NARAYANA PAI, C. J. ( 1 ) THESE 19 Writ Petitions raise the same questions and are therefore dealt with together. As both sides agreed that a detailed consideration of the facts of Writ Petition 2595 of 1967 would be sufficient to dispose of all the Writ Petitions, we proceed to consider the said petition. ( 2 ) BY an Executive order made by the State Government on 25th january 1957 revising the pay scales of various categories of Government servants, the pay scale of Rs. 250-25-450-30-600 was fixed for Assistant surgeons to be called Grade I and pay scale of Rs. 150-10-300 was fixed for assistant Surgeons to be called Grade II. a note was appended indicating that the ratio between the Assistant Surgeons Grade I and the Assistant surgeons Grade II will be fixed separately. ( 3 ) BY a notification published in the Mysore Gazette dated 5th december 1957, applications were invited for recruitment of sixty Assistant surgeons, Grade II. The petitioners were among the persons who applied pursuant to the said notification and were selected. They were appointed by an order as Assistant Surgeons, Grade II, on 30th July 1958. Both the advertisement as well as the order of appointment set out the scale to be Rs. 150-10-300 and also that the selected persons will have to work as probationers for a period of one year on a lumpsum pay of Rs. 125 per month. ( 4 ) THE Cadre and Recruitment rules in respect of the Mysore Medical department were promulgated on 1st December 1960, in which the strength of I Grade Assistant Surgeons was fixed at 437 and that of II grade Assistants Surgeons at 49. ( 5 ) THE pay scales were later revised in 1961. The revised pay scale of Assistant Surgeons Grade I, was Rs. 300-25-550-30-700 and that of the assistant Surgeons, Grade II, was Rs. 250-15-310-20-450. ( 6 ) THE petitioners and others similarly situated were agitating for higher pay scales making out a case that they should be paid as much as the Assistant Surgeons, Grade I, would get. This demand was ultimately conceded by the Government who, by an order dated 12th April 1966, raised the pay scale of II Grade Assistant Surgeons also to Rs. 300-25-500- 30-700 with effect from 1st April 1966. This demand was ultimately conceded by the Government who, by an order dated 12th April 1966, raised the pay scale of II Grade Assistant Surgeons also to Rs. 300-25-500- 30-700 with effect from 1st April 1966. ( 7 ) ACCORDING to the Cadre and Recruitment Rules promulgated in december 1960, the qualifications for direct recruitment to the cadre of assistant Surgeons, Grade II, were :- 1) Age not exceeding 33 years and 2) The Medical Degree M. B. B. S. The qualifications for direct recruitment to the c'adre of Assistant Surgeons, grade I, were: 1) Age not exceeding 38 years, and 2) M. B. B. S. or equivalent qualification and a post-graduate or research Degree of one year's duration or more in any subjects recognised by the All India Medical Council and the Mysore Medical council, for example, M. D. M. S. , F. R. C. S. , F. C. P. S. T. D. D. The said cadre also included Lecturers of Medical colleges. The said cadre was to be filled to the extent of 331/3 per cent by direct recruitment and 66-2/3 per cent by promotion from the cadre of Assistant Surgeons, Grade ii, Tutors and Demonstrators. ( 8 ) THUS, under the rules, the post of Assistant Surgeon, Grade I, was a promotional cadre in respect of Assistant Surgeons, Grade II. In 1962, by amendment made to the rules, an additional qualification for promotion was prescribed in the shape of five years' work in rural areas. These distinctions continued until Grade II was abolished in the year 1967. ( 9 ) THE prayer of the petitioners is that the benefit of the higher pay scale extended to them with effect from 1st April 1966 should be further extended to the period between their date of appointment and 1st April 1966. ( 10 ) THE principal reason stated in support of the prayer and strongly pressed in the course of the arguments is that although the rules made a distinction between the Assistant Surgeons, Grade I, and the Assistant surgeons, Grade II, there was in fact no difference whatever between the two, because both were Medical Graduates and both were doing the work of same nature. That such was the case and has always been the case is, according to the argument, placed beyond doubt by the f'. That such was the case and has always been the case is, according to the argument, placed beyond doubt by the f'. ct that the State government actually equated the pay scales in 1966. It is therefore contended that the said opinion of the State Government underlying the order equating the pay scales for the two grades makes it legally impossible to limit the benefit of the equated pay scales to a period subsequent to 1st april 1966, but that the law obliges the Government to give effect to the equation from the very inception. ( 11 ) RELIANCE is placed on a Bench decision of this Court in the case of gupta v. State of Mysore, (1967) 1 Mys. L. J. 208. ( 12 ) IN that case, the petitioner, who was an Apiarist allotted from the former State of Mysore to the new State of Mysore with a pay scale of rs. 150-15-300 and whose post was in the course of integration equated with class II posts of Bombay, Madras, Hyderabad and Coorg, complained that he had not been given the benefit of the revised higher pay scale of Rs. 225-500, given to other posts of the same class. On recommendation made in this behalf by the Head of the Department expressing the view that the nature of duties and responsibilities attaching to his post were in no sense lower than those attaching to the post of the District Agricultural Officers and other Class II posts, the State Government gave him the benefit of the higher pay scale from 1st January 1961, although the other posts have had the benefit from 1st January 1957. This Court accepted his contention and granted the prayer that the benefit should be extended to the antecedent period of 1st January 1967 to 1st January 1961. ( 13 ) THE State Government, on the other hand, relies upon the two rulings of the Supreme Court, viz. , Kishori v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 and state of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, AIR. 1963 SC. 913. ( 13 ) THE State Government, on the other hand, relies upon the two rulings of the Supreme Court, viz. , Kishori v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 and state of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, AIR. 1963 SC. 913. ( 14 ) IN Kishori's case (2), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a reclassification of Income-Tax Officers into Class I and Class II, making class I Officers eligible for direct promotion as Assistant Commissioners but prescribing that Class II Officers must get promoted to Class I posts before they could get promoted as Assistant Commissioners. The Court pointed out that there was nothing unconstitutional or wrong in having two or more classes of persons doing the same category of work. The supreme Court also rejected the contention that the difference in pay as between class I and class II Officers was unconstitutional and pointed out that the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Art. 14 of the Constitution. The said ruling was accepted and acted upon by the Supreme Court in the subsequent case of Joginder Singh. ( 15 ) THE answer of Mr. Ramajois, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that both these cases have been considered and distinguished by this court in the case of Gupta cited above. He reads the following paragraph from the Judgment of this Court in Gupta's case:"before concluding we must observe that Mr. Rangaswamy, the learned Government Pleader, depended upon two decisions of the supreme Court and one of this Court. The decision in Kishori v. Union of India can be of no assistance to Mr. Government Pleader since in that case the posts belonged to different classes. In State of punjab v. Joginder Singh the disparity in the two pay scales was antecedent to the integration of the two categories oi posts, and so, that decision is distinguishable. " ( 16 ) ACTUALLY in the said case, the Court proceeded upon the footing that the petitioner's post of Apiarist was of the same class as other posts even before there was an upward revision of pay scale. " ( 16 ) ACTUALLY in the said case, the Court proceeded upon the footing that the petitioner's post of Apiarist was of the same class as other posts even before there was an upward revision of pay scale. The principle derivable from the decision therefore is that it was a case of an upward revision of pay scale, the benefit of which was extended to some only of persons in the same class while denying it to others who were already in the same class which is not lawful. That such is the principle is, quite clear from the passage from the judgment cited above, which states the Court's reasons for holding that the two rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kishori and Joginder Singh were not applicable to the facts of that case and were distinguishable for the reasons stated therein. ( 17 ) NOW, in the present case, there can be no doubt whatever that from the time the two pay scales attaching to two grades of Assistant Surgeons were first prescribed under the pay revision order of the Government dated 25th January 1957 until the Recruitment Rules of 1960 were amended in the year 1967, the two grades remained distinct and different, and the first of them was expressly treated as a Grade promotional with respect to the II Grade. ( 18 ) THE preamble to the order of the State Government dated 12th april 1966 which gave to the Assistant Surgeons, Grade II, the benefit of the same pay scale as had beea attached to the I Grade in the course of the revision of pay scales in 1961, indicates that it was passed as a result of several representations for increasing the pay scales of Graduates in veterinary Science, Agriculture, Engineering and Medicine, made to the government after the introduction of the revised pay scales of 1961, and that the Government got the matter examined by a committee consisting of the Chief Secretary, Finance Secretary and the Planning Secretary, whereafter they directed enhancement of pay scales in the case of Assistant Surgeons, grade II, among others. ( 19 ) AS the order reads, it cannot be regarded as anything more than an order whereby the Government, on a consideration of representations made by several persons in the position of the petitioners, enhanced their pay scales; it is difficult to read into the said order any opinion of the State government as to the nature of duties or a comparison of the same as having influenced the ultimate decision of the Government regarding the revision of pay scales. It should be remembered that even when the revision was ordered, the distinction between the two grades as set out in the recruitment Rules remained intact and that it was only in the year 1967 that the second grade was abolished, thus resulting in a merger of two grades into one. There is not therefore any basis for an inference that the revision of pay scales or the merger of two grades into one is the direct result of any opinion of the Government that there is in all respects an equivalence between the two grades. ( 20 ) THE mere application of the same pay scales therefore is too slender a basis for the suggestion that the two grades were regarded as same or similar or were at all times equivalent to each other, despite the express distinction between the two indicated by the Recruitment Rules. ( 21 ) IT is contended that the selection of date 1st April 1966 is arbitrary. But it is not pointed out that the alleged arbitratiness flows out of any departure from, or failure to obey, any rule or principle applicable to the selection of date. All that the petitioners state is that the Government which fixed 1st April 1966 as the date for the commencement of the application of the higher pay scale could well have selected an earlier date. Now, the only reason stated for such a selection, viz. , the two grades should at all times be regarded as same or similar, having been rejected, the basis for the contention that an earlier date should have been selected disappears. If so, there is no reason why the actual selection of 1st April 1966 should be condemned as arbitrary. Indeed, excepting the argument of equivalence, there is no other argument to make out that the petitioners have been to any extent, prejudiced by the selection of 1st April 1966. If so, there is no reason why the actual selection of 1st April 1966 should be condemned as arbitrary. Indeed, excepting the argument of equivalence, there is no other argument to make out that the petitioners have been to any extent, prejudiced by the selection of 1st April 1966. ( 22 ) THERE are two other arguments addressed by Mr. Rama Jois which should now be taken up for consideration. ( 23 ) WE have already stated that when the cadre strength of the two grades was first fixed, the strength of Grade I was 437 and that of Grade II 49. The petitioner in his affidavit states that according to the Civil List, there were 188 men and 51 men holding the posts of Assistant Surgeons, grade I, and that therefore at least 198 persons of Grade II were made to work in Grade I without either any promotion or paying them any charge allowance. It is conceded that no express orders either of promotion or of placing persons in additional charge or independent charge of Grade I were made. If so, no question of entitlement of either a higher pay scale or charge allowance arises. There is no doubt that the number of persons in grade II was much larger than the cadre strength. Whatever may be the error or illegality which may be suggested in respect of it, it certainly cannot be said that Grade II Assistant Surgeons in excess of the cadre strength automatically get equated to or become entitled to the status of Assistant surgeons, Grade I. ( 24 ) THE second argument is that the petitioners have been denied promotion or their case for promotion was not considered on the plea that there was pending consideration with the Government a proposal for the merger of the two grades, whereas in the case of certain allottees from Bombay and Madras, the Government have actually accorded to them the benefit of the pay scale of Grade I with retrospective effect from 16th December 1958. The order in that connection, a copy whereof is produced as Ex. H. indicates that the same was the consequence of a decision of this Court in certain Writ Petitions. The order in that connection, a copy whereof is produced as Ex. H. indicates that the same was the consequence of a decision of this Court in certain Writ Petitions. The Government Pleader after investigation told us that the Writ Petitions referred to were writ petitions Numbers 643 to 645 of 1962 in which orders are passed directing consideration of the cases of the petitioners therein for promotion from the date on which their juniors impleaded as respondents therein were promoted. The order Ex. H and the discussion contained in the secretariat File which preceded the same indicate that the persons dealt with by the order were similarly situated as the petitioners in WPs. 643 to 645 of 1962 and that instead of reverting the persons already promoted, the cadre strength was enhanced by upgrading the posts held by the persons dealt with in the order Ex. H. Actually therefore, the result of the order is one of promotion to the additional posts in Grade I, created for the purpose of giving effect to the promotion. That the persons impleaded as respondents in Writ Petitions 643 to 645 of 1962 were certainly seniors to the present petitioners is undoubted. ( 25 ) THE said order therefore does not add strength to the case of the petitioners. ( 26 ) ALL the Writ Petitions are therefore dismissed. --- *** --- .