Gauhati High Court

WP(C)/877/2025 of GO-3976P SRI VINAY SINGH Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS. on 14 October 2026

GAHC010026312025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Linked Case : WP(C)/877/2025 GO-3976P SRI VINAY SINGH S/O- SRI SATYAPAL SINGH PRESENTLY SERVING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) AT 762 BRTF PIN- 930762 C/O- 99 APO. VERSUS THE UNION OF

GAHC010026312025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Linked Case : WP(C)/877/2025

GO-3976P SRI VINAY SINGH

S/O- SRI SATYAPAL SINGH

PRESENTLY SERVING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (CIVIL) AT 762 BRTF

PIN- 930762

C/O- 99 APO.

VERSUS

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

REPRESENTED BY JOINT SECRETARY (BR-WING)

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (EARLIER DESIGNATED AS SECRETARY (BRDB))

ROOM NO. 418

B WING 4TH FLOOR

SENA BHAWAN

NEW DELHI -110011

2:SECRETARY (PERSONNEL)

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL

PG AND PENSIONS

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING

NORTH BLOCK

NEW DELHI- 110001.

3:DIRECTOR GENERAL

BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION

SEEMA SADAK BHAWAN

RING ROAD

DELHI CANTT.

NEW DELHI- 110010.

4:ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (EAST)

BORDER ROADS ORGANIZATION

CARE HQ 47 BRTF

Page 1 of 3

LANKESWAR

JALUKBARI

GUWAHATI

C/O- 99 APO

PIN- 900885.

5:THE CHIEF ENGINEER

HQ CE(P) VIJAYAK

PIN- 931721

C/O 56 APO.

6:UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

DHOLPUR HOUSE

SHAHJAHAN ROAD

NEW DELHI-110069.

------------

Advocate for : MRS. R BORAH

Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 5 ORS.

BEFORE

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

ORDER

15.10.2026 Heard Shri D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri S. K. Medhi, learned CGC.

2. At the outset the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue involved has been answered in a recent order dated 10.09.2026 passed in WP(C)/6012/2024 and that the present writ petition can also be disposed of with similar directions.

3. The subject matter involves a claim for pay protection. The judgment referred to has considered the rival contentions and has allowed the writ petition. This Court, after going through the said judgment, copy of which has

Page 2 of 3

been placed before this Court does not have any reason to differ with the same.

4. Considering the above, the instant writ petition is disposed of by observing that the benefits granted by the aforesaid judgment would also be given to the petitioner.

5. Accordingly, any and all orders passed by the respondents denying the benefit of pay protection to the petitioner herein are interfered with, set aside and quashed. The respondents would now pass appropriate consequential orders refixing the pay of the petitioner by granting him the pay of Rs. 17,550/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand Five Hundred Fifty) only with grade pay Rs.5,400/- (Rupees five thousand four hundred) per month and DA and Others allowances at the prevailing prescribed rates with effect from 03.05.2011, with the date of next increment to be due on 01.07.2012 and to further grant all consequential benefits thereafter, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

6. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant

Page 3 of 3

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead