The High Court
Case Details
THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG. WP(C)[SH] No. 216 of 2013 1. M/370700 Hav/NA Paritosh Bardhan, S/o Late Hiran Bardhan, 27 Assam Rifles, C/o Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong, Meghalaya, PIN 793011. 2. M/371428 Rfn/NA Lalmuanpuia Ralte, S/o Late Darchungnunga, 34 Assam Rifles, C/o Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong, Meghalaya, PIN 793011. 3. M/371286 HAV/NA Maneesh Kumar, S/o Amarnath, 18 Assam Rifles, C/o Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong, Meghalaya, PIN 793011. 4. M/371374 Rfn/Na Surinder Kumar, S/o Vidhya Sager, 18 Assam Rifles, C/o Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong, Meghalaya, PIN 793011. 5. M/371370 Rfn/NA Madanlal, S/o Roshanlal, 18 Assam Rifles, C/o Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shillong, Meghalaya, PIN 793011. (Petitioners have common cause and are therefore approaching this Hon’ble Court by a joint petition). -VERSUS- 1. The 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 Assam Rifles, Shillong, Meghalaya, PIN – 793 011. 1 …..Petitioners 3. The Deputy Inspector General, Medical Branch, HQ DGAR, Assam Rifles, Shillong – 79 3011, Meghalaya. …..Respondents
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. NANDAKUMAR SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) BEFORE For the petitioner For the respondents Date of hearing Date of Judgment and Order : : : : : : R.Mazumdar, Adv. H. Bezbarua, Adv A.Kumar, Adv R. Deb Nath, CGC 05-09-2013 05-09-2013 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also Mr. R. Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondents. 2. The only case of the petitioners is that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the earlier decision of the erstwhile Guwahati High Court (Division Bench) dated 25-5-2012 passed in writ appeal No. [SH] 1 of 2011 filed against
Decision
the Judgment and Order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. [SH] 279/2009 filed by the 51 nursing assistants of the Assam Rifles. 3. Mr. R. Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the respondents i.e. the appellants in writ appeal No. [SH] 1/2011 contended that the Court needs the interpretation or clarification of the meaning of the “Nursing Assistant” working in the Assam Rifles, inasmuch as the appellants received a letter from the MHA (Police Finance) regarding the meaning of “Nursing Assistants”. 4. It is a well settled principle of interpretation that the judgment and decision of the Court is to be understood in the light of the fact of the case. The writ appeal No. [SH] 1/2011 is admittedly in relation with the nursing assistants 2 serving in the Assam Rifles. It is nobody’s dispute that the present writ petitioners are also nursing assistants serving in the Assam Rifles. The Court is not interpreting the judgment and order, the Court only interprets the statutes and the words of the judgment cannot be interpreted like that of the statutes. The Court only read the judgment and understood the meaning of the judgment in the light of the words mentioned in the judgment itself. The Apex Court in U.P. State Electricity Board Versus Pooran Chandra Pandey and Others: (2007) 11 SCC 92 held that: “12. As observed by this Court in State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Kekhar Misra (AIR 1968 SC 647) (vide AIR pp. 651-52, para 13): “13…..A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. On this topic this is what Earl of Halsbury, L.C. said in Quinn v. Leathem (1901 AC 495 : (1900- 03) All ER Rep 1 (HL) (All ER p.7 G-I). „Before discussing Allen V. Flood (1898 AC 1 : (1895-99) All ER Rep 52 (HL) and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make; and one is to repeat what I have very often said before – that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but are governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all.‟ ” In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat “13. (1987) 1 SCC 213 (vide SCC p. 221, para 18) this Court observed: “18….The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it.” 3 In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) “14. Ltd [(2003) 2 SCC 111] (vide SCC p. 130, para 59) this Court observed : “59….It is also well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision.”