HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Sanjib Banerjee, Wanlura Diengdoh, J.
Union of India & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Oramahesh Kumar D. & Ors. - Respondents
MC (WA) No. 15 of 2019, WA No. 10 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 16 of 2019, WA No. 11 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 17 of 2019, WA No. 12 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 18 of 2019, WA No. 13 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 19 of 2019, WA No. 14 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 20 of 2019, WA No. 15 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 21 of 2019, WA No. 16 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 22 of 2019, WA No. 17 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 23 of 2019, WA No. 18 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 31 of 2019, WA No. 20 of 2022, MC (WA) No. 32 of 2019, WA No. 19 of 2022, WA No. 1 of 2019, WA No. 2 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 7 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 8 of 2019, WA No. 13 of 2019, MC (WA) No. 33 of 2019, WA No. 7 of 2019 and MC (WA) No. 24 of 2019
Decided On : 20-04-2022
Delays - Assam Rifles - 1997 Notification, 1998 Notification - Principle of res judicata - Issue estoppel
Fact of the Case:
The appeals were filed against similar judgments and orders related to appropriate pay scales for certain categories of employees in Assam Rifles. The court considered the principle that a judicial decision in a matter of general nature should govern all similarly placed persons and that the principle of res judicata or issue estoppel applies when a particular employer has suffered an adverse judgment on an issue.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the issues had attained finality due to previous judgments and orders, and the appeals did not call for any interference as the decisions were in tune with expected decorum and judicial propriety.
Issues: The issues involved the appropriate pay scales for certain categories of employees in Assam Rifles and the application of the principle of res judicata and issue estoppel.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of res judicata and issue estoppel applied, and the court was bound by previous orders that had attained finality, preventing the issues from being agitated or adjudicated afresh.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and it was ordered that the entire benefits should be extended to the writ petitioners and all similarly placed personnel of Assam Rifles within six months, failing which interest would be applicable.
JUDGMENT
Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - In view of the good grounds shown, the delays - of varying days in the several matters - to prefer the appeals are condoned and all the appeals are taken on board and decided on merits by this common order.
2. The appeals are directed against similar, if not identical, judgments and orders dated August 14, 2018, August 30, 2018, September 14, 2018, and October 8, 2018 and it is a matter of some regret that in this Court the appeals are taken up after such a long delay. The reference herein is to the impugned judgment and order of October 8, 2018.
3. A batch of writ petitions, which involved similar issues pertaining to the appropriate pay scales for certain categories of employees in Assam Rifles, was taken up together. The writ court referred to the pleadings from the earliest of the several matters before it and, in particular, to the legal contention asserted that a judicial decision in a matter of general nature should govern all similarly placed persons and similarly placed persons cannot be treated differently only because one of them may have approached the Court and obtained an order and the others may not have.
4. Indeed, the principle is of salutary importance in service jurisprudence, which has developed as a kind of specialised branch of law in this country as a part of administrative law. When an individual complaint confined to a particular employee is brought to a Court or like judicial forum and such employee obtains an order in his favour, the effect thereof may be confined to that specific employee. However, when a particular employee from out of a large number of employees complains of, say, any illegality or irregularity in the pay-scale or of any like matter that pertains to the entire cadre, and a favourable order is obtained, the principle embodied in the judicial decision would apply to all similarly placed persons.
5. The matter can be seen from another perspective. Once a particular employer has suffered an adverse judgment on an issue and the order becomes final, the principle embodied therein would apply to all similarly placed employees by the operation of the principle of res judicata or issue estoppel as far as the employer is concerned. Thus, if a particular employee holding a particular post complains of a general irregularity that prejudices not only such petitioning employee but also others in the same cadre; and, a favourable judgment is obtained by such employee on the broad issue that afflicts others of his ilk, the decision becomes binding on the public employer for it to be given effect to in the cases of all other similarly placed persons.
6. It is this principle which is at the heart of the present appeals.
7. The Assam Rifles is the common employer. According to the appellants, till or about the end of the last century, the ranks and designations in Assam Rifles were manifold and may not have been in tune with the ranks and designations in other paramilitary or Central armed police forces. The appellants say that a notification was issued by the Union in 1997, primarily merging those in the rank of Lance Naik with Rifleman and those in the rank of Naik with Havildar. It may be noted that, in ascending order, the four lowest ranks in Assam Rifles at the relevant time were: Rifleman, Lance Naik, Naik and Havildar.
8. The appellants assert that in addition to the combat cadres in Assam Rifles, there were several employees in the technical services including Radio Mechanics, Draughtsmen, Carpenters and other persons engaged in specialised areas. Such technical services personnel were not required to engage in any combat duty and were responsible for manning the offices and doing the incidental activities to support the combatants in Assam Rifles.
9. According to the appellants, in 1998, a further notification issued by the Union Ministry of Home clarified that personnel belonging to three of the 18 technical services in Assam Riles then - Radio Mechanics, Draughtsme
The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle of equal pay for equal work, emphasizing that there should be no distinction in pay-scales for employees with similar duties and r....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner, after being re-mustered from a clerical position to a general cadre, is not entitled to the benefits granted to clerical staff i....
The denial of equal pay and benefits to similarly situated personnel violates constitutional principles of equality, reaffirming the established parity in ranks between different roles in similar pos....
The main legal point established is the requirement for detailed reasons and proper adjudication in line with the rule of law, emphasizing the importance of due process and the need for thorough cons....
Pay parity judgments for Inspectors/Superintendents are in rem, entitling all similarly situated officers to notional fixation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 despite non-litigation; selective implementation viola....
Similarly situated employees entitled to notional revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 per 5th CPC anomaly rectification; actual benefits from 21.04.2004; parity violations under Article 14 extend ju....
Similarly situated employees entitled to notional pay upgradation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 under 5th CPC, actual benefits from 21.04.2004, ensuring Art.14 parity.
The court ruled that a previous judgment granting a pay scale increase was specific to an individual and did not create a general entitlement for similarly situated employees, emphasizing the princip....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.