JUDGMENT

Altamas Kabir, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. In exercise of powers conferred by Article 240(1) of the Constitution of India, the President of India promulgated the “Andaman & Nicobar Islands Home Guard Regulation, 1964” (hereinafter referred to as “the 1964 Regulation”). In terms of Regulation 16 of the said Regulation, the then Chief Commissioner (now Lieutenant Governor), A&N Islands, framed the “Andaman & Nicobar Home Guard Rules, 1965” (hereinafter referred to as “the 1965 Rules”) for providing a voluntary organization named as “A&N Islands Home Guard Organization” for use in emergency and for other purposes in the Union Territory of the Andaman & Nicobar Islands.

3. The respondents herein were appointed on different dates as members of the said Home Guard Organization under Regulation 4 of the said Regulation for periods of three years and since then they were continuously made to perform duties of a regular nature. They were also deployed to work under the operational control and supervision of the A&N Police and the overall control of theA&N Administration, without any break. From the tabulated statement forming part of the writ petition filed by the respondents, it appears that the respondents have been working for periods ranging from 12 years to 23 years. Inasmuch as, the respondents claimed to be performing works of a permanent nature, but were treated differently from the regular employees of the same organization, they claimed equal pay for equal work with the regular Home Guards or for regularization of their services.

4. Aggrieved by the differential treatment meted out to them in comparison to their counterparts in the regular administration, the respondents filed two Original Applications, being OA No.122/A&N/1999 (Parul Debnath & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and O.A. No.28/AN/2002 (S. Selva Raj & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.), before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, for directions to be issued to the respondents herein to prepare an appropriate/ reasonable scheme for regularization of the services of the Home Guards, who had been working for several years and to give them equal pay for equal work in relation to their counterparts in the regular organization and in particular to those Home Guards who were performing duties which were similar to the duties of the regular employees of the A&N Administration.

5. The Tribunal disposed of the said Original Applications by passing a common order dated 16th September, 2002, inter alia, with a direction to the respondents, and in particular the Union of India, the Respondent No.1 before the Tribunal, to consider the framing of an appropriate Scheme, in consultation with the A&N Islands Administration, for absorption/ regularization/ appointment of persons like the respondents herein who had been working as Home Guards for a number of years. While framing the Scheme, the Respondent No.1 was directed to keep in view the observations made in paragraph 7 of the order to suit local conditions, keeping in mind the particular facts and circumstances of the case. It was provided that the said action should be taken by the appellants herein within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

6. The said order dated 16th September, 2002, of the Central Administrative Tribunal, was challenged by way of two writ petitions, being WPCT No.73 of 2003 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. Parul Debnath & Ors.) and WPCT No.158 of 2003 (Union of India & Ors. Vs. S. Selva Raj & Ors.), before the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. The said two writ petitions were disposed of by a common judgment and order dated 16.12.2003. While disposing of the writ petitions, the High Court, apart from considering the nature of the work performed by the respondents, also took into consideration the decision of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Pantha Chatterjee & Ors.1 [2003 (6) SCC 469], wher