JUDGMENT The petitioner has moved the writ Court against the order of rejection dated 22nd July, 1988 issued by the Respondent No. 2 and also claiming a pay scale of Rs. 600-1600/- on the basis of Circular No. 35 of 1985-86 dated 7th August, 1985 with effect from 4th January, 1984. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that in July, 1971 he was appointed an Assessment-in-Charge under the Garden Reach Municipality at a scale of Rs. 130-240/-. In 1979 he was transferred to the post of Education-in-Charge with the existing pay and allowances of an Assessment-in-Charge. By virtue of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Garden Reach Municipality along with other Municipalities merged with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ''the C. M.C") and the employees of different Municipalities enjoyed comparable service benefits and a scale of pay with that of the employees of the C.M.C. Since the merger of the Garden Reach Municipality, Jadavpur Municipality and South Sub-urban Municipality the employees of all the said three Municipalities have been treated as the employees of the C.M.C. and have been enjoying the service benefits and a scale of pay at par with the employees of the C.M.C. at different identical positions and. designations. The Controller of Municipal Finance and Accounts, the Respondent No.3, issued a Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986 on 7th August, 1985 drawing the attention of all concerned to the order of Administrator dated 28th June, 1985 as contained in Finance and Accounts Department Circular No. 31 of [985-1986 dated 29th June, 1985 bringing the officers of Jadavpur, Garden Reach and South Sub-urban Units under the service conditions and benefits as are enjoyed by the employees of the C. M. C. and determination of comparable positions and pay scales under the C. M. C. and placement of the employees of the three Units in the Corporation pay scales, etc. The aforesaid Circular regarding service benefits to the employees of the three Municipalities was given effect from 4th January, 1984 which is the date of merger. On this very date the petitioner was holding the post of Education Officer in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Garden Reach Unit, and this post is identical with the post of Education Officer under the C. M. C. but inspite of Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986 the respondents did not pay the petitioner this scale of Rs. On this very date the petitioner was holding the post of Education Officer in the Calcutta Municipal Corporation, Garden Reach Unit, and this post is identical with the post of Education Officer under the C. M. C. but inspite of Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986 the respondents did not pay the petitioner this scale of Rs. 660-1600/- which is the scale of Education Officer of the C. M. C. and the petitioner was whimsically granted a scale of pay of Rs. 500-1360/- below the scale of Education Officer. The petitioner made a representation before the Respondent No.2, the Municipal Commissioner, in December, 1986 to remove the anomaly in pay scale of the petitioner and the said representation was recommended by the Deputy Personnel (Divn. III-C) but to no effect. Again on 14th January, 1987 he made a fresh representation and the said Deputy Personnel Officer mad and endorsement recommending his case but Respondent No. 3, the Controller of Finance and Accounts, rejected the representation without any reason by simply stating that as they Pay Commission has been set up, the claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted to at this stage. Against on 1st February, 1988 another representation was made which was endorsed by Respondent No. 4, the Deputy Municipal Architect and Town Planner, who was then controlling the Education Department, also recommended the case of the petitioner by Memo dated 5th July, 1988. All the representations were turned down by the authorities concerned on 22nd July, 1988 on the flimsy ground of the new Pay Commission. The petitioner submits that the Corporation authorities are making discrimination among the employees of the same Unit and the order rejecting various representations are mala fide and liable to be quashed. 2. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 by Affidavit-in-Opposition strongly contested the claim of the petitioner. It is stated that the employees of the three Municipalities which merged with the C.M.C. have not been enjoying the service benefits and a scale of pay at par in all cases with that of the employees of the Corporation at different identical positions designations. It would appear from Annexure 'A-2' of the Circular No.35 that the Education-in-Charge of the erstwhile Municipalities were given the comparable post of Education Officer (Unit) with the pay scale of Rs. 610-1270/- which was subsequently modified as Rs. 500-1360/- on approval by the then Administrator. It would appear from Annexure 'A-2' of the Circular No.35 that the Education-in-Charge of the erstwhile Municipalities were given the comparable post of Education Officer (Unit) with the pay scale of Rs. 610-1270/- which was subsequently modified as Rs. 500-1360/- on approval by the then Administrator. It is also denied that on the date of the merger the petitioner was holding the post of Education Officer which is the identical post of Education Officer under C.M.C. It is the further case of the respondents that the petitioner was given the comparable post of Education Officer (Unit) in terms of the said circular and it cannot be said that the petitioner is holding the same status and position as that of the Education Officer of the C.M.C. It is made clear in the Affidavit that the petitioner, in fact, is holding the post of Education Officer (Unit) which is subordinate to the post of Education Officer of the Corporation and as such the Education Officer (Unit) is not entitled to enjoy the status and the pay scale of Education Officer of the Corporation. It is not the fact that all the employees of the Garden Reach Unit of the Corporation have been enjoying the identical pay scale and service with the employees of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation except the petitioner. By virtue of section 17 of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the head of the Primary Education Service has been designated as Education Officer (Unit) with a pay scale of Rs. 500-1360/- as such it is submitted that the petitioner has no claim to ask for the pay scale of the Education Officer of C.M.C. 3. Mr. Basu learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that on 4th January, 1984 when the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality and the two other Municipalities have been merged with the C.M.C. then pursuant to the said merger the function and functionaries of all the three Municipalities became the function and functionaries of the C.M.C. By virtue of Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986 dated 7th August, 1985 issued by the Finance and Accounts Department of the C.M.C. all officers and employees of those three Municipalities became the officers and employees of the Corporation and the service conditions including the pay scale and other benefits of the employees of the three Municipalities became equal and identical in a comparable post. In this connection he referred to paragraph 3 of the said Circular. It was further contended by him that Education Officer (Unit) is the feeder post to the promotional post of Senior Educational Officer. Mr. Basu submitted that none of the Education Officers of the C.M.C. have been occupying the post through Municipal Service Commission. He further argued that even supposing that by virtue of the particular circular all the employees drawing at above Rs. 470/- per month should be recruited through the Municipal Service Commission, then even the said circular is not applicable to all the employees and officers of the three amalgamated Units. In this connection he submitted that some of the Clerks (Junior Assistant) of the three Municipalities do not possess requisite qualification for the posts which is Madhyamika Second Division but because of the amalgamation they are enjoying the status and pay-scale of Clerks (Junior Assistant) of the C.M.C. He further submitted that both the Education Officers of the Unit and the C.M.C. are the feeder post of Senior Education Officer and the Senior Education Officer is the head of all the Education Officers irrespective of Units in the C.M.C. It is contended that the Deputy Assessor, Deputy Collector, Municipal Accountant (Unit) and others working under the Garden Reach Unit have been enjoying equal status and pay scale with those of their counter-parts of the C.M.C. Mr. Basu submitted that in the circumstances it is quite unjustified that the Education Officer of the C.M.C. should get Rs. 660-1600/- and the Education Officer of Unit which is a post similar and identical to the post of Education Officer of the C.M.C. should receive the scale of Rs. 500-1360/-. Mr. Basu submitted that the action of the respondents are quite arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986 and stands totally against the principle of natural justice and equity. 4. Mr. 500-1360/-. Mr. Basu submitted that the action of the respondents are quite arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal and contrary to the Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986 and stands totally against the principle of natural justice and equity. 4. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing for the contesting respondents, submitted that under clause 9 of the Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986 certain post like Law Officer (Unit) or a Secretary of the Units may be treated as personal to the incumbent and those posts would be abolished on vacation by the present holders of the post and this post of Education Officer is also treated as per indication in clause 9 and would be abolished on vacation by the present holder of the post. Mr. Ghosh contended that under the schedule of establishment of the C.M.C. there should be one Education Officer and as such the petitioner being the Education Officer-in-Charge of Garden Reach Municipality was fitted in the comparable post with the designation of Education Officer (Garden Reach Unit) and this post would be abolished on vacation by him. There are certain posts under the C.M.C. which should be one and one only, i. e., the post of Law Officer, Secretary, Education Officer, etc. Mr. Ghosh further submitted that the status of the Education Officer of the C.M.C. cannot be equated with the Education Officer of a Unit. The Education Officer of the Corporation have 279 schools under his control with 30,000 pupils whereas there are only 19 schools with 3,793 pupils the Garden Reach Unit. It is further contended that the posts of the three Units for 1987-1988 was framed on the basis of posts approved by the Corporation on 12th March, 1987 under section 17 of the C.M.C. Act, 1980 and the head of the Primary Education Service was designated Education Officer (Unit) with the pay scale of Rs. 500-1360/- and therefore the pay scale of Rs. 660-1600/- enjoyed by the Education Officer of the C.M.C. could not hold good in case of the petitioner. 500-1360/- and therefore the pay scale of Rs. 660-1600/- enjoyed by the Education Officer of the C.M.C. could not hold good in case of the petitioner. It was further contended that the Third Pay Commission has already been set up to examine the issues relating to revision of pay scale of the staff of the C.M.C. and in such a situation granting of higher scale to the Education Officer of a Unit does not arise because such enhancement of pay scale would create anomaly and discrimination, and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. The learned Advocate appearing for the State, Mr. Saha, adopted the argument of Mr. Ghosh for the C.M.C. 6. Having considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates of the parties and the fact and circumstances of the case I find that the petitioner has merit in his case and his claim is based on sound footing. It is an admitted position that the three Municipalities of Garden Reach, Jadavpur and South Sub-urban were amalgamated or marged with the C.M.C. and is now governed by the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. By Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986 of 7th August, 1985 issued by the Finance and Accounts Department of C.M.C. all officers and employees of the aforesaid three Municipalities so merged became the officers and employees of the C.M.C. and the service conditions including scale of pay and other benefits of the employees of the three erstwhile Municipalities became equal, identical and at par in a comparable post with corresponding scale of pay with effect from 4th January, 1984. In this connection clause 3(a) of the said Circular No. 35 is worth quoting and is reproduced as under : “Application of service condition and determination of comparable posts and pay scales under the C.M.C. An employee in any service or post of the 3 Units will be fitted in comparable posts with the corresponding scale of pay with effect from : (a) the 4th January, 1984…............” 7. It appears that the post of Education Officer (Unit) is the feeder post to the promotion post of Senior Education Officer and none of the three Education Officers of the C.M.C. have been occupying the post through Municipal Service Commission. It is not denied by the Corporation that Education Officer is the feeder post to the promotional post of Senior Education Officer. It is not denied by the Corporation that Education Officer is the feeder post to the promotional post of Senior Education Officer. The fact that some Clerks (Junior Assistants) of the said three Municipalities who do not possess the requisite qualification for the post which is Madhyamika Second Division are enjoying the status and pay scale of Clerks (Junior Assistants) of the C.M.C. by sheer amalgamation or merger and this fact has not been denied by the contesting respondents. It is also not denied by the contesting respondents that the Deputy Assessor, Deputy Collector, Municipal Accountant (Unit) and others working under the Garden Reach Unit are enjoying the status and pay scale with those of their counter-parts in the C.M.C. The contention by the Corporation that the status of Education Officer of the C.M.C. cannot be equated with the Education Officer of a Unit is not relevant here because the petitioner has not come to the Court for any status by for the scale of pay which he is entitled to get under Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986. It is for the C.M.C. to keep a post alive or abolish after the retirement of a particular Officer but it cannot be allowed that while the Officer will be in office he would be paid less than then other Officer of equal designation under the same organisation, and by putting the word ‘Unit’ the designation cannot be made inferior in any way. Calcutta being a Metropolitan City naturally the Education Officer of the C.M.C. has 279 schools with 30,000 students under his control whereas the Garden Reach Municipality which, unfortunately, was a sub-urban of Calcutta (since merged with the C.M.C.) had only 19 schools with less than 4,000 students but now that it has been merged with the C.M.C., obviously, with more resources at the disposal of the C.M.C. there will be expansion in the number of schools and gradually it will lead to the increase of students. By merely citing the figures the status of Education Officer is not up-graded or lowered. If at all any posts were approved for the three Units for 1987-1988 under section 17 of the C.M.C. Act, 1980 and the Education Officer with the suffix of ‘Unit’ was to be paid the p ay scale of Rs. 500-1360/- instead of Rs. 660-1600/- that was absolutely against natural justice and fairplay. If at all any posts were approved for the three Units for 1987-1988 under section 17 of the C.M.C. Act, 1980 and the Education Officer with the suffix of ‘Unit’ was to be paid the p ay scale of Rs. 500-1360/- instead of Rs. 660-1600/- that was absolutely against natural justice and fairplay. One Education Officer of the C.M.C. cannot be subordinate to the other holding the same designation and responsibility. By taking the plea of the Third pay Commission and anomaly the petitioner cannot be denied his legitimate right. 8. It is a fact that the petitioner made several representation to the authorities concerned for the redress of his grievances and from Annexure ‘D’ to the writ application it appears that the Chief Municipal Architect and Town Planner (who was the Controlling authority of the Education Department) by his note dated 5th July, 1988 strongly recommended to the Municipal Commissioner to reconsider and review the case for giving relief to the legitimate and genuine grievances of the Education Officers of the Units. The Year-Book for 1987-1988 Published by the C.M.C. contains names and addresses of the Officers of the Education Department on page 131. From that page of the said Year-Book it appears that apart from the Senior Education Officer there are three Education Officers for : (1) Calcutta proper ; (2) South Sub-urban ; and (3) Garden Reach which is the petitioner himself. The Year-Book does not in any way indicate that there will be one Education Officer for the C.M.C. and others fore the three Units of inferior status or position and that the Education Officer for Calcutta proper is not at par with the Education Officer for other Units. In fact Calcutta proper has also been treated in the Year-Book as a Unit, may be a giant Unit. Facts indicate that the petitioner has unnecessarily been harassed and his legitimate dues were denied to him. I endorse the submissions made by Mr. Basu and cannot reconcile myself with the arguments advanced by Mr. Ghosh. There is enough force in the writ petition. 9. In that view of the matter I direct the respondents to grant the scale of pay of Rs. I endorse the submissions made by Mr. Basu and cannot reconcile myself with the arguments advanced by Mr. Ghosh. There is enough force in the writ petition. 9. In that view of the matter I direct the respondents to grant the scale of pay of Rs. 660-1600/- to the petitioner on the basis of the Circular No. 35 of 1985-1986 dated 7th August, 1985 issued by the Controller of Municipal Finance and Accounts (Finance and Accounts Department) with effect from 4th January, 1984. I further quash the Order dated 22nd July, 1988 passed by the Respondent No. 2 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. I further direct that all the outstanding arrears of salary and benefits in accordance with this order must be paid to the petitioner 31st March, 1990. 10. The writ application accordingly succeeds. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 shall pay cost assessed at 60 Gms. to the petitioner to be paid by 31st March, 1990. 11. Urgent certified copy, is applied for, be granted expeditiously. Liberty is given to the learned Advocate for the petitioner to take down note of the operative portion of the order for communication to the respondents.