1. The petitioners in these connected writ petitions were working with the Assam Rifles and have retired from the said service. They have approached this Court through the aforementioned writ petitions seeking a declaration that they are entitled to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the “ACP Scheme”) with effect from the dates on which they were remustered as Havildar/Cipher.

2. The short facts as culled out from W.P(C) No.8633 of 2020 are as under:

The petitioner states that he got enrolled in the Assam Rifles on 15.10.1984 and re-mustered as Havildar/Cipher with effect from 06.02.1988. He was voluntarily discharged from the Assam Rifles on 01.07.2005. The Government of India, it is stated, had introduced the ACP Scheme granting financial upgradation at an interval of 12/24 years in a grade. The petitioner contends that he was entitled for the financial upgradation under the afore scheme on completion of 12/24 years with effect from the date of re-musteration, since the remusteration cannot be considered to be a promotion so as to disentitle him from the benefits of the ACP Scheme. The petitioner also relies on Ext.P1 order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench wherein the same issue was considered holding that re-musteration as Cipher, can only be treated as an entry into the service and hence the incumbents would be entitled to the benefit of financial upgradation on completion of 12 years service from the date of entry as Havildar/Cipher. The order at Ext.P1 was challenged before this Court and by Ext.P2 judgment, the challenge was repelled, upholding the findings in Ext.P1. Hence, the petitioner contends that he is also entitled for the benefit of the 1st financial upgradation on completion of 12 years from the date of re-musteration as Havildar/Cipher.

3. In the meantime, the ACP Scheme was replaced by a modified scheme-MACP Scheme with effect from 01.09.2008, extending financial upgradations at the intervals of 10/20/30 years. Here also the respondents took up the stand that the appointment as Havildar/Cipher is to be treated as the 1st financial upgradation and therefore, the benefits are to be extended only accordingly.

4. The afore-stand was challenged before the High Court of Meghalaya at Shillong, and by Ext.P3 judgment, the court refused to accept the case projected by the respondents- Assam Rifles. The judgment at Ext.P3 is confirmed by the Division Bench of the Meghalaya High Court through Ext.P4 judgment and upheld by the Apex Court also as seen from Ext.P6 order dated 04.09.2015, refusing to grant leave to appeal. To the same effect is the subsequent judgment of the Meghalaya High Court at Ext.P7. Later, by Ext.P9 to Ext.P11, it is stated that the benefits as above were extended to the petitioner under the afore schemes offering extending financial upgradations. The petitioner, in such circumstances, contends that he approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.7535 of 2019, and by Ext.P13 judgment, this Court directed the respondents to extend the benefits of ACP/MACP Schemes as has been granted to the serving employee within a time frame. But the petitioner contends that Ext.P15 was later served upon him by the 4th respondent herein dated 28.01.2020, whereby instead of granting the benefits of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme, the petitioner was granted “promotion” to the rank of Warrant Officer/Cipher with effect from 10.10.1997, with reference to certain findings contained in the judgment of Meghalaya High Court.

5. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has filed the captioned writ petition seeking the reliefs noticed above.

6. I have heard Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Dayasindhu Sreehari. N.S, the learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents herein.

7. On consideration of the rival submission made as well as the connected records, I am of the opinion that the petitioners herein are entitled to succeed for more than one reason.

8. Firstly, this Court in Ext.P12 has specifically directed as under:

“4. I have considered the contentions advanced on either side. It is evident that the stand taken by the respondents that the re-musteration amounts to a promotion which would disentitle the petitioners from claiming financial upgradation has been found against by the judgments of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench and the Division Bench of this Court as also other High Courts. This position has been affirmed by the dismissal of the SLP filed against such judgments. In the above circumstances, the position that the petitioners would be entitled to financial upgradation on completing the required number of years of service after remusteration in accordance with the ACP/MACP cannot be disputed anymore.

5. In the above view of the matter, the petitioners who are retired employees, would also be entitled to the benefit of the judgments. Since the benefits have already been extended to serving employees, I find no reason why the retired employees also shall not be granted the same benefits in case they are otherwise eligible for the same. These writ petitions are therefore allowed. It is declared that the petitioners would also be entitled to the benefit of financial upgradation in terms of the ACP/MACP, taking note of the date of re-musteration as date of entry and financial benefits shall also be calculated and disbursed accordingly.”

I find that the directions contained in Ext.P12 were positive in nature. There was no requirement for the 4th respondent to take the stand since the petitioner is being extended certain other benefits; the benefits under the Scheme are not to be extended. It is the settled principles of law that once the court issues positive directions, which are clear, parties before it, have no other go than to follow the directions issued as above. If they require any clarifications, it is for them to approach the court and seek appropriate clarifications; and they are not expected to take the law into their own hands and act accordingly. (See the judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah [(2007) 7 SCC 689].

9. Secondly, on the merits of the matter also, I notice that the stand of the respondents in Ext.P15 is that the petitioner has been granted promotion to the rank of “Warrant Officer/Cipher” and hence, the benefits under the Scheme are not to be extended. In this connection, I notice that the very same question has gained the attention of the Meghalaya High Court in WP(C) No.144 of 2016 and by judgment dated 13.04.2023, the learned Single Judge of the Meghalaya High Court found that what has taken place is only a redesignation of the post as “Warrant Officer” pursuant to the 5th pay commission and the same cannot be considered to be a case of “promotion”. The afore judgment has also been acted upon by the Assam Rifles, by withdrawing/canceling certain proceedings taken against the persons similar to the petitioner herein. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the benefits as prayed for in the present writ petitions.

10. Resultantly, these writ petitions would stand disposed of as under:

11. It is declared that the petitioners are entitled to get the full financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme with effect from the date from which they have been re-mustered as Havildar/Cipher and that granting of rank and pay structure of Warrant Officer pursuant to the recommendation of the 5th pay commission cannot be considered to be a case of “promotion” so as to deny the financial upgradation under the afore Scheme.