B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER no. 1 is the Officers Association of the Respondent- Corporation and petitioners no. 2 to 11 are the members of that Association working as Officers in the Respondent-Corporation. They have prayed in this petition to direct the Respondent-Corporation to pay three increments and other allowances at the revised rates which are paid to the Officers named in Annexure-F to the petition and have also prayed to direct the Respondent-Corporation to take work from them only for 39 hours per week and not for 48 hours. Mr. H. B. Shah L. A. for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the action of the Respondent-Corporation in taking work for 48 hours per week from the petitioners and in not granting three increments to the petitioners as per the agreement is in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioners under the Constitution of India and therefore the Respondent-Corporation be directed to pay three increments to the petitioners as the petitioners are similarly situated with the Officers named in Annexure-F and are entitled to equal pay for equal work. In support of his submissions Mr. Shah has relied upon 3 decisions of the Supreme Court viz. (1) AIR 1988 SC p. 519 (2) AIR 1988 SC p. 1504 and (3) AIR 1991 SC p. 1367. As against that Mr. S. N. Shelat L. A. for the respondent-Corporation has relied upon the two decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (1) AIR 1962 SC 1131 and (2) AIR 1989 SC 19 and submitted that the petitioners are not entitled for the three increments while working for 48 hours per week and they are supposed to work for 48 hours per week as per the agreement. ( 2 ) TO appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned Advocates for the purpose few facts are required to be stated which are as under: ( 3 ) THE Respondent-Corporation has on its establishment two Cadres (1) Non-technical and (2) Technical. The petitioners were working as Junior Officers which is now redesignated as Assistant Officer in the non-technical cadre. The petitioners joined the service of the Respondent-Corporation on its non-technical cadre in the non-supervisory posts. Their service conditions were governed by the settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act Standing Order and the Rules framed by the Corporation. Their working hours were 48 hours per week. The petitioners joined the service of the Respondent-Corporation on its non-technical cadre in the non-supervisory posts. Their service conditions were governed by the settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act Standing Order and the Rules framed by the Corporation. Their working hours were 48 hours per week. They belonged to the non-supervisory staff and therefore work was taken from them for 39 hours per week. They were promoted on 21. 8. 1979 on the supervisory posts which belong to the administrative cadre and therefore they have to work for 48 hours per week. The other Officers working in the technical cadre were working for 48 hours since beginning. With the commencement of the manufacturing plants and the requirement of more man-power it was agreed that on and from 22. 8. 1979 all Officers including supervisory staff whether they are working in the plant or in the administrative departments have to work for 48 hours per week and accordingly the Respondent-Corporation granted advance increments by order dated 21. 8 to all the Officers in service working as Officers on the date of the said order. Under the long-term settlement arrived at between the Corporation and its Officers Association it was agreed- (a) to switch over to industrial rate of D. A. for Officers; (b) to have long-term settlement for 4 years; and (c) to work for net 48 hours a week and as a part of the package deal the Corporation granted 1 to 3 advance increments in the respective scales to all Officers in service on the date of the order i. e. 21. 8. 1979. Admittedly the petitioners were not Officers on the date of the order. ( 4 ) IT is to be noted that under the agreement arrived at between the Corporation and its Workers Union the petitioners got the benefit of the long term settlement (while they were working on the non-supervisory posts) with effect from 1. 1 and therefore they were not entitled to any benefit under the settlement meant for the Supervisory staff. Otherwise it would lead to double benefit and may lead to anomaly in pay. It is to be further noted that the promotion order which is annexed to the petition does not show that the petitioners have to work for 39 hours per week. Otherwise it would lead to double benefit and may lead to anomaly in pay. It is to be further noted that the promotion order which is annexed to the petition does not show that the petitioners have to work for 39 hours per week. It is true that in the promotion order it has been stated that the other terms and conditions of his service in the Corporation shall remain unchanged which would only mean the other terms and conditions of the like Officers only. It is not in dispute that the pay of the petitioners and the other officers mentioned in Annexure-F has remained the same. The only dispute which is raised in this petition is that if the Corporation is to take work from the petitioners for 48 hours per week instead of 39 hours per week then the Corporation has to give three increments to the petitioners as well which is given to the Officers named in Annexure-F as per the agreement arrived at between the Respondent-Corporation and Petitioner No. 1 Association on 21. 8. 1979. ( 5 ) IN the aforesaid circumstances all the three judgments cited by Mr. Shah on the point of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable to the facts of this case. It is true that on promotion the petitioners have to work and discharge their duties as the Officers named in Annexure-F and they are also inter-transferable. Their pay scale is in fact the same. The only difference in the service condition is that on promotion they are not extended the benefit of three increments which was extended to the other Officers named in Annexure-F. However that agreement was arrived at between petitioner no. 1 Association itself with the Respondent-Corporation and therefore now petitioner no. 1 Association cannot go beyond that agreement and say that petitioners no. 2 to 11 who have come on promotion should also get equal treatment. In fact there is a reasonable classification and Mr. Shelat is fully justified in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. and Others vs. J. P. Chauraslia and Others AIR 1989 SC p. 19 = 1989 (1) SCC 121 (SC) = 1989 (5) SLR 788. In fact there is a reasonable classification and Mr. Shelat is fully justified in relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. and Others vs. J. P. Chauraslia and Others AIR 1989 SC p. 19 = 1989 (1) SCC 121 (SC) = 1989 (5) SLR 788. It has been held by the Supreme Court in that case that Article 14 permits reasonable classification founded on different basis and classification can be based on some qualities or characteristics of persons grouped together and not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must of course have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that the differentiation so made in the same cadre will not amount to discrimination. The classification based on experience is a reasonable classification. It has a rational nexus with the object thereof and to hold otherwise would be detrimental to the interest of the service itself. After holding as above the Supreme Court further held that thus there can be two scales of pay in the same cadre of persons performing the same or similar work or duties. Of course that is not the case here. As stated earlier the pay scale is the same and the only difference is regarding non-granting of three increments to petitioners no. 2 to 11. ( 6 ) MR. Shah then argued that the Respondent-Corporation cannot take work from the petitioners for 48 hours per week and it can take work from the petitioners for 39 hours per week only. That argument cannot stand even for a minute in view of the fact that the settlement is arrived at between the Workers Union and the Corporation and all the petitioners knowing fully well accepted the promotion order. That was done way back in 1979 and this petition is filed in 1982. As discussed above no relief therefore can be granted in this petition. ( 7 ) IN view of the above discussion I do not find any substance or merit in this petition. The petition therefore fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no order as to costs. Petition Dismissed. .