Balakrishnan PM vs HOME AFFAIRS on 31 December 2025

1. Balakrishnan PM, aged 72 years, S/o (late) K. Madhavan, Retired Stenographer Grade I and Personal Assistant to Additional Director General, O/o the Director General, Assam Rifles, Shillong, Residing at Melapazherickal House, Kulathur Prayar P.O., Kottayam District, Pin-686 541

2. M Balachandran Nair, S/o (late) Madhavan Pillai, Aged 73 years Retired Stenographer Grade I, Personal Assistant to Commandant, Assam Rifles, Training Centre & School, P.O. Dimapur, Nagaland, Residing at Sree Prasadam, Netaji Nagar, P.O. Valuthungal, Kollam District, Pin-691018

-Applicants

[By Advocates: Mr. M.R.Hariraj (Sr.), Ms.Alina Anna Kose, Ms.Akhila S., Ms.Karthika Ganesh, Mr.Vishnu Prasad N.K., Ms.Sandhra Maria Sebastian, Mr.Nayanlal A, Ms.Jayalakshmi G Nair, Mr.Sangeeth Krishna G.S., Mr.Sheron Williams, Mr.Arun Thampi M.K.] V e r s u s

1. Union of India, represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi – 110 001

2. The Director General, Assam Rifles, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, Shillong-793 010

-Respondents [By Advocate: Mr.M.K.Padmanabhan Nair, ACGSC] The application having been heard on 26.11.2025, the Tribunal on 31.12.2025 delivered the following order:

Deepa S

O R D E

R Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member This is the second time that the applicants approach this Tribunal for consideration. Earlier, when the matter had come up for admission, the O.A. was considered along with M.A/698/2024, an application for condoning delay. However, finding that the O.A. is barred by limitation, without admitting the same, the M.A was dismissed and the O.A was rejected. Challenging that order, the applicants moved the Hon'ble High Court with OP(CAT) 73 of 2025, which was allowed and the matter was remanded to this Tribunal holding that 'the O.A. stands restored to the file and for consideration of M.A/698/2024 restricting to the averments made in the paragraph 11'.

2. In para 11 of the M.A, it is submitted that the issue involved gives rise to recurring and continuing cause of action, so that the O.A. is not barred by limitation. The respondents did not file any written objection against said M.A. However, the M.A was rejected since it was noticed that the applicants had retired from service on 31.03.2011 and 31.08.2009 respectively, that the process of medical check-up and training test are part of combatisation process which were completed in November 2011 and the applicants had to undergo a medical examination, which was not done and thus the application was rejected holding that the O.A. is barred by limitation. That order has been

Deepa S

set at naught by the High Court in OP(CAT). Thus the matter was heard again.

3. At the final stage of hearing also, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the cause of action is not continuing. But having regard to the nature of the contentions raised by the applicants, it appears that the cause of action is continuing. If the prayer for combatisation was allowed, they would have been enrolled in the force in 1989/1990 onwards since Annexure A-3 was passed on 19.09.1989. At that time, three months time was granted for giving option. The applicants have a case that the options submitted by them were not considered and that they were not given the benefit of enrolling in the combatised force and thus they have suffered huge monetary loss. In the circumstances, the cause of action can be deemed continuing and therefore we were inclined to hear the merits of the case.

4. Both the applicants were Stenographers Grade-I in the Assam Riffles under the Ministry of Home, Government of India. They had commenced service as Lance Naik (Writer) under the 2nd respondent on 07.01.1972 and 11.05.1971 respectively. According to them, they had undergone basic soldiers training and became trained soldiers. The post of Lance Naik (Writer) fell under clerical cadre. Thereafter, they were promoted as Lance Naik (Clerk); on 15.10.1982 and 01.08.1983 respectively both were

Deepa S

converted as civilians and were posted as Stenographer Grade-III. While so, they were promoted as Stenographer Grade-II on 01.06.1988 and 09.12.1993 respectively, became Stenographer Grade-I on 09.12.1993 and 28.12.1993 respectively. Both of them have retired from service on superannuation on 31.03.2011 and 31.08.2009 respectively. They are natives of Kerala and now, after retirement, they are settled down in the respective places. They have moved this Tribunal seeking reliefs of declaration that they must be deemed to be combatised staff in terms of Annexure-A3 with effect from 19.09.1989 or from the date they were promoted as Grade-I Stenographers with all consequential benefits arising therefrom, to direct the respondents to deem the applicants to be combatised staff with effect from 19.09.1989 or from the date they were promoted as Grade-I Stenographers and to direct further to grant them the combatised ranks for all purposes including retirement benefits as if they had retired as combatised staff.

5. The background facts are these: On 19.09.1989 the President of India had accorded sanction for the combatisation by conversion of the civilian posts in Assam Riffles subject to certain conditions that the category of employees in the Annexure were to give their options within three months from the date of issue of the

Deepa S

communication. Those who do not opt for combatisation should continue in the civilian posts until superannuation under the existing conditions of service which should be deemed to continue as personal to them. It is also clear from Annexure-A3 communication that the policy of the Government was to effect complete combatisation of all the civilian posts. Thus existing staff had to give option and future recruitees would be in the combatised force only.

6. According to the applicants, they had no difficulty in giving the option to be combatised, particularly for the reason that they were already combatised staff; but for their conversion as civilian staff, they would have continued as combatised staff itself. At that point of time, there were three Stenographers including one Mohan N, who were converted as civilian staff during the year 1981-1983. They had always expressed their desire to be combatised as directed by the President in Annexure-A3. The grievance of the applicants is that even though they had given their option to become combatised staff, they were not so treated and continued to be considered as civilian staff till they superannuated from service on 31.03.2011 and 31.08.2009 respectively. Even though very many representations were given by them, that were not considered. However, they understood that, thereafter, the said Mohan, Stenographer Grade-I was converted and

Deepa S

promoted as Subedar Major in terms of Annexure-A3.

7. During the 5th CPC, the scale of a Stenographer Grade-I in the civil side was at Rs.5500-9000, whereas Subedar PA in the combatised rank, though equal in rank was granted scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500. According to the applicants, the respondents followed a single seniority list in respect of civilian Stenographers as well as those who were converted as combatised Subedar Major. Still the representations given by them were not considered and they were not converted to the combatised cadre and thus they are suffering huge loss, which is recurring in nature. That prompted them to approach this Tribunal seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

8. The respondents filed reply denying the contentions in the O.A. It is admitted that the applicants had joined Assam Rifles as Lance Naik Writer in 1972 and 1971 respectively, thereafter they were promoted as Naik Clerk and served as combatant clerk for about 11 years. Later they were discharged from the combatised service. Thereafter, both had applied to the post of Stenographer Grade-III and were appointed as Stenographer Grade-III on 15.10.1982 and 01.08.1993 respectively.

9. According to the respondents, following Annexure-A3, options were called from those who were working in civilian posts for combatisation,

Deepa S

but no civil employee had submitted option certificate for combatisation at that time. Therefore, combatisation process in respect of civil employees could not be completed. Thereafter, referring to Annexure-R1, it is submitted that, willingness of civil employees was again called and then those who gave option were subjected to medical examination and training and thus persons in Annexures-R3 and R4 were enrolled in the Assam Rifles as combatised cadre.

10. According to the respondents, process of combatisation of civil employees in the Force was carried out during 2009-2011. Willingness of civil employees was asked vide Annexure-R1, subsequently instructions were issued to 177 civil employees to undergo medical and training for combatisation. Finally, order of combatisation of eligible civil employees with effect from 01.12.2011 was issued by the communication dated 18.11.2011. Even though the applicants had submitted their willingness for combatisation, since they had proceeded on superannuation pension before the completion of mandatory process of medical and capsule training, they could not be combatised and therefore in the final list their names were not included.

11. Referring to Annexure-R5 it is submitted that the 2nd applicant has been granted 3rd financial upradation under the MACP scheme with effect

Deepa S

from 01.09.2008. The process of combatisation was completed only by the end of 2011, by the time, both the applicants had retired from service whereas the said Mohan, who was junior to them was got converted to combatised rank of Subedar Major/Stenographer Grade-I with effect from 01.12.2011 as he was still in service after the finalisation of combatisation. For these reaons they have prayed for dismissing the O.A.

12. The applicants filed a rejoinder. According to them, the 1st applicant had already filed his option to switch over for combatisation on 29.04.2009. Similar option was given by the 2nd applicant also. Referring to Annexure-A10 it is said that those who are in the combatised as well as the non-combatised Stenographers are included in the same seniority list.

13. The respondents filed an additional reply stating that, for combatisation a procedure had to be adopted and the extract of the Assam Rifles Rules 2010 has also been produced and said that since the applicants had not undergone training or medical examination they could not be combatised and therefore they are not entitled for the benefits sought for.

14. We heard Sri.M.R.Hariraj, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms.Alina Anna Kose and Sri.M.K.Padmanabhan Nair, Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.

Deepa S

15. According to Sri.Hariraj, the applicants had started as Field Soldiers, before conversion as civilians for appointment as Stenographer Grade-III they were in the combatised field, by the time options for going back were acted upon, both of them had retired. Since they were soldiers earlier, they are entitled to get the benefit under Annexure-A3. Relying on the decisions reported in Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others [(2007) 9 SCC 274] and Union of India and others v. Tarsem Singh [(2008) 8 SCC 648], the senior counsel pointed out that even if there is a contention that the applicants had moved belatedly, reliefs can be truncated by limiting the arrears for three years prior to the institution of the O.A.

16. According to Sri.Padmanabhan Nair, Rule 15 of the Assam Rifle Rules had to be followed, since that has not been done, applicants are not entitled to get any relief.

17. There is no dispute on the official profile of the applicants. Both of them had started career as Lance Naik (Writer) under the 2nd respondent in 1971 and 1972 respectively. Later, they were promoted as Naik Clerks which was also a soldier post. They continued as such for about 11 years, and on 15.10.1982 and 01.08.1983 respectively, both of them were discharged from the combatant service, were converted as civilian staff and were appointed as

Deepa S

Stenographer Grade-III; later they were promoted as Stenographer Grade-II and then as Grade-I and retired as such on 31.03.2011 and 31.08.2009 respectively.

18. During the period when they were working as Stenographer Grade-II, Annexure-A3 order was issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs for combatisation of the ministerial and other civilian posts in the Assam Rifles. This communication was issued on 19.09.1989, under which three months time was given to the civilian staff like the Stenographers for exercising their option. The applicants submit that they had given option for the same. But it is clear that, at that stage, such a combatisation process did not move ahead. Thus, again, under Annexure-R1, on 14.01.2009, opportunity was again given for opting combatised cadre of all civilian posts, under which it is clear that the applicants had given their option to switch over to the combatised cadre. But that process also took time and ultimately the proceedings were completed by the end of 2011 and the final list was made effective only from 01.12.2011, by the time both the applicants had retired from service and there was no occasion to give effect to their option to move over to the combatised cadre.

19. It is apparent that the attraction in moving over to the

Deepa S

combatised cadre was that it carried higher scale in the post of Stenographer. As shown by the applicants, after the recommendations of the 5th CPC, Stenographer Grade-I in the civilian cadre carried the scale of Rs.5500-9000 whereas the counter part in the combatised cadre, that is Stenographer Subedar Major was drawing at the scale of Rs.6500-10500. This was the main attraction. The grade pay also was higher in the case of a person working in the combatant sector. So, the applicants had reasons to opt and move over to the cadre. Moreover, it is submitted that they had no other difficulties since they had already undergone training as they were enrolled as basic soldiers, had undergone training for more than a year after enrolled as Lance Naik Writers.

20. The 1st applicant has produced the option given by him in 2005. It is submitted that similar option was given by the 2nd applicant as well. There cannot be any denial of these facts. But it remains a fact that both the options were not acted upon. After Annexure-A3 the combatisation process did not move ahead so that the respondents had to give further time, that was how Annexure-R1 communication was issued asking the persons in the given cadres to give fresh options and thus the process gained momentum again in 2009-2011. The documents produced by the respondents indicate that the

Deepa S

process of combatisation had completed only by the end of 2011 and the final list was published by the end and orders were issued effective from 01.12.2011. But before the process had completed, both the applicants had retired from service. That means, even assuming that the 2nd applicant also had given his option, that was not acted upon.

21. Secondly, there are reasons to think that combatisation is not an automatic process. By the mere exercise of option, such a process does not become complete. There were formalities. Those who opted had to undergo medical examination and training. It is clear that both the applicants did not undergo such a medical examination or training, pursuant to Annexures- A3/R1.

22. Annexure-R3 indicates that civil staff of Assam Rifles, who have given their willingness and whose medical examination was already conducted, had to undergo a training capsule of 30 days in the respective units irrespective of the medical category of the individual by November 2011 upto 1st December of 2011. On termination of training on 01.12.2011, they would be combatised. They also required to undergo attestation by December 2011. There was an oath taking ceremony also. In this connection, Rule 15 of the Assam Rifles Rules, 2010 reads thus:

Deepa S

“15. Procedure for enrolment, mode of enrolment and other matters connected therewith. (1) Before a person is enrolled as a member of the Force, the Commandant of a unit or any other officer who may be appointed as an enrolling officer by the Director-General, shall read and explain to him, or cause to be read and explained to him in his presence, the conditions of service of the post to which he is to be enrolled and shall put him the questions contained in the form of enrolment as set out in Appendix-I and shall, after having cautioned him that if he makes a false answer to any such question he shall be liable to punishment under the Act, record or cause to be recorded his answer to each such question.

(2) If, after complying with the provisions of sub-rule (1) and such other directions as may be issued in his behalf by the Director- General from time to time, the enrolling officer is satisfied that the person desirous of being enrolled, fully understands the questions put to him and consents to the conditions of service, and if the said officer is satisfied that there is no impediment, he shall sign and shall also cause such person to sign the enrolment form and such person shall thereupon be deemed to be enrolled.

(a) Every person enrolled as a member of the Force under sub-rule (2) shall be administered an oath or affirmation in the form set out in Appendix I.

(b) The oath or affirmation shall as far as possible be administered by an officer not below the rank of Commandant or an officer authorised in writing by such officer in this behalf

(c) The oath or affirmation shall be administered when the person to be attested has successfully completed his

Deepa S

training and found fit in all respect. “

23. Applicants had no occasion to undergo such an enrolment procedure after undergoing medical examination or training as stipulated in Rule 15. By the time, unfortunately, they had retired from service on superannuation. It was argued that they were enrolled as trained soldiers in 1971 and 1972. But it was not heard to say that such a training would sub- serve the present purpose for the purpose of completion of the process of combatisation.

24. In other words, both Annexures-A3 and R1 have postulated the civilian employees to express their willingness to be combatised. They could give their offer to be enrolled as combatised cadres. It involved a process of acceptance by the employer. Before such acceptance and their formal entry into the combatised cadres, certain formalities including medical examination, undergoing capsule training etc. had to be completed. In the case of the applicants, their offers were not accepted nor did they follow the procedure formalities.

25. Moreover, it is the settled principle of law that when the Rules say that the conversion should take place in a particular manner, as quoted supra, it should be done in that manner only. It is the well settled salutary proposition that if a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular

Deepa S

manner, then it has to be done in that manner and in no other manner (see the decision in Chandra Kishore Jha v. Mahavir Prasad and others [AIR 1999 SC 3558] etc. The applicants might have been trained soldiers at one particular cadre or point of time, decades before, thereafter they were discharged from the combatant sector and then became civilian staff. Long after, before combatisation they should have undergone medical examination and training and other procedural formalities, which were not done. Therefore, since those procedural formalities were not undergone, they cannot be justified in claiming the benefits or higher pay of the combatised staff in terms of Annexure-A3. The Original Application is bereft of merits and is dismissed. No costs. (Dated, this the 31st day of December, 2025) V.RAMA MATHEW

JUSTICE K.HARIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

JUDICIAL MEMBER ds

Deepa S

List of Annexures

Annexure-A1: True copy of the letter No. A/I-A/10-82/77 dated 30.9.1982, communicated by Memo dated 06.10.1982 issued by the Director General of Assam Rifles Annexure A2: A true copy of the letter No.A/1-A/10-83/247 dated 31st July 1983 issued by the Director General of Assam Rifles Annexure A3: A true copy the letter No. 27011/44/88-PF dated 19.9.1989, issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs Annexure A4: A true copy of the service certificate of the applicant Balakrishnan P.M. Annexure A5: A true copy of the service certificate of the applicant M.Balachandran Nair Annexure A6: A true copy of the representation, filed by the first Applicant Annexure A7 Series: True copies of the representations dated 15.10.2013, 26.08.2009, 07.04.2010, and 20th July 2021 Annexure R1 true copy of Order dated 14.1.2009 Annexure R2 - True copy of letter A/pers/11-7/C dated 09.11.2011 Annexure R3 - true copy of list dated 18.11.2011 Annexure R4 true copy of Combatisation of Civil Staff dated 14.10.2013 Annexure R5 - True copy of order dated 26.03.2022 Annexure-A8: A true copy of the letter bearing No.Addl DGAR's Sectt/P & Trf dated 16.12.2005, issued by the Officiating Staff Officer. Annexure-A9: A true copy of the letter bearing No.ADG Sectt/Misc/09/357 dated 29.04.2009, along with its enclosures.

Deepa S

Annexure-A10: A true copy of the gradation list in respect of PS to DGAR, Sub (PA) etc. bearing No.Rec(Adm-IV)/Gdn List/2001/442 dated 28th March, 2001. Annexure-A11: A true copy of the order bearing No.A/1-1/10-82/76 dated 04.10.1982, issued by the Deputy Director General, Assam Rifles. Annexure R6 - True copy of Rule 15 (3) (C) of AR Rules 2010 ************* 2026.01.02 13:36:42+05'30' Deepa S