WA 387/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE PK MUSAHARY In challenge is the judgment and order, dated 4.1.2005, passed by a learned Sing le Judge of this Court, in WP(C) No.196/2002, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the termination of his service as Sub -Inspector of Police (UB) under the Prevention of Infiltration of Foreigners Sch eme (for short hereinafter referred to as the Scheme was dismissed. We have heard Mr. SK Talukdar, learned counsel for the writ appellant and Mr. BJ Talukdar, learned State Counsel for the Respondents. The admitted facts are that following a selection as contemplated by the aforeme ntioned Scheme, the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (UB) on contract basis. While he continued as such, in terms of a Circular dated 17.3.19 95 issued by the Inspector General of Police (Border), Assam, outlining the proc edure for appointment and continuance of such incumbents, his service was termin ated with effect from 4.10.2001 by an Order No.1762 dated 27.12.2001 of the Supe rintendent of Police (B) Assam. Being aggrieved, he instituted WP(C) 196/2002. Previous thereto, two other perso ns, equally placed with the petitioner, having suffered the same consequence, on the basis of the aforementioned Circular, dated 17.3.1995, which contemplates a nnual termination of services, had approached this Court with an identical griev ance. By the judgment and order, dated 29.2.1996, in CR Nos. 2065/1995 & 1698/19 95, a learned Single Judge of this Court, allowed the same. On appeal, by the de partmental authorities, a Division Bench of this Court, reverses the said determ ination of the learned Single Judge. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioners there in, took the challenge before the Apex Court, which, in Civil Appeal No.7922/200 2, vide its judgment and order, dated 22.4.2009, held as follows:- (i) The Circular dated 17.3.1995 is quashed. The appellants shall not be sub jected to annual terminations and re-appointments (subject to observations in pa ra 8 above). (ii) The benefit of this order will be available to other similarly situated ad hoc border staff, even if they have not approached the court for relief. In v iew of the above, the interlocutory applications for impleading are disposed of as having become infructuous. (iii) This order will not however come in the way of ad hoc employees working as Border staff, being subjected to any periodical medical examination or servic e review. In the result, the aforementioned Circular dated 17.3.1995 was quashed and the a ppellants therein were held to be not subjected to the annual terminations and r e-appointments as contemplated therein. Their Lordships also in the attendant fa cts and circumstances extended the benefit of the decision to the other similarl y situated ad hoc border staff though they had not approached the Apex Court. Mr. Talukdar has urged that in view of the decision of the Apex Court, as above, the termination of the services of the writ appellant has been rendered non-est and therefore, he is entitled to all consequential benefits in terms of the sai d determination. Mr. Talukdar, learned State Counsel has fairly submitted that as the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Civil Appeal No.7922/2002 in clear terms has extende d the benefits thereof to similarly situated persons, the petitioner in law is e ntitled to consequential benefits thereof. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the m aterials on record, we are inclined to sustain the plea taken on behalf of the a ppellant. On a perusal of the judgment and order of the Apex Court, as above, we are of the view that the writ appellant ought not be declined the relief extend ed to the writ appellants therein. As a result, this appeal stands allowed. The impugned order of termination of the writ appellant’s service is interfered with . He would consequentially be entitled to all resultant service benefits under t he Scheme as well as in terms of the judgment and order of the Apex Court as ref erred to hereinabove. This direction, we have issued, having been apprised that the Scheme, as above, as on date, is in subsistence and operation. No costs.