The Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition filed by ten junior engineers seeking the benefit of a 2010 notification that amalgamated certain posts into the rank of Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical). The Court held that the petitioners, holding two-year diplomas from the Military Engineering College, Pune, are similarly situated to earlier beneficiaries and directed the respondents to grant notional seniority and fitment benefits expeditiously, preferably within two months of receiving the order.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioners, ten junior engineers employed in the Border Roads Organisation, claimed that after their promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic on 15.01.2014 they were entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 13.05.2010 issued by the Border Roads Development Board, which amalgamated certain categories of posts and re-designated them as Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical). The respondents rejected this claim by an impugned order dated 18.02.2021, asserting that the petitioners were not similarly situated to earlier beneficiaries because they held a two-year diploma whereas the earlier beneficiaries held a three-year diploma.
Key Facts
- Notification dated 13.05.2010 amalgamated certain categories of services and re-designated the posts against Sl. Nos. 4 to 7 as Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical).
- Against Sl. No. 6 of the said notification, the post of Charge Mechanic (Diploma holder) was specified.
- All petitioners were promoted to the post of Charge Mechanic on 15.01.2014.
- In an earlier writ petition WP(C)/3008/2014, two similarly situated persons (holding three-year diplomas) were directed by the Gauhati High Court on 19.03.2015 to be given the benefit of the notification dated 13.05.2010; that judgment was upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
- The respondents passed the impugned order dated 18.02.2021 rejecting the petitioners’ claim on the ground that they were not similarly situated.
- The petitioners filed the present writ petition WP(C)/2216/2021 after the impugned order.
- The respondents filed an affidavit-in-opposition on 27.07.2022, which did not raise the diploma-equivalence defence.
- The judgment was pronounced on 29.09.2026.
Procedural History
- 13.05.2010: Notification issued by BRDB amalgamating posts and creating the rank of Junior Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical).
- 15.01.2014: Petitioners promoted to Charge Mechanic.
- 19.03.2015: Gauhati High Court disposed of WP(C)/3008/2014, directing benefit of the 2010 notification to two petitioners.
- 18.02.2021: Impugned order passed by respondents rejecting petitioners’ claim.
- 27.07.2022: Respondents’ affidavit-in-opposition filed.
- 29.09.2026: Date of pronouncement of the present judgment.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought a direction to the respondents to grant them the benefit of the notification dated 13.05.2010, including notional seniority and fitment in the appropriate scale, consequential benefits arising from such re-designation, and costs of the petition.
The Legal Issue
Whether the petitioners, who hold a two-year diploma from the Military Engineering College, Pune, are similarly situated to earlier beneficiaries who held a three-year diploma and thus entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 13.05.2010, notwithstanding the impugned order’s finding of dissimilarity.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioners relied on the notification dated 13.05.2010, asserting that their promotion to Charge Mechanic on 15.01.2014 entitled them to the same benefit as granted in WP(C)/3008/2014. They contended that the two-year diploma from the Military Engineering College, Pune is equivalent to a three-year diploma from any polytechnic, a fact not disputed by the respondents. They cited the earlier judgment and its affirmation by the Supreme Court as binding precedent, arguing that the impugned order’s reliance on diploma difference was unsustainable because no such defence was raised in the affidavit-in-opposition.
For the Respondent
The respondents raised a preliminary objection to territorial jurisdiction, asserting that most petitioners were outside the Gauhati High Court’s jurisdiction. On merits, they argued that the petitioners were not similarly situated because they possessed only a two-year diploma, whereas the earlier beneficiaries held three-year diplomas, and therefore the benefit of the notification could not be extended to them. They relied on the reasons recorded in the impugned order dated 18.02.2021.
The Court's Analysis
The Court first addressed the territorial jurisdiction objection, relying on Kusum Ignots & Alloys Limited v. Union of India (2004) 6 SCC 254, and held that where the cause of action is identical, joining additional petitioners does not prejudice the respondents and a writ petition is maintainable.
On the merits, the Court noted that it is not in dispute that the notification dated 13.05.2010 amalgamated the relevant posts and that all petitioners were promoted as Charge Mechanic on 15.01.2014. The earlier judgment in WP(C)/3008/2014, dated 19.03.2015, had directed two similarly situated persons (three-year diploma holders) to receive the benefit of that notification, and that judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Court found no material difference in the nature of the diploma: the two-year diploma from the Military Engineering College, Pune is equivalent to a three-year polytechnic diploma, a fact the respondents did not contest in their affidavit-in-opposition. The impugned order’s sole reason - that the petitioners were not similarly situated - was therefore unsustainable, especially as no defence on diploma equivalence was raised. Consequently, the Court followed the binding precedent of WP(C)/3008/2014 and held that the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 13.05.2010.
The Court clarified that such benefit is to be given notionally only, for seniority and fitment in the appropriate scale, and directed the respondents to implement the direction expeditiously, preferably within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order.
The Verdict
The writ petition was allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the benefit of the notification dated 13.05.2010 notionally for seniority and fitment in the appropriate scale, to be done expeditiously and preferably within two months of receiving a certified copy of the order. No costs were awarded.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Diploma Equivalence and Seniority Benefits
Petitioners holding diplomas deemed equivalent to the prescribed qualification are entitled to the same promotional benefits as earlier beneficiaries. Authorities must examine the substance of the diploma, not merely its duration, when determining similarity.
Binding Effect of Earlier Judgments
Where a Division Bench or Single Judge has decided a question of entitlement to a notification-based benefit, and that decision has been upheld by a higher court, subsequent courts are bound to follow it unless material facts distinguish the case.
Timely Implementation of Judicial Directions
Courts may prescribe a reasonable timeframe for compliance with directional orders. In this judgment, the Court preferred implementation within two months, emphasizing that delays defeat the purpose of the relief granted.
