{"id":16682,"date":"2004-05-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-05-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004"},"modified":"2016-10-30T03:59:09","modified_gmt":"2016-10-29T22:29:09","slug":"state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004","title":{"rendered":"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service … on 6 May, 2004"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service … on 6 May, 2004<\/div>\n
Author: A Kumar<\/div>\n
Bench: Brijesh Kumar, Arun Kumar.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  793 of 1998\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Mizoram & Another\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMizoram Engineering Service Association & Anr.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/05\/2004\n\nBENCH:\nBrijesh Kumar & Arun Kumar.\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
ARUN KUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th
\nFebruary, 1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High
\nCourt.  By the Impugned judgment the Division Bench dismissed
\nthe appeal against the judgment dated 17th May, 1996 passed by
\nthe learned Single Judge.  The learned Single Judge had allowed
\na writ petition filed by respondent herein challenging a notification
\nNo.G.12011\/3\/87 F.Est dated 3rd February, 1989 whereby certain
\ncategories of engineers in the State Engineering Service had been
\nexcluded for purposes of revision of pay scales accepted by the
\nState vide Notification No.G.12011\/3\/87F.Est dated 19th January,
\n1989. The Mizoram Engineering Service Association (respondent)
\nhas been demanding  higher pay scales for its members.  The
\nbackground  is that prior to 1971 what is now known as the State
\nof Mizoram was a district called the Lushai Hills District within the
\nState of Assam.  From 1971 to 1986 Mizoram was a Union
\nTerritory under the North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971.
\nIt attained full state-hood on 20th February, 1987.  In 1974 when
\nthe State was a Union Territory, the Government of India
\nconstituted a Departmental Pay Committee to suggest scales of
\npay and allowances for employees of Mizoram on the pattern of
\nCentral Government employees vide Ministry of Home Affairs letter
\nNo.1.3.1973.MP dated 4th November, 1974.  On the
\nrecommendation of the said Departmental Pay Committee, the
\nGovernment of India revised the  scales of pay and allowances for
\nthe employees of the State of Mizoram w.e.f. 1.1.1973.  On a
\ndemand made by Superintending and Executive Engineers of the
\nrespondent Association for equalizing their respective scales of
\npay with their counterparts in the Central Public Works
\nDepartment, the Government of India vide letter dated 16.10.1983
\nintimated to the Secretary to the Mizoram Administration, Public
\nWorks Department conveying the sanction of President of India for
\nrevision of pay scales of the Engineers (Group ‘A’ posts) in tune
\nwith the pay scales enjoyed by the engineers in the CPWD.
\nThe Government of India accepted the Fourth Central Pay
\nCommission Report regarding revision of pay scales for Group A,
\nB, C, D & E posts in the Central Civil Services w.e.f. 1.1.1986.  The
\nrecommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission accepted
\nby the Government of India became applicable for the civil services
\nin  Mizoram also.  The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,
\n1986 came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and they were made
\napplicable to the employees forming part of the civil services in
\nMizoram.  Certain representations were made on behalf of
\nemployees for removal of anomalies resulting from the Fourth
\nCentral Pay Commission Report.  In 1987 an Anomalies
\nCommittee was appointed to look into the alleged anomalies and
\nmake suitable recommendations.  The recommendations of the
\nAnomalies Committee created further anomalies rather than
\nresolving them.  On 7th November, 1988 another Anomalies
\nCommittee was appointed.  The report of the Anomalies
\nCommittee was accepted by the Government of the State of
\nMizoram.  A  notification   No. G 12011\/3\/87F.Est. dated 19th
\nJanuary, 1989 accepting the recommendations was issued.  Soon
\nthereafter the State Government issued another notification dated
\n3rd February, 1989 (the impugned notification) to the effect that the
\nscales of pay for Group ‘A’ officers as mentioned  in paras 28 of
\nSchedule A and Schedule B did not include pay scales for MCS
\nofficers\/MPS officers whose pay scales were governed by their
\nrespective service rules.  The notification further excluded
\nengineering officers of the rank of Executive Engineer and
\nSuperintending Engineer from the benefits of the notification dated
\n19th January, 1989.  This notification was challenged by the
\nrespondent Association by filing a Writ Petition in the Gauhati High
\nCourt.  In the Writ Petition the first prayer was with regard to
\nquashing the notification dated 3rd February, 1989 which excluded
\nthe Executive Engineers and the Superintending Engineers from
\ngetting the benefit of revised pay scales under the notification of
\nthe State Government dated 19th January, 1989.  The second
\nprayer was with respect to the Chief Engineers and Additional
\nChief Engineers seeking directions that they should get the
\nconversion scale of pay of Rs.5900-6700 and Rs.4500-5700
\nrespectively instead of the revised scales of pay prescribed for
\nthem by the State Government.  The scale of Rs.5900-6700 for the
\nChief Engineer and Rs.4500-5700 for Additional Chief Engineer
\ndemanded by the respondent Association was as per the
\nrecommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission and was the
\nsame as was being allowed to incumbents holding equivalent
\nposts in the Central Public Works Department.  The learned Single
\njudge allowed the Writ Petition granting both the prayers of the Writ
\nPetitioner.  The appeal against the judgment of the learned Single
\nJudge was dismissed by the Division Bench.  The present appeal
\nis directed against the said judgment of the Division Bench.\n<\/p>\n
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
\nAt the outset we may note that the learned counsel for the
\nappellant has not seriously challenged the impugned judgment so
\nfar as it grants relief to the Executive Engineers and
\nSuperintending Engineers by quashing the Notification dated 3rd
\nFebruary, 1989.  The challenge in the appeal is mainly directed
\nagainst the scale of pay granted to the Chief Engineers and
\nAdditional Chief Engineers i.e. Rs.5900-6700 and Rs.4500-5700
\nrespectively.   In this connection following points have been raised:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThe base year for purposes of revision of pay scales of
\nChief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer should be
\ntaken as 1973 and not 1983 even though the revision was
\nbeing taken into consideration w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as per the
\nFourth Central Pay Commission Report which had been
\naccepted by the State Government.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tIn respect of Chief Engineer, the recommendation of the
\nPay Anomalies Committee which was accepted vide
\nNotification dated 19th January, 1989 was to the effect that
\nonly the existing incumbent would get the scale of
\nRs.5900-6700 and future entrants would be entitled to pay
\nscales of Rs.4500-5700 only.   This scale is the scale for
\nall heads of departments in the State of Mizoram while the
\nscale of Rs.5900-6700 was for next higher post.
\nIt was not disputed that the then incumbent of the post
\nof Chief Engineer namely, Mr. Robula was given the scale
\nof Rs.5900-6700.  It was submitted that the said scale was
\nspecially allowed to him since he was holding the post on
\n1.1.1986 i.e. the date from which Fourth Central Pay
\nCommission recommendations were made applicable.
\nSubsequent entrants to the service were not to be given
\nthat scale. (Per letter dated 13th January,1989 from
\nSecretary, PWD to Director Accounts & Treasury,
\nMizoram).\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIt was vehemently argued that scale of Rs.5900-6700 was
\nbeing allowed by the Government of India for senior level
\nposts in the corresponding cadres.  Engineering Service in
\nthe State of Mizoram was not an organized service.
\nThere were no Recruitment Rules for the service.
\nTherefore, there were no senior level posts which would
\nentitle the incumbents to get the grade of Rs.5900-6700.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the question as to which base year should be taken
\ninto consideration for purposes of revision of pay i.e. 1973 or 1983,
\nwe may recall that Mizoram became a Union Territory in the year
\n1973.  The Government  of India had accepted the fact that the
\npersons employed in Engineering Services within the State of
\nMizoram should get pay scale at par with those working in the
\nCentral Public Works Department.  This decision was also
\nimplemented.  The scales of pay for Engineers working in the
\nMizoram State were revised w.e.f. 1973.  The next crucial event in
\nthis connection is the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay
\nCommission which were accepted by the State of Mizoram as well.
\nThese recommendations take 1983 as the base year for the
\npurpose of revision of pay scales.  Apart from this the Central Civil
\nServices (Revised Pay) Amendment Rules, 1987 also take the
\nyear 1983 as the base year.  These rules came into force on 1st
\nJanuary, 1986.  At that time Mizoram was a Union Territory.  The
\nGovernment of India accepted the Rules.  They were made
\napplicable in Mizoram as well. The schedule annexed to the Rules
\nrefers to present scales and revised scales of pay.  The present
\nscales mean the scales which were in force at that time.  For the
\nrelevant category of posts the existing scale given in the Schedule
\nis Rs.2250-125\/2-2750 and the revised pay scale is Rs.5900-200-
\n6700.  In this background there does not appear to be any good
\nreason for taking 1973 as the base year for the purposes of pay
\nrevision in Mizoram.  No reason is forthcoming. Mr. L. Nageshwara
\nRao, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
\nappellant relied on a Notification dated 1st February, 1989 to
\nsubmit that it was the decision of the State Government to treat the
\nyear 1973 as the base year for the purpose of pay revision and
\nthat has to be accepted.  We are unable to accept this submission
\nmade on behalf of the appellants in view of the fact that
\nrecommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission have
\nbeen duly accepted by the State Government.  Additional factor
\nwhich impels us to take this view  is that the State Government
\nitself accepted the scale of Rs.5900-6700 and allowed the same to
\nthe then incumbent Mr. Robula w.e.f. 1.1.1986.  The State linked
\nup revision of pay scale of Mr. Robula with the date of revision of
\npay scales as per recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay
\nCommission.  A different reasoning cannot be applied in case of
\nother officers in the service.  In this connection it is also worth
\nnoting that in para 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
\nState Government before the learned Single Judge in response to
\nthe Writ Petition   it  is admitted that the existing pay scale for the
\npost of Chief Engineer was Rs.2250-2500 prior to enforcement of
\nrecommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission.  This is
\nalso admitted that the conversion scale for the scale of Rs.2250-
\n2500 is Rs.5100-5700 and 5900-6700 as per the Fourth Pay
\nCommission Report. However, it is submitted that grade of
\nRs.5900-6700 was applicable only in respect of organized Medical,
\nEngineering and other Central Services as per specific
\nrecommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission.  In view
\nof this stand of the State Government it is difficult to accept that the
\nChief Engineers will not be allowed the grade of Rs.5900-6700.\n<\/p>\n
Coming to the argument that the scale of pay of Rs.5900-
\n6700 was confined to only  the then Chief Engineer Mr. Robula
\nand was not be allowed to future entrants in the service, we find no
\njustification for this.  The fact that the revised pay scale was being
\nallowed to Mr. Robula in tune with the recommendations of the
\nFourth Central Pay Commission, shows that the State Government
\nhad duly accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay
\nCommission. Having done so, it cannot be permitted to
\ndiscriminate between individuals and not allow the same to the
\nrest.  In this context the learned counsel for the appellant
\nsubmitted that it is not unusual that sometimes special pay is
\ngranted to an individual and the same does not become a
\nprecedent for others.  As a proposition it may not be disputed. But
\nthere has to be special reason for this. In the facts of the present
\ncase we do not find any justification for confining the higher scale
\nto a particular individual and deny the same to others.  There may
\nbe special reasons for instance special merit, expertise or the like,
\nfor giving special pay to a particular individual.  In the present case
\nno such reason is forthcoming.  On the other hand the reason
\ngiven is that since he was holding the post on 1.1.1986, the date
\nfrom which Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations
\nwere given effect to, he was being allowed the higher pay scale.
\nThis reason rather supports the case of respondent.  It shows an
\nadmission on the part of the appellant that the revised pay scales
\nfor the post of Chief Engineer as per the recommendations of the
\nFourth Central Pay Commission was Rs.5900-6700 and was
\nallowed to a Chief Engineer.  The State Government cannot be
\npermitted to discriminate between similarly placed individuals in
\nthis behalf between those holding the post at the time of revision of
\npay scales and future incumbents of the post.  The argument has
\nno merit.\n<\/p>\n
Great stress was laid on the fact that Engineering Service in
\nthe State was not an organized service and therefore, it did not
\nhave categorisation by way of entrance level and senior level posts
\nand for that reason the higher scale of Rs.5900-6700 which was
\nadmissible for senior level posts could not be given in the
\nEngineering Service.  The main reason for dubbing Engineering
\nService as an unorganized service in the State is absence of
\nrecruitment rules for the service.  Who is responsible for not
\nframing the recruitment rules?  Are the members of the
\nEngineering Service responsible for it?  The answer is clearly ‘No’.
\nFor failure of the State Government to frame  recruitment rules and
\nbring Engineering Service within the framework of organized
\nservice, the engineers cannot be made to suffer.  Apart from the
\nreason of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service,
\nwe see hardly any difference in organized and unorganized service
\nso far as Government service is concerned  In Government service
\nsuch a distinction does not appear to have any relevance.  Civil
\nService is not trade unionism.  We fail to appreciate what is sought
\nto be conveyed by use of the words ‘organised service’ and
\n‘unorganised service’.  Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf.
\nThe argument is wholly misconceived.\n<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that if the
\nscale of Rs.5900-6700 is to be allowed to the Chief Engineers, the
\nState Government will have to allow the same scale to other heads
\nof departments in the service of the State Government which will
\nbe a heavy burden on the financial resources of the State
\nGovernment and for that reason we should restrict the scale for
\npost of Chief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer to Rs.4500-
\n5700 and Rs.4100-5300 respectively.  In our view this is hardly any
\nground to interfere with the decision of the High Court.  It has been
\nfound that the claim of the respondents is fully justified by the facts
\non record.  The Central Government as well as the State
\nGovernment accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central
\nPay Commission and the scales being allowed to the members of
\nthe respondent Association are based on those recommendations.\n<\/p>\n
Thus we do not find any merit in the present appeal.  The
\nimpugned judgment does not call for interference. The appeal is
\ndismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service … on 6 May, 2004 Author: A Kumar Bench: Brijesh Kumar, Arun Kumar. CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 793 of 1998 PETITIONER: State of Mizoram & Another RESPONDENT: Mizoram Engineering Service Association & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/05\/2004 BENCH: Brijesh Kumar & Arun […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16682","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service ... on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service ... on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-10-29T22:29:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service … on 6 May, 2004\",\"datePublished\":\"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T22:29:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004\"},\"wordCount\":2478,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004\",\"name\":\"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service ... on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-10-29T22:29:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service … on 6 May, 2004\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service ... on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service ... on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-10-29T22:29:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service … on 6 May, 2004","datePublished":"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T22:29:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004"},"wordCount":2478,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004","name":"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service ... on 6 May, 2004 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2004-05-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-10-29T22:29:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-mizoram-another-vs-mizoram-engineering-service-on-6-may-2004#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Mizoram & Another vs Mizoram Engineering Service … on 6 May, 2004"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16682","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16682"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16682\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16682"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16682"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16682"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}