Devinder Gupta ( 1 ) RULE. D. B. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the parties state that these five writ petitions involve the same questions of law and fact and can be disposed of by a common order today itself. ( 3 ) PETITIONERS were working as drivers with the Delhi Transport Corporation. They were found not suitable for the post of Drivers after they had been got medically examined and were offered the job in the lower grade. Feeling aggrieved against this action of the respondent, the petitioners approached this court and filed separate writ petitions, which were disposed of on or about 26th July, 1993 by separate but similar orders with similar directions. Directions issued in each case were: "the petitioner is working as a Driver with the respondent. The respondent got the petitioner medically examined and found that he was colour blind. The respondent, therefore, offered him a job in the lower grade. The petitioner disputes the medical report and submits that he is willing to do the job of a driver. We cannot go into the question of petitioner s medical fitness in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has got alternative remedy for that purpose. In the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent to absorb the petitioner in a lower grade of a peon in Class IV. Liberty to the petitioner to take other appropriate legal proceedings available to him under the law. The respondent will pass appropriate orders absorbing him in the lower grade within four weeks from today. For the purpose of pension of retirement benefits the intervening period will not be treated as break in service. However, petitioner will not be entitled to claim seniority in the new grade on this basis. Petitioner will be at liberty to raise the question regarding wages for the intervening period before the Labour Court which will be considered on merits without being influenced by this order. " ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the aforementioned directions, petitioners were offered the post of Peon in the basic pay of Rs. 775. 00 per month in the Pay Scale of Rs. 775-12-955-EB-14-1025 plus usual allowances admissible to D. T. C. employees. " ( 4 ) PURSUANT to the aforementioned directions, petitioners were offered the post of Peon in the basic pay of Rs. 775. 00 per month in the Pay Scale of Rs. 775-12-955-EB-14-1025 plus usual allowances admissible to D. T. C. employees. Petitioners, after accepting the post of peon, which was offered on the terms contained in the office order issued by the respondent and on the basis of the Court s direction, felt aggrieved and again approached this Court by filing separate petitions, this time making a grievance that the order of the respondent, giving lower scale of pay to the petitioners is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners were doing same work as was being performed by other employees, namely, Lakshman Singh, Raj Singh and Jai Karan, who were also medically unfit, being colour blind, but were absorbed as Peon at basic pay of Rs. 1025. 00. Petitioners, thus, are being paid less wages than the three other employees. Respondent s action, thus, is arbitrary and directions deserve to be issued to the respondent, directing them to pay to the petitioners the last pay drawn by the petitioners, namely, Rs. 1,300. 00, as basic pay or in any case equal to the three persons aforementioned. ( 5 ) RESPONDENT s version has been that petitioners had approached this Court and the rights of the parties are to be governed by the directions issued in the writ petitions. Respondents have faithfully implemented the directions of this Court by absorbing the petitioners in the lower grade of Peon in the Pay Scale of Peon, namely, Rs. 775-1025, at the bottom ofthe pay scale. Petitioners have also invoked the alternative remedy by moving application under Section 33 C (2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act for the claim of wages for the intervening period. There is no discrimination vis-a-vis the other employees. The case of the three persons, of whose instances have been given by the petitioners were entirely different. They were in the beginning itself re-designated to the post of Peon, while in service, after the Competent Authority had accepted respondent s approval in that behalf. Petitioners were not designated or absorbed as such, but on being found unfit were offered the job of peon, which they declined and challenged those orders in this Court by filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioners were not designated or absorbed as such, but on being found unfit were offered the job of peon, which they declined and challenged those orders in this Court by filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no discrimination in the case of petitioners vis-a-vis the three employees since in the case ofthe petitioners it is on the basis ofthe orders passed by this Court, that they were absorbed as peons. In the terms and conditions of appointment, it was made clear that the petitioners were being absorbed as Peon in the basic pay of Rs. 775. 00. The said terms and conditions were duly accepted by the petitioners. As such, they cannot be permitted now to agitate that they are entitled to higher pay scale. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision ofthe Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Chandia v. State ofharyana and others, AIR 1995 SC 519 ( 7 ) AFTER having heard counsel for the petitioners and given due consideration to the submissions made at the Bar, we do not find any substance in the petition or any ground to interfere in the respondent s action. It cannot be said that the petitioners have been discriminated against vis-a-vis the three employees. Petitioners had challenged the action ofthe respondent when they were offered a lower grade, by filing writ petitions. In those proceedings this Court issued certain directions. It is not the petitioners case that the directions have not been complied with. Respondent also state that directions have been fully complied with. The other three persons were not similarly situate. They had not approached this Court. Their cases were examined by the respondent, while they were in service and on the basis of their service record it was decided to absorb them on the scale offered to them. Directions issued by this Court would not apply to the case ofthe three individuals. It is not also the petitioners case that there is any discrimination amongst the five petitioners, or amongst those had who had approached this Court. The directions of this Court required the respondent to absorb the petitioners in a lower grade of Peon in Class IV. Petitioners have been absorbed in the lower grade of Peon in the Pay Scale of Peon, namely, Rs. 775-1025. The directions of this Court required the respondent to absorb the petitioners in a lower grade of Peon in Class IV. Petitioners have been absorbed in the lower grade of Peon in the Pay Scale of Peon, namely, Rs. 775-1025. Court s directions were not that the last pay drawn by the petitioners was to be protected or that they were to be placed higher in the pay scale of peon. Petitioners salary drawn as drivers was also not protected as was the case in Narendra Kumar Chandia (supra ). ( 8 ) IN these circumastances, we find no merit in these cases. The petitions are liable to be dismissed, which are dismissed. There will be no order as to cost s. ( 9 ) "a copy of this order be placed by the registry in each of the files.