACPS (Court Case)/2019/320 dated 12-04-2019, have entered into the service after 28-10-2002. Another batch of 192 persons, who were conferred with the same benefit vide order No. Rec(Adm-I)/Ajay Kumar(Court Case)/2024/112 dated 19-07-2024 consequent to the Judgment dated 17-02-2023 passed in WP(C) No. 198 of 2019, have also entered the service after 28-10-2002. Both the sets of the aforesaid persons were enrolled in the service of the Assam Rifles after the Recruitment Rules of 2002 came into force. In such a situation, the contention raised on behalf of the respondents that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit as the post of Warrant Officer is not sanctioned by the rule is totally untenable and stands rejected. The ground of delay and laches as well as acquiescence raised on behalf of the respondents is also not tenable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) as discussed above. The respondents by no stretch of imagination can discriminate the appellants by treating them as employees belonging to a different class by making unreasonable classification and deny them the Signature Not Verified KHRAWDAPBOR BUHPHANG PDT Page 35 of 35 benefit which they are entitled to by virtue of the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 passed in WP(C) No.277 (SH) of 2010 and subsequent approval of implementation issued vide Memo No. MHA U.O. 27013/2/2016.PF.IV dated 21-06-2016 of the Ministry of Home Affairs. I also endorse the reasons given by my learned brother on the issue of delay. For what has been discussed above, the appellants have made out a case for interference with the impugned Judgement dated 05-12-2022 passed in WP(C) No.244 of 2019 and the same is hereby set aside. Resultantly, the appellants are entitled to the relief claimed by them in the writ petition. The respondents are directed to issue necessary order granting the benefit of rank and pay of Warrant Officer to the appellants w.e.f. their respective date of appointment in terms of the benefits already extended to the clerical cadre by implementation of the Judgment and Order dated 23-08-2012 passed in WP(C) No. 277 (SH) 2010. The entire exercise should be completed by the respondents within a period of four months from today. The writ appeal stands allowed. No costs. (B. Bhattacharjee) Judge