1. These five Contempt Cases (Civil) arise from Annexure-I common judgment dated 05.06.2015 of a learned Single Judge of this Court by which six Writ Petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Petitioners are the Petitioners in five out of the said six Writ Petitions.

2. Since the pleadings and documents are on record in Contempt Case (Civil) No.2459/2019, the said case is treated as the leading case, referring to the pleadings and documents of the said case in this judgment.

3. Petitioners are the retired personnel from Assam Rifles, which is a Central Paramilitary Force. Petitioners entered into service as Operator Radio and Lines (ORL) in the rank of Rifleman (Rfn) and they were promoted to the rank of Havildar. They worked during the period between 1984 and 2013 and were discharged from service on voluntary retirement. In the Writ Petitions they sought for the Pay Scale of their counterparts in other Paramilitary Forces on the basis of the Annexure R1(f) Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 22.09.2011 in W.A.No.50(SH) of 2010 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. [(2008) 1 SCC 586]. Annexure R1(f) Division Bench judgment of the Gauhati High Court was Ext.P1 in the Writ Petition.

4. By Annexure-I judgment, the learned Single Judge disposed of all the Writ Petitions holding that the Petitioners are entitled to get benefit of Ext.P1 judgment therein (Annexure R1(f) herein) and hence they are to be redesignated with replacement scale of pay in the scale of Rs.3,200 – 85 – 4,900; that they are entitled to get their retirement benefits refixed on the basis of the pay fixed on such upgradation along with arrears of pensionary benefits. The learned Single Judge directed the Respondent No.2 therein/the Director General of Assam Rifles to consider the Representations of each of the Petitioners already submitted, in the light of the above declarations and grant all benefits on the basis of the upgradation/restructuring and replacement of the scale of pay of the post from which they retired, by a refixation of their pay and pensionary benefits. It was further directed that the arrears of pensionary benefits on the basis of such re-fixation of pay and pension, along with all other monetary benefits, shall be paid within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. As per the Order dated 02.06.2016 in I.A. No.6135/2016, the words and figures “in the scale of Rs.3,200 – 85 – 4,900” in the concluding paragraph of the common judgment were deleted. Though the Respondents therein filed Writ Appeals before the Division Bench of this Court, the same were dismissed as per Annexure-II judgment dated 19.07.2019. In the said judgment, it is recorded that the Appellants therein, i.e., the Respondents in the Writ Petitions, have absolutely no objection in extending the benefit of Ext.P1 judgment to the Writ Petitioners. It is also observed that the parties are at variance as to whether the benefits under Ext.P1 judgment have already been extended to the Respondents or not, and it is a matter to be agitated in the proceedings for contempt if any initiated and not in the Writ Appeals. It is further observed that the deletion in the concluding part of the judgment impugned does not alter its basic fabric. Though the Appellants in the Annexure-II judgment filed R.P. No.937/2019 to review the Annexure-II judgment, the same was dismissed as per the Annexure-III order holding that there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

5. The Director General of Assam Rifles, who was the Respondent No.2 in the Writ Petition, is personally impleaded as the Respondent in this case. On retirement, the successors in office were personally impleaded as Additional Respondents.

6. The learned Single Judge of this Court passed an Order dated 11.09.2023 in Contempt Case(C) No.2459/2019 directing the DSGI to place before this Court the Calculation Sheet to enable this Court to conclude as to whether the amounts due to the Petitioners in terms of the Ext.P1 judgment have been paid to the Petitioners. The said Order was passed, taking note of the contention of the Respondent that the benefit of the Ext.P1 judgment has been extended to all the Petitioners. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge of this Court passed Order 05.12.2023 in Contempt Case(C) No.2459/2019 directing the Respondent to forthwith comply with the direction issued by the Division Bench and to extend the benefits of the Annexure R1(f) judgment herein, as has been done in Annexures V and VI within a period of eight weeks, and if orders are not issued as ordered, the Respondent shall appear in person and show cause why action shall not be taken for flouting the direction of this Court. In the said Order, the learned Single Judge has found that in terms of Ext.P1 judgment of the Gauhati High Court, the Respondents were bound to redesignate the rank of Havildar/RM as Warrant Officer and were bound to disburse the pay scale as admissible to their counterparts in the CRPF and the BSF which was in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4,000 – 100 – 6,000 as has been done as per the orders produced as Annexure-V and Annexure-VI and that the Respondent has not complied with the direction issued by this Court. Annexure-V is an Order dated 09.01.2009 passed by the Respondent by which the Havildar/Radio Mechanic mentioned therein were redesignated and upgraded to Warrant Officer/Radio Mechanic in the pre-revised scale of Rs.4,000 – 100 – 6000 in deference to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 11.02.2005. Annexure-VI is an Order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Respondent by which certain Havildar/Cipher mentioned therein were upgraded to the rank of Warrant Officer (Cipher) in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4,000 – 100 – 6,000 in compliance with the judgment of the High Court of Meghalaya in W.P.(C) No.403/2014. The Respondent filed I.A. No.2/2024 to vacate the Order dated 05.12.2023 and the same was rejected by the same learned Single Judge as per the Order dated 15.07.2024, reiterating the same findings in the Order dated 05.12.2023.

7. The Respondents filed Contempt Appeal(C) No.1/2025 challenging the Orders dated 05.12.2023 and 15.07.2024 before the Division Bench and the Division Bench dismissed the Contempt Appeal as per judgment dated 03.03.2025 holding that the same is not maintainable but without prejudice to the right of the Appellants to challenge those orders of the learned Single Judge in an intra-court Appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, in case those orders fall under the category of appealable orders, i.e., orders in which any issue is decided or a direction is issued on merits of the matter, independent of the contempt proceedings. Thereafter, the Respondents filed W.A. No.1467/2025 before the Division Bench challenging the Order dated 05.12.2023, and the same was dismissed by the Division Bench as per the judgment dated 27.06.2025, holding that the said Appeal is not maintainable against the Interim Order passed in the Contempt Case. Though the Respondents filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court challenging the said judgment of the Division Bench in W.A. No.1467/2025, the same was dismissed as per the Annexure-VIII Order dated 01.12.2025. In the said Order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if it is the case of the Petitioners that they have already complied with the directions, it is for them to demonstrate the same before the learned Judge and that in that context, an appeal could not have been filed before a Division Bench of that Court. Thus, all these Contempt Cases are listed before me for final hearing.

8. The Petitioners have produced Annexures I to IV along with the Contempt Case. The Respondents have filed Affidavit dated 10.01.2023 producing Annexure R1(a), Affidavit dated 24.11.2023 producing Annexure R1(b), I.A. No.2/2024 to vacate the Order dated 05.12.2023 producing Annexures R1(c) to R1(e), Statement dated 21.02.2024 producing Annexures R1(f) to R1(h) and Affidavit dated 06.01.2026 producing Annexures R1(i) & R1(j). The Petitioners filed Reply Affidavit dated 05.02.2023 producing Annexures V & VI and Reply Affidavit dated 26.11.2023 producing Annexure-VII and I.A. No.1/2025 to receive Annexure-VIII producing the same.

9. I heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Santhosh Mathew, instructed by Adv. Sri. P.P. Biju for the Petitioners and the learned Additional Solicitor General, Sri.A.R.L.Sundaresan, instructed by Central Government Counsel, Sri.Suvin R.Menon for the Respondents.

10. The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners contended that in view of the Orders dated 05.12.2023 and 15.07.2024 passed in these contempt proceedings, this Court has already found that the Respondents have not complied with the directions in the Annexure-I judgment. All the attempts of the Respondents to set aside Annexure-I judgment and the aforesaid Orders dated 05.12.2023 & 15.07.2024 were failed. In such case, this Court has to initiate contempt of court proceedings to punish the Respondents in accordance with law. The learned Senior Counsel invited my attention to the Affidavit dated 06.01.2026 filed by the Respondents which is not sworn by the Respondents in the Contempt Case. The said Affidavit could not be looked into, as the same is not filed by the Respondents in the Contempt Case. In Annexure-II judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal, the Respondents have specifically submitted that they have absolutely no objection in extending the benefit of Ext.P1 judgment of the Gauhati High Court. In the Orders dated 05.12.2023 & 15.07.2024, this Court has specifically found that the Respondent has passed Annexures V & VI Orders extending the benefit of the said Ext.P1 judgment to the persons mentioned therein, and hence the Respondents have no reason to deny the same benefits to the Petitioners herein. The learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajan Chadha v. Sanjay Arora [2025 KHC OnLine 6377 (SC)], to substantiate the point that when the learned Single Judge of the High Court found the Respondent therein is guilty of intentionally and malafidely violating the orders and has committed contempt of the orders of the Court, it is not permissible for another learned Single Judge who is considering the matter later to revisit the issue as to whether the Respondent has in fact committed contempt or not. In light of the Orders dated 05.12.2023 & 15.07.2024 passed in this Contempt Case, it is to be concluded that the Respondent has committed contempt of court and what remains is to proceed against the Respondent for punishing him for the contempt committed by him. The learned Senior Counsel concluded his arguments, praying to pass an order imposing punishment for the contempt of court committed by the Respondent.

11. Per contra, the learned ASGI contended that at present this Court is finally hearing the case to pass final order in the Contempt Case. In such case, the earlier Orders dated 05.12.2023 & 15.07.2024 are not to be considered as the findings therein are interlocutory in nature. Learned ASGI tried to distinguish the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajan Chadha (supra) by contending that the Order therein considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court was final Order in the Contempt case, whereas the Orders passed in these Contempt Case are not final Orders disposing of the Contempt Case. This Court dismissed the Writ Appeal No.1467/2025 challenging the Order dated 05.12.2023 on the ground that the Writ Appeal is not maintainable against an interim order passed in the Contempt Case. When the judgment in W.A. No.1467/2025 was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as per Annexure-VIII Order, permitted the Respondents to demonstrate before this Court that they have already complied with the directions in Annexure-I judgment. Hence, this Court has to consider whether the Respondents have committed contempt of the directions in Annexure-I judgment dehors the Orders dated 05.12.2023 & 15.07.2024. It is clear from Annexure-I judgment that this Court directed the Respondents to consider the Representations of the Petitioners in the light of the declarations therein. The declarations therein are that the Petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Ext.P1 judgment of the Gauhati High Court therein (Annexure R1(f) herein) and hence they are to be redesignated with replacement scale of pay. The Respondent has passed Annexure R1(g) Order in compliance with Annexure R1(f) judgment, in which the Petitioner in Annexure R1(f) judgment is redesignated and upgraded to Havildar/ORL in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.3,200 – 85 – 4,900. In this case, the Respondent has passed Annexure R1(a) in compliance with Annexure-I judgment upgrading and redesignating the Petitioners to the rank of Havildar/ORL in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.3,200 – 85 – 4,900 with effect from 10.10.1997 or from the date of passing of Tech Trade Test ORL CI - III whichever is later. Annexures V & VI Orders relied on by the Petitioners are passed not on the basis of the directions in the Annexure R1(f) judgment. It is clear from those orders itself that the said orders are passed based on the directions in some other Writ Petitions. Hence, the Petitioners are not entitled to get the benefit of Annexures V & VI Orders. The learned ASGI invited my attention to Annexure R1(h) series of Representations submitted by the Petitioners in which their claim is only for upgradation from the post of RFN/ORL to Havildar/ORL. In Annexure-I judgment also, the learned Single Judge has recorded that the Representations of the Petitioners are for redesignating them as Havildars. Now the claim advanced by the Petitioners is for redesignating them as Warrant Officers in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4,000 – 100 – 6,000 on the basis of Annexures V & VI Orders which are not applicable to the case of the Petitioners and which were not prayed for either before the Respondents or before this Court. The learned ASGI cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Director of Education, Uttaranchal and Others v. Ved Prakash Joshi and Others [(2005) 6 SCC 98] to substantiate the point that the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction cannot take upon itself the power to decide the original proceedings in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. The learned ASGI cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Workmen through the Convenor FCI Labour Federation v. Ravuthar Dawood Naseem [(2021) 13 SCC 563] to substantiate the point that in order to constitute civil contempt, it must be established that the disobedience of the order is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom that if two interpretations are possible and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. The learned ASGI cited the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.02.2025 in W.A. No.284/2025 in which this Court held that, in various decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has disapproved passing new orders in contempt jurisdiction. The learned ASGI invited my attention to Annexure R1(j) judgment in a Contempt Case alleging violation of the judgment in W.P.(C) No.33599/2015 which was passed relying on Annexure-I judgment, in which this Court closed the Contempt Case finding that there is no deliberate contempt that has been committed by the Respondents. The learned ASGI concluded his arguments, praying dismissal of all Contempt Cases, holding that the Respondents have not committed contempt of any of the directions contained in the Annexure-I judgment.

12. I have considered the rival contentions and perused the records of the cases.

13. The learned Single Judge of this Court considered this Contempt Case and passed the Order dated 05.12.2023, specifically finding that the Respondents have not complied with the directions of this Court in the Annexure-I judgment. It is further held that in terms of the Annexure R1(f) judgment of the Gauhati High Court, the Respondents were bound to redesignate the rank of Havildar (RM) as Warrant Officer and were bound to disburse the pay scale as admissible to their counterparts in the CRPF and BSF which was in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4,000 – 100 – 6,000 as has been done as per Annexures V & VI Orders. The Respondent No.2 was directed to comply with the direction issued by the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in Annexure R1(f) as has been done in Annexures V & VI within eight weeks from the date of passing of the said Order and if orders are not issued, the Respondent No.2 shall appear in person and show cause why action shall not be taken for flouting the directions issued by this Court. Even though the Respondents filed I.A. No.2/2024 to vacate the Order dated 05.12.2023, the same was dismissed by this Court as per the Order dated 15.07.2024, reiterating the same findings. Even though the Order dated 05.12.2023 was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court and further before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Respondents did not succeed in the said challenge. As such, the Order dated 05.12.2023 has become final, and the findings therein have attained finality. The contention of the learned ASGI is that the said Order dated 05.12.2023 is only an interim order and that is why the Writ Appeal against the same was dismissed by the Division Bench and hence the findings therein are interlocutory in nature and should not influence this Court when this Court finally decides the Contempt Case. I am unable to accept the said contention. While passing the previous orders by the learned Single Judge of this Court, this Court has been proceeding with the Contempt of Court Case. When at one stage the learned Single Judge of this Court has found that the Respondents have flouted the directions of this Court, then another learned Single Judge who has been considering the matter later cannot reconsider the issue again to find out whether the Respondents have flouted the directions of this Court or not. The issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajan Chadha (supra) cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that it is not permissible for a subsequent learned Single Judge to revisit the issue as to whether the Respondent has committed contempt or not when the previous learned Single Judge has found that the Respondent has committed contempt of court. In that view of the matter, in normal case, I have to proceed with the Contempt Case after the stage of passing the Order dated 05.12.2023. But there is one distinguishing factor available in this case. While considering the challenge against the Order dated 05.12.2023 and dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the Respondents in Annexure-VIII Order dated 01.12.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically observed that if it is the case of the Petitioners therein that they have already complied with the directions, it is for them to demonstrate the same before the learned Single Judge. Annexure-VIII Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 01.12.2025 specifically refers to the Order of this Court dated 05.12.2023. It shows that while making the above observation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of the findings of the learned Single Judge in the Order dated 05.12.2023, and thereafter liberty was given to the Respondents to demonstrate before this Court that they have already complied with the directions in Annexure-I judgment. Hence, I find that in view of the said observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Annexure-VIII Order, the Respondents can demonstrate before this Court that the directions in the Annexure-I judgment have been complied with, dehors the Orders dated 05.12.2023 and 15.07.2024.

14. Now the question is whether the Respondents have succeeded in demonstrating before this Court that they have complied with the directions in the Annexure-I judgment.

15. An affidavit dated 06.01.2026 is filed by the Officiating Staff Officer (SO1 - Legal) of the Directorate General Assam Rifles. He is not a Respondent in these Contempt Cases. It is stated in the Affidavit that he is authorised to swear the affidavit on behalf of the Respondents. It is stated that the Respondent has utmost regard and respect for the honour of justice and judicial process and at no point of time, either intentionally or deliberately or by act or omission has violated or flouted the Order passed by this Court in Contempt Case (C) No.2459/2019 in W.P.(C) No.24735/2013 or the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24735/2013; that the Respondent holds that this Court and Orders passed by this Court in the highest esteem and regard; and that the Respondent respects and honour the majesty of the court and is duty bound to honour the orders passed by this Court. As per the title, it is stated that the said Affidavit is in pursuance of Annexure-VIII Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said Affidavit is sworn as if the Deponent is the Respondent in this Contempt Case. The Contempt of Court action is a personal action against the Respondent therein. The allegation in the Contempt of Court Case is to be personally answered by the Respondent therein. The Respondent is impleaded in the Contempt Case in personal capacity and not in official capacity. Hence, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, the Affidavit dated 06.01.2026 filed by some other person on behalf of the Respondent could not be accepted. Hence, I ignore the said Affidavit dated 06.01.2026 and the documents produced along with the same for consideration of this Contempt Case.

16. The contention of the learned ASGI is that by passing Annexure R1(a) Order, the Respondents have complied with the directions in Annexure-I judgment. The directions in Annexure-I judgment are to consider the Representations of the Petitioners in the light of the declarations and grant them all benefits on the basis of the upgradation and restructuring and replacement of the scale of pay of the post from which they retired by re-fixation of their pay and pensionary benefits. The declarations contained in Annexure-I judgment is that the Petitioners are entitled to the benefit of the Annexure R1(f) judgment of the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court. In Annexure R1(f), the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court considered the Writ Appeal filed by the employee against the judgment of the learned Single Judge and allowed the same, directing to give appropriate rank and pay scale to the Petitioner therein as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission and Office Memorandum dated 22.01.1998. In the 5th Pay Commission, the pay scale of the last rank of Rfn in Assam Rifles started from Rs.3,050/-, whereas the Pay Scale of the last rank of Havildar in other Paramilitary Forces started from Rs.3,200/-. In order to remove the disparity, it was directed to give appropriate rank to the Petitioner therein, who was working as Rfn/ORL. In such case, the redesignation of the Petitioner therein, viz., Rfn/ORL, can only be as Havildar in the scale of pay starting from Rs.3,200/- and not Warrant Officer whose scale of pay starts from Rs.4,000/-.

17. In Annexure R1(f), the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside, taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dineshan K.K. (supra). In Dineshan K.K. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the claim of a Havildar/Radio Mechanic for redesignation as Warrant Officer. It arose from W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the Gauhati High Court, which was allowed, ordering the redesignation of Havildar/Radio Mechanic as Warrant Officer. In Dineshan K.K. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment in W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the Gauhati High Court. In Annexure R1(f), no direction was given to redesignate the Petitioner therein as Warrant Officer.

18. It is seen from Annexure R1(g) that the said Order is passed by the Respondent in deference to Annexure R1(f) judgment. In Annexure R1(g), the Petitioner in Annexure R1(f), namely, Savendra Singh Chauhan, has been redesignated/upgraded from the rank of Rfn/ORL to the rank of Havildar/ORL in the pre- revised scale of pay of Rs.3,200 – 85 – 4900. In Annexure R1(a) passed in compliance with Annexure-I judgment also, the Petitioners are upgraded and redesignated from the rank of Rfn/ORL to the rank of Havildar/ORL in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.3,200 – 85 – 4,900. In Annexure-V Order, the redesignation and upgradation is from the rank of Havildar/RM to the rank of Warrant Officer/RM in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4,000 – 100 – 6,000. In Annexure-VI Order, the redesignation was from the rank of Havildar/Ciph to the rank of Warrant Officer (Ciph) in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.4,000 – 100 – 6,000. Both Annexures V & VI Orders are passed not as per the directions in the Annexure R1(f) judgment of the Gauhati High Court, but, as per the judgment of the Gauhati High Court and Meghalaya High Court respectively in some other Writ Petitions. In both Annexures V & VI Orders, the redesignation and upgradation is not from the rank of Rfn/ORL, but from Havildar/RM and Havildar/Ciph. On the basis of the directions in Annexure R1(f), the Petitioners cannot claim that they should be redesignated as Warrant Officers. There is no such direction in Annexure R1(f).

19. Dineshan K.K. (supra) arose from W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the Gauhati High Court which was allowed ordering redesignation of Havildar/Radio Mechanic as Warrant Officer. In Dineshan K.K. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court confirmed the judgment in W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the Gauhati High Court. It is pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C) No.497/2001 of the Gauhati High Court, the Respondent No.1 issued Annexure-V ordering the redesignation of the rank of Dineshan K.K. and others from Havildar/Radio Mechanic to Warrant Officer/Radio Mechanic. The Petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the decision in Dineshan K.K. (supra) as they were not Havildar/Radio Mechanic. There is no direction in the Annexure-I judgment to extend the benefit of the decision in Dineshan K.K. (supra) to the Petitioners. The direction in the Annexure-I judgment is to extend the benefit of the Annexure R1(f) judgment. Hence, Annexures V & VI relating to Havildar/Radio Mechanics are not applicable to the case of the Petitioners. It is Annexure R1(g), which is passed pursuant to the direction in Annexure R1(f), that is applicable to the case of the Petitioners.

20. As rightly pointed out by the learned ASGI, in Annexure R1(h) series of Representations submitted by the Petitioners, their demand is for the grant of monetary benefits on Redesignation of the post of Rfn/ORL to that of HAV/ORL consequent to Annexure R1(f) judgment and the same has been granted as per Annexure R1(a) Order passed by the Respondent.

21. The Petitioners claim that the reason for deleting the pay scale Rs.3,200-85-4,900 from the directions in Annexure-I judgment is that the Petitioners are entitled to get the pay scale Rs.4,000- 100-6,000 on their redesignation. It is seen from Annexure R1(d) judgment in W.A. No.1672/2016 that it arose from the judgment dated 03.08.2015 in W.P.(C) No.22407/2015, which was disposed of following the directions in Annexure-I judgment. In the said case also, I.A. No.10028/2016 was filed for correcting the pay scale in the concluding part of the judgment and the pay scale of Rs.3,200-85-4,900 was substituted with the pay scale of Rs.4,000-100-6,000. But in the Annexure-I judgment, the pay scale of Rs.3,200-85-4,900 was deleted instead of substitution with the pay scale of Rs.4,000- 100-6,000. If the Petitioners are entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.4,000-100-6,000, there was no need to delete the substitution of the pay scale of Rs.4,000-100-6,000. That apart, in Annexure-II Judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal arising from Annexure-I judgment, it is made clear that the deletion appearing in the concluding part of Annexure-I judgment does not alter its basic fabric. In such case, the deletion of the pay scale of Rs.3,200-85-4,900 will not be beneficial either to the Petitioners or to the Respondents.

22. Hence, I hold that the Respondents have demonstrated that they have complied with the directions in the Annexure-I judgment by granting the benefits of the Annexure R1(f) judgment of the Gauhati High Court.

23. Accordingly, I dismiss these Contempt of Court cases.