2024 Supreme(Online)(GAU) 9854
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
BISHAN SINGH PINGAL and 13 ORS – Appellant
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA and 6 ORS – Respondent
WP(C) / 2738 / 2014
The court affirmed that it cannot mandate rule amendments for promotions and that the petitioners' claims for retrospective benefits were not justified due to existing provisions.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition for implementation of 5th CPC recommendations - Petitioners, Junior Engineers in Border Roads Organizations, sought parity in promotional avenues and pay structures as per 5th CPC recommendations, alleging discriminatory treatment compared to other organizations - The court noted that rules had been amended to provide for promotions and benefits from 01.01.2006, dismissing the petitioners' claims for retrospective benefits and rule amendments as beyond its jurisdiction. (Paras 1, 4, 10, 12)
(B) Discrimination - The court highlighted that the omission of rule amendments for BRO personnel was not discriminatory as the necessary changes had been made, and the petitioners were not entitled to seek a mandamus for such amendments. (Paras 10, 12)
(C) Cadre Review - The court acknowledged that the cadre review had been completed, thus negating the petitioners' grievance regarding promotional avenues. (Paras 11, 12)
(D) Liberty to Represent - The court granted the petitioners liberty to file individual representations for monetary benefits similar to those awarded in a previous case, to be considered within three months. (Paras 13, 14)
2. The facts projected are that the petitioners are Junior Engineers in the Border Roads Organizations (BRO). Initially, there were 3 different posts namely, Page No.# 5/10 Overseer, Superintendent Gr-II and Superintendent Gr-III meant for diploma holders. However, by the 5th CPC recommendation of the year 1996, the aforesaid three posts were merged into one cadre of Junior Engineer. The Commission further recommended for Cadre Review so as to brighten the chance of promotion of Junior Engineers to the next higher post of Assistant Engineer. It is the case of the petitioners that while for other similarly placed organizations, the Rules were amended, no such amendments were brought in for the Rules governing the BRO Personnel.
3. I have heard Shri I. H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners whereas the respondents are represented by Shri B. Chakravarty, the learned CGC.
4. Shri Saikia, the le