Judgment :- The controversy involved in this case is whether a non gazetted officer who stagnates in a given grade is entitled to higher grade on completion of the period specified in this behalf by the Government with the specific objective of giving redress to such person, in spite of the fact that during the interim period such a person is given provisional promotion to the higher grade. 2. Petitioner was appointed as Village Assistant on 2-5-1967. He was promoted as Village Officer with effect from 17-11-1972. Subsequently he was promoted as Revenue Inspector by the proceedings dated 11-8-1981 and continued in that post till 25-2-1988. However, by the proceedings dated 26-2-1988 he was reverted as Village Officer for want of vacancy. The petitioner continues to be a Village Officer. 3. The first respondent State Government by issuing GOMS 439/79/GAD dated 1-8-1979 sanctioned the benefit of higher grade with effect from 1-1-1979 to all non gazetted officers who remained in the entry grade for 13 years without any promotion in the normal course. Subsequently that order was modified by GOP 550/ 85/Fin dated 16-9-85 by which the benefit of higher grade was granted to all the employees on completion of 10 years service in the same grade. Petitioner made Exts. P1 and P2 representations to the authorities for granting him the benefit of the said Government Orders. As there was no response from the authorities, he was compelled to file an original petition before this court viz. O.P.No.10411/89 which was disposed of by Ext. P3 judgment directing the authorities to dispose of the representation within three months. Pursuant to Ext. P3 judgment Ext. P4 order was passed by the first respondent by stating that the petitioner's claim is not admissible in the light of the, orders issued in GOP NO.707/81 (373) Fin dated 28-10-1981. A copy of the said Government Order dated 28-10-1981 is submitted along with the original petition marked as Ext. P5. Ext. Pursuant to Ext. P3 judgment Ext. P4 order was passed by the first respondent by stating that the petitioner's claim is not admissible in the light of the, orders issued in GOP NO.707/81 (373) Fin dated 28-10-1981. A copy of the said Government Order dated 28-10-1981 is submitted along with the original petition marked as Ext. P5. Ext. P5 proceeds on the ground that in the case of those who got promotion for some time and then reverted and are continuing in the entry grade/same grade shall be allowed the benefit of grade promotion if they have at their credit 13 years of qualifying service excluding the period during which they were holding the higher post on promotion as on 1-7-1979 or subsequent dates when they complete the prescribed period of 13 years of service for that purpose. 4. In other words, the first respondent has taken the view that the benefit of grade promotion on completion of specific period of service in the lower grade will be admissible only in respect of those who continue in the lower grade for the minimum prescribed period and in calculating that minimum period during which such employees were provisionally promoted to the higher grade will be totally ignored. 5. Petitioner challenges both Exts. P4 and P5 on the ground that they are arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. From a reading of the counter affidavit and the submissions made by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the respondents in support of the impugned orders it is clear that the first respondent has taken the view that because those employees who are given provisional promotion but subsequently reverted had received higher scale of pay in the higher grade during the period in which they worked in the higher cadre and therefore they cannot be said to have been stagnated in the grade during the period specified in the relevant Government Orders and therefore there is no justification in giving them higher grade reckoning also the period in which they worked in the higher grade, though provisionally, but receiving higher salary. 6. In implementing the relevant Government Orders on the basis of Ext. 6. In implementing the relevant Government Orders on the basis of Ext. P5 clarification, the obvious consequence would be that juniors in service who were unable to get provisional promotion and therefore continued in the lower grade will be entitled to the higher scale of pay on grade promotion by virtue of the stagnation in the same cadre, whereas some of the senior employees who were reverted from the higher grade for want of vacancy will continue to draw salary in a scale lower than that is made applicable to their juniors. Therefore in a given case if a senior employee is provisionally promoted to the higher post for certain period, he will have to continue in the light of Ext. P5 drawing lessor salary than his juniors till he completes the minimum prescribed period in the lower grade. It should also be remembered that a senior employee who was promoted was given higher grade not by way of gratis but as emoluments to which he is entitled by virtue of the service he actually rendered in that post. There need not be any repetition of the general principle that when a set of persons are sought to be treated as equals, there should be reasonable nexus between the classification and the purpose for which such classification is intended. In the present case the intention of the authorities is clearly to grant higher grade of pay to persons who are deprived of promotion for want of vacancy. Admittedly, the petitioner as well as similarly situated persons are deprived of promotion for want of vacancy as they are reverted on that ground. In the circumstances, there is no justification whatsoever in distinguishing those who were provisionally promoted for some time and those who continue in the same post during the period specified in the Government Orders in view of the specific purpose of the Government Orders issued in this behalf. The interpretation given by the first respondent in Ext. P5 to the relevant Government Orders by way of clarification is therefore not in accordance with justice and fair play. I therefore, hold that Ext. P5 and consequently Ext. P4 which is solely based on Ext. P5 are discriminatory, unfair, arbitrary and violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution and Exts. P4 and P5 are hereby set aside. 7. P5 to the relevant Government Orders by way of clarification is therefore not in accordance with justice and fair play. I therefore, hold that Ext. P5 and consequently Ext. P4 which is solely based on Ext. P5 are discriminatory, unfair, arbitrary and violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution and Exts. P4 and P5 are hereby set aside. 7. The original petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to grant the benefit of higher grade to the petitioner on the basis of the total service also taking into account the provisional service rendered in the post of Revenue Inspector as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.