Honble CHAUHAN, J. – This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge passed on 10.7.1995 in Writ Petition No. 825/91, by which the claim of the respondent of stepping up the pay scale has been allowed, by placing reliance upon the judgment and order of a learned Single Judge in Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. General Insurance Corporation & Ors. (1). The present appellants have also filed appeal against the said judgment and order in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra), wherein the operation of the said judgment and order has been stayed by the Division Bench and the appeal is pending for final hearing before the Jaipur Bench of this Court. (2). Respondent is an employee of the appellant Company which floated a ra- tionalisation scheme in 1985, amending the earlier rationalisation scheme of 1974, bracketing/bunching the employees in two or more consecutive stages together and fixing a revised pay scale for them. Thus, the scheme provided for restructuring the pay scales. For the purpose of implementation of the said rationalisation scheme, all the employees of the appellant Company were asked, either to opt for re-fixation from 1.4.1983 or from 15.10.1985. Consequences/advantages/benefits of opting for refixation with effect from 1.4.1983 and from 15.10.1985 were made clear and explained. (3). Employees including the respondent, after making their own calculations/assessments of the advantages and dis-advantages and examining the pros and cons of both the dates to opt for refixation, made their options. Respondent opted for implementation of the scheme with effect from 1.4.1983 and he was given the benefit of the scheme accordingly in 1985 itself. Respondent made a grievance by his representation dated 22.6.1989 contained in Annx. 2 to the writ petition that acceptance of scheme with effect from 1.4.1983 has caused him financial loss, as persons junior to him who had opted re-fixation from 15.10.1985 were in a gainful position. He also furnished datas giving the difference of such gains and losses and prayer that such an anomaly should be removed. He made the following prayer in his representation : ``I, therefore, request your goodself to kindly provide appropriate re- lief for fixation and in that case I am prepared to re-opt the date of fixation and to refund the arrears, if required. (4). He made the following prayer in his representation : ``I, therefore, request your goodself to kindly provide appropriate re- lief for fixation and in that case I am prepared to re-opt the date of fixation and to refund the arrears, if required. (4). Matter was referred to the national management and subsequently his representation was rejected and the order was communicated to him vide letter dated 7.11.1990. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied, respondent preferred the writ petition, which has been allowed. Hence, the instance appeal by the employer Company. (5). Heard Shri N.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri N.M. Lodha and Shri Manish Singhvi, for the sole respondent. (6). Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that once the respondent has opted the rationalisation scheme, with effect from 1.4.1983, with his eyes open, he cannot make grievances after enjoying the benefits for several years. (7). Shri Gupta has vehemently argued that after the promulgation of the rationalisation scheme of 1985, the employees had opted for different dates. Thus, the employees who opted for refixation from 1.4.1983 belong to an entirely different category from those who opted for refixation from 15.10.1985 and, being two distinct and separate classes, a person belonging to one category has no right to claim parity with a person belonging to another category. Thus, the question of giving a hostile treatment, violating the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution does not arise in such a case. Shri Gupta has submitted that no person belonging to category of the respondent i.e. who opted for refixation from 1.4.1983, has been given the benefit to such an extent that may create an anomaly qua the respondent. (8). Shri Manish Singhvi has argued that it was solemn duty of the appellants to remove the anomaly as the treatment given by the rationalisation scheme has created hostile discrimination, which is violative of mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution and to protect the salary of the respondent bearing in mind the salaries of persons junior to him, as a senior employee is bound to get higher or equivalent salary of persons junior to him. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. P. Jagdish & Ors. (2), wherein the principle of stepping up of pay has been explained by Honble Supreme Court. (9). In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. vs. P. Jagdish & Ors. (2), wherein the principle of stepping up of pay has been explained by Honble Supreme Court. (9). The factual gamut of the said case reveals that some employees were pro- moted as Head Clerks and subsequently other persons, working as Senior Clerks, were also promoted as Head Clerks. Though, persons promoted latter were juniors to employees promoted earlier as Head Clerks, were getting higher salary as they were withdrawing a sum of ``special pay on the post of Senior Clerks and it resulted in anomaly in pay scales. The Honble Supreme Court has held that if an additional or special pay is attached to a particular post, person not holding such post cannot claim such additional/special pay, however, in such a case of anomaly, the pay of the senior employee in the higher post is required to be stepped up to a figure equal to the pay of junior employee on that post. The Honble Court further explained that the principle of stepping up of pay is applicable only when both such employees i.e. senior and junior, belong to the same category and on promotional post junior employee gets a higher salary. In the said case, the principle of stepping up of pay was applied to remove the anamoly resorting to the fundamental rules providing for removal of such anamoly therein and the Court held that the stepping up of pay should be done in such a way that the anomaly of juniors getting higher salary than seniors on the promotional post would be removed by stepping up the salary of senior employee to a figure equal to the pay as fixed for junior employee. The Court further observed that the principle of stepping up the pay on notional basis is consonance with Article 39(d) of the Constitution, however, it can be made apaplicable only prospectively. The Court did not lay down any principle of univer- sal application. The Court further observed that the principle of stepping up the pay on notional basis is consonance with Article 39(d) of the Constitution, however, it can be made apaplicable only prospectively. The Court did not lay down any principle of univer- sal application. The same Honble Judges, in State of Punjab vs. Dharam Paul (3), had taken a contrary view holding that the fact of an individual case should be strictly adhered to and as other employees, though juniors got higher pay by addition to their personal pay, the rule of stepping up can not be resorted for the reason that ``Special Pay given to juniors is part of their pay, which is personal to them. Thus, each case is required to be examined on its own merit. (10). We are of the considered opinion that the aforesaid case is clearly distinguishable and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of stepping up of pay is not applicable. Moreover, mere difference is not discrimination. (Vide Associate Bank Officers Association vs. State Bank of India and Ors (4). In the instant case, respondent has given an option, with his eyes open and after making his calculations considering the gains and losses and examining the pros and cons of both the dates for re- fixation. Once he had opted for refixation with effect from 01.4.1983 and same was acted upon, after taking benefits for a period of four years, it was not open for him to dispute the same in 1989. (11). In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Balwant Regular Motor Service, Amravati & Ors. etc. (5), the Honble Supreme Court has explained the concept of acquiescence holding that once the order is passed, it is accepted by the other party, acted upon, benefits/advantages driven out of it, it is not open for the party to challenge the same. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in Ajit Singh vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (6), Messrs. Pannalal Binjraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (7) and State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Krishan Niwas (8). (12). In R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir (9), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under : ``Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. (6), Messrs. Pannalal Binjraj & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (7) and State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Krishan Niwas (8). (12). In R.N. Gosain vs. Yashpal Dhir (9), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under : ``Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. This principle is based on the doctrine of election which postulates that no party can accept and reject the same instrument and that ``a person cannot say at one time that a transaction is valid and thereby obtain some advantage, to which he could only be entitled on the footing that it is valid, and then turn round and say it is void for the purpose of securing some other advantage. (13). In Action Committee, South Eastern Railway vs. Union of India & Ors. (10), the Honble Supreme Court has dealt with issue of option and held that if an option has been given and it is acted upon, it is not open to the party to withdrawn the same at a latter stage. (14). In fact, restructuring the pay scales by bracketing the consecutive grades together is a policy decision and Courts cannot interfere in such cases unless it is alleged and established that the policy itself is arbitrary or irrational. There is no scope of judicial review so long the method is within the constitutional and legal limits. The courts cannot examine the merits and demerits of the policy. (15). In Tamil Nadu Education Department Ministerial and General Subordinate Services Association etc. vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (11), the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under : ``Sri Govind Swaminathan drove home the point that in some cases even a few hundred `A wing members have been passed over by some one in the `B wing far junior to them. Once the principle is found to be rational the fact that a few freak instances of hardship may arise on either side cannot be a ground to invalidate the order or the policy. Every cause claims a martyr and however unhappy we be to see the seniors of yesterday becoming the juniors of today, this is an area where, absent arbitrariness and irrationality, the court has to adopt a hands- off policy. (16). Every cause claims a martyr and however unhappy we be to see the seniors of yesterday becoming the juniors of today, this is an area where, absent arbitrariness and irrationality, the court has to adopt a hands- off policy. (16). Same view has been reiterated by the Honble Apex Court in Maharashtra S.B.O.S. & H.S. Education vs. P.B. Kurmarseth (12), G.B. Mahajan & Ors. vs. Jalgaon Municipal Council & Ors. (13), State of Bihar vs. Mohd. Kalimuddin (14), U.P. Kattha Factories Association vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (15), Delhi Science Forum & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (16), S.B. International Ltd & Ors. vs. Asstt. Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors. (17) and Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs. U.O.I. & Ors. (18). (17). The respondent in the instant case has not challenged the validity/ration- ality of the rationalisation scheme of 1985. No material has been placed to substantiate that it is arbitrary nor a prayer was made in the petition for quashing of the said scheme. His entire case has been confined to the opportunity to re-opt, just to remove the anomaly in salaries. We find no justification for moving such an application by the respondent after several years of opting for refixation from 1.4.1983 and the same is liable to be rejected. (18). In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge under challenge, dated 10.7.1995, is hereby set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.