The denial of benefits to the petitioners was discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India, and the terms and conditions of service applicable at the time of notification of the posts cannot be altered to the prejudice of the incumbents after the selection process is completed.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Banerjee, J. - Pursuant to advertisement, the 11 petitioners before us applied for filling up vacancies to the post of Group 'C' Non-Ministerial, Non-Gazetted and Combatized Para Medical Staff: Assistant Sub-Inspector (Pharmacist) in Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'CRPF'), issued in the Employment News from 29.11.2003 to 05.12.2003. Though the recruitment process of all petitioners was concluded by 26.02.2004, they were appointed as ASI(Pharmacists) later from 19.07.2004 to 17.09.2004.

2. Before the petitioners joining as ASI/ Pharmacist there was a disparity of rank structure and pay scale associated with it within the para-military force/CPOs. Thus, upon recommendation of the Vth Central Pay Commission in its Government Resolution dated 30.09.1997, the respondent no.1 issued an order dated 10.10.1997 wherein the President of India was pleased to rationalise the rank structure of pay scales of non-gazetted cadre of Central Police Organizations (hereinafter referred to as 'CPOs').

3. Despite thereto, as the respondents failed to bring parity of rank structure or pay scales between the CPOs, few combatized Pharmacists of CRPF filed SWP No. 186/1998 entitled as Naresh Kumar & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. before the Learned Single Judge, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir for grant of the said relief with their counterparts in the Indo Tibetan Border Police (hereinafter referred to as 'ITBP'). The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 19.04.2001 and the Pharmacists therein were uniformly extended the same benefit as those with ITBP. The said judgment of the Learned Single Judge was then upheld vide judgment dated 12.08.2015 by the Hon?ble Division Bench, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in LPASW No. 228/2002 entitled as Union of India & Ors. vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.. The said judgment of the Hon?ble Division Bench was also upheld vide judgment dated 16.01.2018 by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India in SLP(C) 15552-15553/2016 entitled Union of India & Ors. vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.. All of the said three judgments passed by the Learned Single Judge, Division Bench and the Hon?ble Supreme Court are (hereinafter collectively referred as 'judgments').

4. In view of above, the respondents were to implement the outcome of the aforesaid judgment(s). As such respondent no.3 issued order dated 19.04.2018, but made it applicable to only such ASIs/Pharmacists who were enlisted as combatized pharmacists of CRPF with effect from 17.10.1989 to 28.03.2004 and not to petitioners herein, since according to respondents they were all appointed by the CRPF only after 29.03.2004. Meaning thereby, despite their recruitment process being complete during the above period, in February ?04, much before the cut-off date of 29.03.2004, the petitioners were denied extension of the said benefit.

5. This prompted the petitioners to send a legal notice dated 25.06.2018 followed by an exchange of letters inter-se the petitioners and the respondent no. 3. Thereafter petitioners by way of the present writ petition have primarily sought issuance of a writ of Certiorari quashing replies dated 11.07.2018 and 29.08.2018 issued by respondent No. 3 in response to the legal notice dated 25.06.2018 sent by petitioners and issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of orders dated 19.04.2018 issued by respondent No. 3 to the petitioners, thereby granting pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 (Revised Rs.  5500-9000) and the rank of SI/Pharmacist on the pattern and analogy which is being given to the similarly situated Pharmacists in ITBP.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the judgment(s) are now final and binding and thus the petitioners cannot be denied extension of the benefit thereof. He also contends that the order dated 19.04.2018 issued by the respondents is contrary thereto and prays for extension of the benefit of the said order. He further contends that as there is