JUDGMENT 1. THIS six appeals have been preferred against the judgments and orders passed by his Lordship Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. N. Roy disposing of one Civil rule and three applications Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Asoke kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya are appellants in F.M.A.T. Nos. 534 to 536 of 1985 while the learned Registrar high Court, Appellate Side, Calcutta, has presented the remaining three appeals. The learned trial judge has, inter-alia, held that after their appointment to the temporary posts of Lower division Assistants, Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash bhattacharya did not retain any lien to posts of Telephone Operators. Therefore they could not have put in qualifying period of service for obtaining Intermediate/new selection Grade for telephone Operators. They are accordingly not entitled to receive any personal pay in addition to their grade pay as Lower Division assistants, Payment of such personal pay to them was discriminatory inasmuch as a result thereof Ashoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya had been receiving higher amounts of emolument than other Lower Division assistants, who were senior in length of service. The learned trial judge, however, did not allow the prayer of Bhakti. Brata Das Sharma and 45 other lower Division Assistant for commanding the respondents to fix their pay as Lower Division Assistants at the same stage on the same date from which the said Ashoke Kumar roy and Bikash bhattacharya were allowed to draw higher pay but has directed the respondent to forthwith suspend payment of personal pay given to said two persons. 2. ON 1st September, 1966 the said Ashoke kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash bhattacharya, under orders of the Hon'ble the chief Justice, High Court calutta were appointed as Telephone operators in the Scale of Rs. 125-200. At the said point of time telephone operators in the High court Establishment were temporary. In response to notices inviting applications for appointment to the temporary posts of Lower Division Assistants in the High Court at Calcutta in its Appellate Side along with others the said Asoke Kumar Roy and shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya had applied for the said post. They had qualified them selves in the recruitment test held for filling up of the aid posts of Lower Division Assistants and were include the panel. They had qualified them selves in the recruitment test held for filling up of the aid posts of Lower Division Assistants and were include the panel. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice had ordered that the candidates from among the office staff of both the Appellate Side and the Original Side who had qualified themselves in the said recruitment test would be given appointments in the ratio three outsiders to one office staff, notwithstanding their positions in the list of successful candidates. On 3rd October, 1969 Asoke Kumar Roy was appointed as a temporary Lower Division assistant in the scale of Rs. 150/- 250/-. On 7th October, 1969 shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya was similarly appointed a temporary Lower Division Assistant in the aforesaid scale of pay. With effect from 1st April, 1970, scales of pay for both the posts of Telephone Operators and Lower Division Assistants in the High Court at Calcutta were revised and fixed at Rs. 130/- 425/ -. The Hion'ble the Chief Justice, High Court Calcutta, in exercise of his powers under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India made the Rules called the High Court Services (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service and Service with Permanent Status) Rules 1969. The Rules were deemed to have come into force on and from 9th July, 1967. Rule 2 of the said Rules made Rules 3 and 5 to 9 of the West Bengal Services (Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service and Service and Service with Permanent Status) Rules, 1967, mutatis mutandis, applicable to all persons in the employ of the High Court who were under the rule making control of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice but did not hold a lien on any post under the High Court at Calcutta or Central government or the Government of West Bengal or any other State government. 3. ON 28th January, 1971 the West Bengal Government issued an order making permanent one post; of Telephone Operator in the High Court Establishment with effect from 1st March, 1971. By order of the State Government dated 25th May, 1972 another post of Telephone Operator was made permanent with effect from 1st June, 1972. On 10th August, 1972 the Deputy Registrar High court, Appellate Side issued an appointment order stating that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice had confirmed with effect from 1st March 1971 Asoke Kumar Roy in the said post of Telephone operator. On 10th August, 1972 the Deputy Registrar High court, Appellate Side issued an appointment order stating that the Hon'ble the Chief Justice had confirmed with effect from 1st March 1971 Asoke Kumar Roy in the said post of Telephone operator. Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattaicharya had been confirmed in the post of telephone Operator with effect from 10th August, 1972. On the respective dates of their confirmation both Asoke kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya were actually working as Telephone Operators. 4. THE Honble the Chief Justice by a Notification dated november 11, 1976 made, with effect from March 1, 1974, Rules similar to the State Government Rules dated November 19, 1974 for sanction of New/intermediate selection Grade Scale against basic grade scales of the different posts/services by amending the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1970. The said Intermediate Selection Grade for telephone Operators of this Court having been awarded to Ramendra Narayan Pal, who as a Telephone Operator was junior both to Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya. Both of them had submitted memorials for granting them Intermediate Selection Grade on the ground that their junior Ramendra Narayan Pal, Telephone operator had been allowed to draw pay in the said selection grade. The learned Registrar, Appellate Side by his note dated 27th March, 1979 had proposed to the Honble the Chief Justice that following precedent in case of officiating Translators of this Court both Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya might be allowed to draw selection Grade of the post of Telephone Operator for a day on the date when they would be eligible to such grade and thereafter they might continue as Lower Division Assistants with selection Grade pay of telephone operators as personal to them. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice had approved the said proposal. Said Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya were allowed to enjoy selection Grade scale of pay as Telephone operators for a day and then were allowed to draw Selection grade pay as personal to them in their posting as Lower Division assistants. As a result thereof, said two persons have been drawing higher than the pays of Shakti Brata Das Sharma and other Lower Division Assistants in the High Court, Appellate side, although the said persons were admittedly appointed as lower Division Clerks earlier than the said two persons. As a result thereof, said two persons have been drawing higher than the pays of Shakti Brata Das Sharma and other Lower Division Assistants in the High Court, Appellate side, although the said persons were admittedly appointed as lower Division Clerks earlier than the said two persons. In other words, although the said persons were senior to the two appellants in F.M.A.T. Nos. 534 to 536 of 1985, the former were receiving lower pay. They had made representations to the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, High Court, Calcutta and had prayed for equalising their pays with the pay drawn by the said two persons. Thereafter, Shakti Brata Das Sharma and other Lower Division assistants in the Appellate Side of the High Court Establishment filed writ petitions, inter-alia, for commanding the respondents of the writ application to fix the pay of the petitioners at the same stage from the same date from which said Asoke Kumar roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya were allowed to draw higher pay. The said writ petitions were contested both by the said two persons and also the learned Registrar, High Court, appellate Side. 5. THE learned trial judge has inter-alia, held that when asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya were appointed as Lower Division Assistants, they must be deem to have left their service as Telephone operators. Their appointment as Lower Division Assistants could not have been treated as promotion. According to the trial judge they did not put in qualifying period of service as Telephone Operators for obtaining new/intermediate Selection Grade. Accordingly they were not entitled to receive higher emoluments than those who were senior to them in the post of Lower Division Assistants. 6. WHILE narrating the facts we have indicted that both the said Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya we're originally appointed as Telephone Operators when the said posts were purely temporary. While they were serving as temporary telephone Operators they had appeared in the selection test for filling up the posts of Temporary Lower Division Assistants in the High Court Establishment. They were empanelled and thereafter given appointments as temporary Lower Division Assistants. They did not formally resign from their posts of Temporary Telephone Operators. This court did not also pass any express order terminating their previous appointments. They were empanelled and thereafter given appointments as temporary Lower Division Assistants. They did not formally resign from their posts of Temporary Telephone Operators. This court did not also pass any express order terminating their previous appointments. The learned trial judge upheld the contention of the writ petitioners that upon their acceptance of posts of Lower Division Assistants, said Asoke kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya had abandoned their previous posts of telephone Operators' because their previous posts of telephone Operators were temporary ones and there could have been no question of retaining liens in their said previous posts. The writ petitioners were right in their contention that although at the time of their recruitments as Lower Division assistants their scale of pay as Temporary Telephone Operators was lower than the scale prescribed for Lower Division assistants, the post of Telephone Operators could not be considered as feeder posts for recruitment to the post of Lower Division assistants. Under the orders of the learned the Chief Justice the only special consideration shown was that candidates from among the office staff who would qualify themselves in the Lower division Assistants recruitment test should be given expeditious appointment in the ratio of three outsiders to one office staff notwithstanding their position in the finally published list of successful candidates. We are unable to accept the contention of the writ petitioners that upon their appointment as Lower Division Assistants the services of said two persons as Temporary Telephone Operators were totally obliterated and any right or benefit already acrued to them by reason of putting in three years temporary service as Temporary Telephone Operators, were abandoned. With respect, while coming to the said finding, the learned trial judge did not consider the legal consequence of framing of the High Court services (Temporary and Quasi Permanent Service and Service with Permanent Status) Rules, 1969 with effect from 9th July, 1967. Both said Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash bhattacharya had already completed three years temporary service as telephone Operators before they were appointed as temporary lower Division Assistants. By reason of their such continuous temporary service for more than three years as Temporary telephone Operators under the said Rules Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyama lendu Bikash Bhattacharya who were continuing in the service of the court were eligible to acquire quasi permanent status as Telephone Operators. By reason of their such continuous temporary service for more than three years as Temporary telephone Operators under the said Rules Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyama lendu Bikash Bhattacharya who were continuing in the service of the court were eligible to acquire quasi permanent status as Telephone Operators. While it is true that until a much later date no declaration was made by the Office of the High Court specifying the particular post or grade in which they had become quasi-permanent they could not suffer any prejudice because of such administrative delay and/or laches in not promptly making such declaration. By operation of the provisions of the High court Services (Temporary and Quasi-permanent Service and Service with Permanent Status) Rules, 1969 said Asoke Kumar Roy and shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya had become eligible to acquire quasi-permanent status to the posts of Telephone Operators and therefore they cannot be demed to have abandoned their said status by reason of accepting direct appointment as Temporary lower Division Assistants. 7. BOTH Mr. Moni Bhusan Sarkar and Mr. Mukul Prokash Banerjee, who appeared on behalf of the respondents, have drawn our attention to Rule 7 (a) of the High Court Services (Appointment, Probation and Confirmation) Rules, 1981, which repeals the High court Services (Temporary and Quasi-Permanent Service and Service with Permanent Status) Rules, 1969. But the proviso to said rule 7 (a) of the Rules provides that such repeal shall not affect the previous operation of the said Rules of 1969 in respect of things done or committed to be done thereunder before such repeal. Apart from the said saving clause Rule 6 of the High court Services (Appointment, Probation and Confirmation) Rules, 1981 contains more liberal provisions for deemed probation and confirmation for court' s employees who on the date on which the rules of 1981 come into force had already completed prescribed the period of service either on a temporary or quasi-permanent basis. The writ petitioners themselves did not make averment regarding the provisions of the High Court Services (Appointment, probation and Confirmation) Rules, 1981 and therefore, the trial court had no ocassion to consider the effect of coming into force from the said Rules of 1981 upon the status of the writ petitioners and also of the appellants in F. M. A. T. Nos. 534 to 536 of 1985. We therefore leave open the said questions. 8. MR. 534 to 536 of 1985. We therefore leave open the said questions. 8. MR. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the said appellants in F.M.A.T. Nos. 534 to 536 of 1985, has correctly contended that in order to acquire quasi-permanent status under the aforesaid Rules a temporary employee need not necessarily occupy one particular post for continuous period of three years. It would be sufficient if he had been in continuous service of the High Court in order to qualify for acquiring status of quasi permanent service. Therefore the benefit of the quasi permanent status was available also to those temporary employees who had remained in continuous service of the High Court, who might have served more than one temporary post. This submission finds support in rule 5 (2) of the High court Services Rules, 1969 which provides that declaration shall specify the particular post or particular grade or post within a cadre in respect of which it is issued and the date from which it takes effect. This obviously covers the cases of those employees who had been in continuous temporary service for more than three years but might not have occupied one single post or enjoyed same grade. In making declaration, the appointing authority has been given power to specify the particular post in respect of which such as an employee shall be declared to have quasi-permanent service. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that by reason of their acceptance of direct appointment as temporary Lower Division Assistants, they did not abandon and/or renounce rights and/or benefits acquired as a result of putting in three years continuous service as temporary. Telephone operators prior to their such appointment as Lower Division assistants. Both of them who had served for more than three years as temporary Telephone Operators had acquired quasi permanent status as Telephone Operators. Their said vested right as quasi permanent Telephone Operators could not be deemed to have been abandoned. Implied renunciation of their such quasi permanent status cannot be validly inferred. They were eligible for being confirmed as Telephone Operators while serving as Lower Division assistants. Until the year 1981-82, no objection was raised by any body to confirmation of said two persons in the post of Telephone Operators. Implied renunciation of their such quasi permanent status cannot be validly inferred. They were eligible for being confirmed as Telephone Operators while serving as Lower Division assistants. Until the year 1981-82, no objection was raised by any body to confirmation of said two persons in the post of Telephone Operators. In the writ petitions now filed challenging grant of additional amounts as personal pay to these two employees, even now no express prayer has been made for cancelling and/or setting aside their confirmation as telephone Operators. Thereafter, their said confirmation as permanent Telephone operators cannot be questioned. In fact, the learned trial judge did not issue any writ striking down the confirmation as Telephone operators of the appellants in F.M.A.T. Nos. 534 to 536 of 1985. 9. ONCE we reach the conclusion that their confirmation as telephone Operators stands, there could be no valid ground for challenging the order that the appellants in F. M. A. T. Nos. 534 to 536 of 1985 would receive salary in the Intermediate Selection grade for Telephone Operators as personal to them because if they would have continued to work as Telephone Operators, they would have been granted said Intermediate Selection Grade as telephone Operators before their junior Ramendra Narayan Pal was given Intermediate Selection Grade as Telephone Operator. By reason of the amendments made by Notification No. 1030-F dated 19.11.74, the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and allowances) Rules, 1970 was amended to provide for granting of such Intermediate Selection Grade. Under Para-VII the said new/intermediate Selection Grade became admissible after 10 years service in the grade next below. The said expression "grade next below" obviously, means the grade next the Selection Grade. The Learned Chief Justice in exercise of his power under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India with the approval of the governor of West Bengal had amended in the same manner the Calcutta High Court Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1962. The special Officer and the Commissioner, Finance Department, government of West Bengal, by Memo No. 4217-F dated 18.6.75 mentioned in the said mote below Rule 5 had dealt with computation of 10 years service in the grade next below in the following two cases : - (i) Where posts are filled up by promotion and direct recruitment, promotees were to be given weightage in the manner indicated. (ii) In case of post filled up entirely by promotion, a minimum service of 4 years shall be necessary in the grade from which appointment would be made to the New/intermediate Selection Grade. The note below Para 5 of the Calcutta High Court Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Amendment Rules, 1975 has no relevance to the facts of the present case because posts of Lower division Assistants in the High Court Establishment were filled up entirely by direct recruitment and not by promotion. 10. SAID Asoke Kumar Roy and Shymalendu Bikash Bhattacharya had became eligible to obtain declaration of their quasi-permanent status as Telephone Operators and they had been also confirmed in the said post. Therefore while they served as temporary lower Division Assistants, they had retained lien to their confirmed post of Telephone Operators. In case they had actually worked as Telephone Operators, they would have obtained new/intermediate Selection Grade for telephone Operators before their junior Ramendra Krishna Pal was given such New/intermediate selection grade. Since they were holding posts of Lower Division assistants, said Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash bhattacharya were initially deprived of the said benefits. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice was, therefore, did not act illegally by giving them promotion of their pay in their substantive posts as telephone Operators. Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash bhattacharya were given such benefits in accordance with the precedent in the case of two temporay Translators of this court who had been in the posts of Upper Division Assistants. The said two persons were similarly allowed to receive for one day selection grade pay. as Upper Division Assistants and then to draw as personal pay in addition to their grade pay for their temporary posts as Translators (vide the note dated 27th March, 1979 of the learned Registrar, High Court, Appellate Side). The trial court did not grant the prayer of those writ petitioners who were Lower Division Assistants for equating their pay with the pay received by their juniors, Asoke Kumar roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya. The writ petitioners have not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the writ petitioners who were Lower Division Assistants are not likely to gain any material benefit if the order as passed by the learned trial judge is upheld. The writ petitioners have not preferred any appeal. Therefore, the writ petitioners who were Lower Division Assistants are not likely to gain any material benefit if the order as passed by the learned trial judge is upheld. No doubt, it was some what unfortunate that the writ petitioners who as Lower Division Assistants are senior but their total emoluments are less than those of Asoke Kumar roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya. But the same did not amount to discrimination by way of denial of equal pay for equal work. All the Lower Division Assistants were receiving pay in the same grade and scale. But Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu bikash Bhattacharya had lien to their posts as Telephone operators. By way of pay protection they are being paid in the Intermediate Selection Grade for Telephone Operators as personal to them because by way of pay protection their junior Ramendra narayan Pal had been already granted New/intermediate Selection grade for Telephone Operators. These special facts in cases of Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya differentiated them from the other temporary Lower Division Assistants. The basis on which personal pay was being paid to them was intelligible and reasonable. Therefore, the writ petitioners in fact were not discriminated. 11. THE said Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash bhattacharya were not given New/intermediate Selection Grade as Lower division Assistants. Such payment of personal pay did not affect the relative seniority positions of Lower Division Assistants of this Court. In matters of seniority, promotion etc. the writ petitioners were in no way prejudicially affected by payment of personal pay to Asoke Kumar Roy and Syamalendu bikash Bhattacharya. We may also observe that if not already done, the question of confirmation of the writ petitioners including Mihir kumar Ghosal be immediately taken up and appropriate orders in accordance with law be passed within six months. Ramendra narayan Pal and others who are Telephone Operators had challenged the right of Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya to retain lien in the posts of Telephone Operators. Mr. Partha sarathi Sengupta, learned advocate for Ramendra Narayan Pal and others, frankly submitted that in case said two persons give up right to claim promotion from the post of Telephone operators, his clients do not wish to proceed with their writ petition. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants in F.M.A.T. Nos. Mr. Partha sarathi Sengupta, learned advocate for Ramendra Narayan Pal and others, frankly submitted that in case said two persons give up right to claim promotion from the post of Telephone operators, his clients do not wish to proceed with their writ petition. Mr. Saktinath Mukherjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants in F.M.A.T. Nos. 534 to 536 of 1985, has categorically submitted that irrespective of the decision in their appeals his clients would not claim any right of promotion in the channel of Telephone Operator. Accordingly, we record that Asoke Kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya do not claim right of promotion in the channel of Telephone operators. We need not also further consider the claims and contentions in the writ petition filed by Ramendra Narayan Pal and others. 12. WE may observe that the question of confirmation of Asoke kumar Roy and Shyamalendu Bikash Bhattacharya and also of other writ petitioners, who are Lower Division Assistants, be considered in the light of the provisions contained in the High Court services (Appointment, Probation and Confirmation) Rules 1981 and in accordance with law. For the foregoing reasons, we allow all the appeals set aside the orders appealed against and dismiss the writ applications. We stay the operation of our judgment for a period of two months from date. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.