JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - In these two connected writ petitions (Writ Petition Nos. 288 of 1971 and 522 of 1971) a common question of law and more or less similar facts are involved. In these circumstances both these petitions are being decided by one common judgment. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they have been discriminated in the matter of redeployment as a result of the scheme framed by the Government of India and their juniors who were not permanent were appointed as Income Tax Inspectors, but they were appointed only as Head Clerks in the same department with the result that their juniors may get higher promotion and they may not get the post of Income Tax Inspector as the first promotion post of Head Clerk is Supervisor and then Inspector and the temporary financial equality is of no consequence as ultimately financially they will be losers notwithstanding the grade on which they were posted in their parent department viz. the office of the Deputy Custodian, Ministry of Relief and Rehabilitation. Government of India, has been given to them on the post of Head Clerk. It is not disputed that the petitioners in both these cases were seniors to opposite parties 5, 6 and 7, S. C. Saxena, H. L. Monga and R. P. Agarwal, as the petitioners were holding the posts of Senior Accountants in substantive capacity, whereas the opposite parties were junior Accountants and merely officiating as senior Accountants. 3. In the year 1966 the Government of India framed a scheme for the disposal of personnel resulting in surplus due to improvements suggested by Department of Administrative Reforms or reduction in posts suggested by Staff Inspection Unit, Ministry of Finance and a copy of the said Scheme is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971. The said Scheme visualised the transfer of all personnel identified as surplus, whether in Ministries or in field offices to a Central pool to be operated by a special cell in the Ministry of Home Affairs. The special cell was charged with the responsibility for arranging the placement of such staff elsewhere against fresh needs, and has also been assigned to arrange for programmes of retaining the surplus staff in various scales. The special cell was charged with the responsibility for arranging the placement of such staff elsewhere against fresh needs, and has also been assigned to arrange for programmes of retaining the surplus staff in various scales. It was provided that the junior most staff shall surrender against a reduction in their cadre strength except only to the extent that senior persons opted to go over to the Cells rolls in order to avail of the scheme of voluntary retirement or otherwise. While it was optional for senior persons to go over to the cells rolls, there was no such option to junior persons and it were they who had to be surrendered first. Certain ban on various recruitment's through normal channel was also placed for fulfilling the object of the scheme. 3-A. Sub-para (iii) of para II, the reference to which has been made earlier, runs as follows: "(iii) The junior most temporary persons should be surrendered against reduced cadre strength followed if necessary by junior most quasi-permanent and then permanent staff. The rule of "junior most" should be insisted upon and the central cell in the Home Ministry would have authority to see to the strict and prompt observance of the rule. There shall, however, be no bar to other persons higher in the seniority ladder volunteering for the purpose, particularly if they wish to avail of the voluntary retirement benefits which would be available in the central pool." As a result of this Scheme the said opposite parties 5, 6 and 7, S. C. Saxena H. L. Monga and R. P. Agarwal respectively, who were placed in the central cell were offered equivalent post one after another and given several opportunities to select their post on their own choice, but they did not accept the other post which was offered to them and accepted the offer of the post of Income Tax Inspector in the scale of Rs. 210-485. The petitioners grievance in Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971 is that such offer was given to him, while the grievance of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 522 of 1971, is that no such offer whatsoever was given to him. 4. The petitioners of both the writ petitions continued to work in their Department. 210-485. The petitioners grievance in Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971 is that such offer was given to him, while the grievance of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 522 of 1971, is that no such offer whatsoever was given to him. 4. The petitioners of both the writ petitions continued to work in their Department. On 6-2-1969 the Government of India issued an office memorandum, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, regarding the inter se seniority of re-deployed personnel in the same office making reference to O.M. No. 9/11/ 55-R.P.S. dated 22-12-1969 which laid down the principle of determining seniority. The relevant portion of the said document is as under:- "Their seniority in such organisations is determined in accordance with the general instructions contained in this Ministrys Office Memorandum No. 9/11/ 55-RPS, dated the 22nd Dec. 1969, i. e., with reference to the date of their selection for redeployment in the recipient organisations. Therefore, the order of inter se seniority of two or more persons as it existed in the office in which they were declared surplus, may not be maintained if they are selected for deployment in another office on different dates. The question as to whether the order of their inter se seniority, as it stood in their former office, should be maintained in their new office has been under consideration in this Ministry for some time past. It has now been decided that when two or more such surplus persons of an office are selected on different dates for absorption in a grade in another office, their inter se seniority as it existed in the office in which they worked before being rendered surplus, should be maintained in the grade in which they are absorbed in the new organisation, provided that: (i) no direct recruit has been selected for appointment to that grade in between these dates, and (ii) if there are no fixed quotas for direct recruitment and promotion to the grade in question in the new office and no promotee has been approved for appointment to that grade in between these dates. It has also been decided that when two or more surplus Employee's of a particular grade in an office are simultaneously selected for redeployment in another office in a grade, their inter se seniority in the particular grade, on redeployment in the latter office, should be the same as it was in their previous office." On 18-4-1969 the Government of India issued an office memorandum regarding grant of protection from reversion of officiating officers rendered surplus as a result of SIU review etc. According to it, it was decided that officials holding posts in an officiating capacity on a long term basis for which there was no reasonable prospect of reversion in the normal course, but for measures of administrative reforms or studies by the SIU should be protected from reversion for a maximum period of six months. The said office memorandum also provided that for all purposes they would continue to be treated as members of their parent cadres and would be taken back, as and when vacancies arise there in the particular grade. 5. As stated above the said opposite parties were deployed on 26-4-69 against vacancies of Income-tax Inspectors, and copy of the said communication has been annexed to the writ petition (288 of 1971) as Annexure-9 in the grade of Rs. 210-485, although in the office of the Deputy Custodian they were officiating in the scale of Rs. 210-425. They were deployed on a higher post in a better scale than what they were getting in the Department from which they were deployed. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time they were holding quasi-permanent status in the scale of Rs. 168-300 but because they were officiating as Accountants, they were placed in the scale of Rs. 210-425. Subsequent to their appointment viz., 9-7-1969, the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance), issued orders regarding fixation of pay of officials holding posts in the scale of Rs. 210-425 on their appointment to the posts in the scale of Rs. 210-530, vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition No. 288/71. 6. On 30-4-1970 the Government of India, in the Ministry of Home Affairs, revised the policy regarding surplus staff, and the copy of the said instructions was circulated vide Annexure-12 to Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971. 210-425 on their appointment to the posts in the scale of Rs. 210-530, vide Annexure-11 to the writ petition No. 288/71. 6. On 30-4-1970 the Government of India, in the Ministry of Home Affairs, revised the policy regarding surplus staff, and the copy of the said instructions was circulated vide Annexure-12 to Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971. According to it in the case of staff to be rendered surplus was to be surrendered not in the reverse order of seniority, but strictly in accordance with the regular seniority itself in different grades. It was further laid down that there was no objection to an option being given to senior personnel to opt for staying back in the Settlement Organisation and for being surrendered at later stage if they so desired, making specifically clear to them that by opting back they would lose in point of seniority in the new offices where their juniors would have been re-deployed earlier. It was after the issue of the above document that the Assistant Settlement Commissioner, In charge U. P. and Bihar vide his letter dated 30th April, 1970, copy of which is Annexure-13 to Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971, intimated the Ministry of Home Affairs (Central Surplus Staff Cell) that the petitioners and two others were being rendered surplus with effect from 1-5-1970 in accordance with the report of SIU and the policy to wind up the regional office at Lucknow. 7. On 29-7-1970 the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a notice in pursuance of Article 436 of the Civil Service Regulations, to the effect that petitioners (of Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971) services shall stand dispensed with effect from 31-10-70. The petitioner then learnt that he was deployed in the Ministry of External Affairs, but nothing happened in the case of the petitioner to the Writ Petition No. 522 of 1971. The petitioner was not willing to go out of the State of U.P., on promotion and he requested that his deployment may be made in the State of U.P., in the Income-tax Department. The petitioner also received an order in this behalf requiring him to join as Assistant in the Regional Passport Office, Delhi, under the Ministry of External Affairs. The petitioner was not willing to go out of the State of U.P., on promotion and he requested that his deployment may be made in the State of U.P., in the Income-tax Department. The petitioner also received an order in this behalf requiring him to join as Assistant in the Regional Passport Office, Delhi, under the Ministry of External Affairs. It was thereafter the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971 was approved for the post of Head Clerk in the Income-tax Department in the scale of Rs. 310-380, against which he made a representation, and joined the said post. This was done in the case of the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971. Since then the petitioners have been representing against the said deployment which according to them was discriminatory and also pointed out that certain other persons working in the Department were not parties to the writ petition and were in the lower grade, but were also redeployed as Income-tax Inspectors elsewhere and the names of all such persons have been given in para 48 of Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971 and there has been no denial on behalf of the opposite parties that they were in fact deployed as Income-tax Inspectors. 8. Thus the position which emerges out is that the petitioners were entitled to next promotion post of Class III Supervisor in the scale of Rs. 335-15-425 and only thereafter they could have been promoted as Income-tax Inspector as the petitioners already drew Rs. 425/- as basic pay and the promotion to the post of Supervisor was of no consequence and advantage to them and in case they would not have been declared as surplus and continued in their parent department, they would have been entitled for promotion to the gazetted post of Assistant Settlement Officer/Managing Officer in the scale of Rs. 350-575. It is apparent from Annexure-12 that had the petitioners been declared surplus in accordance with their natural seniority which policy was ultimately introduced at a later stage i.e., in May, 1970, although the scheme was itself announced as early as in Feb., 1966, the petitioners would not have been placed in such a position which they termed as arbitrary and discriminatory. 9. 9. Sri R. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners raised four contentions before us and not only attacked the Scheme and deployment of the petitioners, but also the policy which according to him was highly discriminatory. It was contended by the learned counsel that the provision of giving better deal to the permanent persons officiating on higher post at the time of being declared surplus as against permanent persons who were working against substantive post was discriminatory of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the provision was against the Fundamental Rules, but a perusal of Annexure-3 will show that the contention which has been raised by the learned counsel is not quite correct as both the categories of persons i.e., those who held substantive appointment in the grade in which they were declared surplus, and those who were holding officiating appointments and were declared surplus, protection of lien was granted in respect of substantive post. Those who were holding officiating posts were put to disadvantage of reversion to the substantive post after expiry of six months, but in case of substantive appointment in which they were declared surplus, lien was to be maintained for a period of six months. In this view this challenge of the petitioners is without substance. 10. The learned counsel then contended that subsequent change in the Scheme and the petitioners deployment thereafter to the post of Head Clerk was discriminatory, arbitrary and contrary to the protection envisaged in Annexure-6. It was also contended that by not maintaining the inter se seniority of the petitioners in their parent department, they have been made juniors to opposite parties 5 to 7 for all times to come, although these opposite parties were juniors in the parent department, and further, same was also inconsistent with the provisions contained in the order dated 11/12/-3-1969 issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding re-deployment of surplus staff of respondent No. 3 whereby the service of surplus staff was to be treated as on transfer in public interest, and was also contrary to the policy laid down in the office memo issued on 9-7-1969 by the Government of India. Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) regarding fixation of pay of officials holding post in the scale of Rs. 210-10-290-15-320-EB-15-425 on their promotion to the post carrying on scale of Rs. Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue and Insurance) regarding fixation of pay of officials holding post in the scale of Rs. 210-10-290-15-320-EB-15-425 on their promotion to the post carrying on scale of Rs. 210-10-270/15-300-EB-15-450-EB-20-530, a copy of which is Annexure-11 to the writ petition which provided that the posts carrying the scale of Rs. 210-425 were to be considered equivalent to the post carrying scale of Rs. 210-530. 11. A perusal of office Memorandum No. 9/22/68/Estt. (D), dated 6th Feb., 1969 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, shows that the same was in respect of persons deployed in the same grade, but so far as declaration of posts in scales of Rs. 210-425 and Rs. 210-530 is concerned no satisfactory explanation has come from the side of the opposite parties on whose behalf it was pleaded that the same was only for fixation of pay on appointment from former grade to the latter and not for any other purpose. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioner was given no opportunity to exercise option in his parent department, although the post had not been abolished, consequently their deployment in the lower post was against the principles of natural justice also. It is true that in subsequent change in the matter of re-deployment vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition no provision for the staff who were not till then deployed because of their seniority was made and the re-deployment was reversed and the seniors were to go first with the result that the petitioners for no fault of theirs were placed at a lower grade in rank than that of opposite parties viz., opposite parties 5 to 7. They were deployed despite the fact that the posts which they were still holding were not abolished. 13. The opposite parties in their counter-affidavit justified their action by saying that the matter of redeployment is by way of concession, as such the petitioners cannot question the same. It was also stated that there were as many as 8 surplus Class II Gazetted Officers on the rolls of the Central (Surplus Staff) Cell awaiting redeployment. 13. The opposite parties in their counter-affidavit justified their action by saying that the matter of redeployment is by way of concession, as such the petitioners cannot question the same. It was also stated that there were as many as 8 surplus Class II Gazetted Officers on the rolls of the Central (Surplus Staff) Cell awaiting redeployment. In these surplus post officers were redeployed against the posts of Income-tax Inspectors with protection of their pay scales, as otherwise they would have been retrenched, and during this period only 8 vacancies centres (but not in Lucknow) could be made available by the Income-tax Department for the absorption of 8 surplus Gazetted Officers. Accordingly, the post of Income-tax Inspectors could be utilised only for absorption of surplus Gazetted Officers on a priority basis since they were surrendered to the Cell earlier than the date of the petitioner being surrendered to the Cell and also since the policy of the Government was to absorb the surplus gazetted officers in the lower posts of Income Tax Inspectors for want of equivalent gazetted posts. It was also stated that surplus senior Accountants like the petitioners were absorbed either in equivalent posts or lower posts. The plea which has been raised on behalf of the opposite parties regarding concession is not sustainable inasmuch as it was a matter of policy and was not of concession shown to the employees, but it was meant for all those Central Government Employee's who were to be retrenched as a result of policy and it seems that provision for absorption was made in conformity with the principles of State Policy providing employment. The non-absorption of the petitioners in preference to their juniors who were absorbed earlier on the Gazetted post of other departments has been shown justified on two grounds viz., they were on the Cell earlier than the petitioners, and secondly it was the policy of the Government to make provision for employment of Gazetted officers to the lower posts of Income-Tax Inspectors or equivalent Gazetted post. This contention which has been raised on behalf of opposite parties and also by the Central Government does not appear to be correct. This contention which has been raised on behalf of opposite parties and also by the Central Government does not appear to be correct. It is evident from Annexure-30 to the writ petition, correctness of which could not be disputed on behalf of the opposite parties, that eight Gazetted Officers that is the Assistant Settlement Officers, were taken on the roll vide order dated 16th May, 1970. The petitioner to Writ Petition No. 288 of 1971 was rendered surplus with effect from 1-5-1970 vide letter dated 30-4-1970 and V. N. Gupta petitioner to Writ Petition No. 522 of 1971 was taken on the roll vide order dated 31-3-1970 (Annexure-13) to Writ Petition No. 522 of 1971). 14. So far as availability of only eight vacancies is concerned, the averment does not appear to be correct as there were also other vacancies of Income-tax Inspectors on the Cell, as is evident from Annexure-31, as well as eight vacancies for absorbing eight Gazetted Officers. Petitioner V. N. Gupta of Writ Petition 288/71 pointed out that undoubtedly the Assistant Settlement Officers who were holding gazetted post were not enjoying the better status than that of petitioners holding the post of Senior Accountant under the Settlement Organization. The Assistant Settlement Officers were rendered surplus on 1-4-70 while the petitioners to both the writ petitions were declared to be so earlier than 1-4-70 i.e., from Nov., 1969 to 31st March, 1970. The petitioners were holding the post of Senior Accountant in the grade of Rs. 210-425 in substantive capacity and the Assistant Settlement Officers were holding substantive post lower than that of the petitioners in the Settlement Organisation and they were in the substantive grade of Rs. 130-300 or 180-400. The petitioners rightly contended that so far as their own department is concerned the department having not been wound up and the posts still being in existence and temporary hands being working and had they been retained in the department and not deployed, they would have been better off in the parent department itself. 15. 130-300 or 180-400. The petitioners rightly contended that so far as their own department is concerned the department having not been wound up and the posts still being in existence and temporary hands being working and had they been retained in the department and not deployed, they would have been better off in the parent department itself. 15. These facts make it clear that there is substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel that the petitioners have not been given fair deal and discriminated and those who were equally placed have been placed in better position in preference to them for no fault of theirs and this discrimination could have been avoided by also appointing them to the similar post though after the appointment of opposite parties 5 to 7 and seniority amongst them was to be regulated in accordance with relevant rules and regulations. 16. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as a general rule lay down that there shall be equal opportunity for citizens in the matter of employment or appointment to any office under the 'State'. The word employment is a word of wide connotation. 16-A. In General Manager, Southern Railway v. Rangachari (AIR 1962 SC 36) it was observed (at pp. 40, 41):- "It would be clear that matters relating to employment cannot be confined only to the initial matters prior to the act of employment. The narrow construction would confine the application of Article 16 (1), to the initial employment and nothing else; but that clearly is only one of the matters relating to employment. The other matters relating to employment would inevitably be the provision as to the salary and periodical increments therein, terms as to leave, as to gratuity, as to pension and that as to the age of superannuation. These are all matters relating to employment and they are, and must be deemed to be included in the expression "matters relating to employment" in Article 16 (1). Similarly, appointment to any office which means appointment to an office like that of the Attorney-General or Comptroller and Auditor-General must mean not only the initial appointment to such an office but all the terms and conditions of service pertaining to the said office. Similarly, appointment to any office which means appointment to an office like that of the Attorney-General or Comptroller and Auditor-General must mean not only the initial appointment to such an office but all the terms and conditions of service pertaining to the said office. What Article 16 (1) guarantees is equality of opportunity to all citizens in respect of all the matters relating to employment illustrated by us as well as to any appointment to any office as explained by us.........." The words "in respect of any employment" used in Article 16 (2) must, therefore, include all matters relating to employment as specified in Article 16 (1). Therefore, we are satisfied that Mr. Sen is right when on behalf of the Attorney-General he conceded that promotion to selection posts is included both under Article 16 (1) and (2). Broadly stated the Bombay and the Patna High Court's support the concession made by Mr. Sen." The employment includes all matters even subsequent to the employment, as understood technically, which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment. Retrenchment and Deployment are thus incidental to the employment and the protection of equality clause is also applicable in these matters. In Champak Lal v. Union of India ( AIR 1964 SC 1854 ) the Supreme Court of India observed that the question of discrimination may arise in case of retrenchment of temporary post in office. The same in our view applies with greater force in the matter of deployment and discrimination in such matters is to be scanned as the same affects such rights of a person which are protected by the Constitution of India. 17. The Supreme Court in Ramesh Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1978 SC 327 ) : (1978 Lab IC 173) laid down that "it must always be remembered that though the concept of equal protection and equal opportunity undoubtedly permeates the whole spectrum of an individuals employment from appointment through promotion and termination to the payment of gratuity and pension, it has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Equality is for equals, that is to say, those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment but the guarantees enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be carried beyond the point which is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court. The principle of discrimination is also applicable in the matter of deployment and is in no way in a moist position than that of retrenchment to which Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution apply". 18. The facts of this case make it amply clear that the petitioners have been discriminated in the matter of deployment in comparison to their juniors-opposite parties 5, 6 and 7 who got the benefit of deployment scheme being the junior most when they were deployed. So far as the petitioners are concerned, who were similarly or better placed, were discriminated because their deployment took place at a later stage, while in the matter of deployment their cases were not considered at par with their juniors as preference was given to the Settlement Officers who were Gazetted Officers for whom there were statutory rules, copy of which has been filed along with the rejoinder-affidavit. 19. Opposite parties 5, 6 and 7 undoubtedly belong to the same cadre, but in the seniority list of the department they were juniors to the petitioners and their appointment was not substantive, yet they were appointed as Income-tax Inspectors, while the petitioners who could have been appointed as Income-tax Inspectors were appointed as Head Clerks in the Department. Had they been appointed as Income-tax Inspectors and would have been placed before opposite parties 5, 6 and 7, their grievance to a great extent would have been justified because then juniority in the enforcement of the Scheme which was subsequently revised. The writ petition in these circumstances deserves to be allowed. 20. We, therefore, partly allow the writ petition as we are of the view that the Scheme was legal and valid and issue a writ of mandamus to the opposite parties 1 to 4 to afford equal treatment to the petitioners, in the matter of deployment, to opposite parties 5 to 7 and consider their case in this light and pass necessary and consequential orders in this behalf in accordance with law. The petitioner will be entitled to the costs of the petition from opposite party No. 1.