Honble MADAN, J.–Since both the writ petitions involve identical questions for consideration of this Court and the grounds raised therein are also common in respect of reoption to revision of pay to the petitioners serving in the Registry of this High Court, they were heard together at the request of both the parties and are being disposed of by this common order. The facts relevant for disposal of these two petitions, briefly stated, are- Civil Writ Petition No. 2699/93 Bhanwara Ram State of Rajasthan & Others. (2). Bhanwararam petitioner was initially appointed as L.D.C. by the District Education Officer, Pali on 27.6.1975. Thereafter upon his regular selection, he was appointed as L.D.C. by the Registrar of this High Court on 4.3.77 and he joined as such as 1.4.1977. Subsequently, he was confirmed as LDC vide order dt. 25.8.78 (Ann.1) and promoted as U.D.C. on 23.7.85. Thereafter, upon having been declared to have qualified in the promotional test for the post of Stamp Reporter/Court Fee Examiner vide order dt. 4.12.85 (Ann. 3), he was promoted as such vide order dt. 7.7.92 (Ann.4). He joined as Stamp Reporter on 30.7.92 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. (3). At the time of his promotion to the post of U.D.C., the petitioner was drawing basic pay at Rs. 720/-in the pay scale of Rs. 610-1090 proclaimed by Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983 (for short, ``Revised Pay Rules of 1983), which came into effec w.e.f. 1.9.1981. The Revised Pay Rules 1983 came to be revised by Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 (for short, ``Revised Pay Rules of 1987) w.e.f 1.9.86. The Revised Pay Rules of 1987 again came to be further revised w.e.f. 1.9.1988 by Rajasthan Civil Service (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 (for short ``Revised Pay Rules of 1989). Thus, upon his promotion to the post of Stamp Reporter on 30.7.92, he was fixed on basic pay at Rs. 1850/-in pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 of the Revised Pay Rules of 1989 after giving the petitioner benefit of difference of pay scale consequent upon revisions of 1987-88. (4). On 27.7.92 the petitioner submitted a representation (Ann.4) to the Registrar of this Court (respondent No.3), praying therein for change of his earlier option date for revision of pay under the Revised Pay Rules of 1983 and 1986. (4). On 27.7.92 the petitioner submitted a representation (Ann.4) to the Registrar of this Court (respondent No.3), praying therein for change of his earlier option date for revision of pay under the Revised Pay Rules of 1983 and 1986. He re-opted to change his option from date 1.9.1981 of Revised Pay Rules, 1983 to 5.7.1985 and requested to continue to draw pay in the pay scale existing before coming into force of the Revised Pay Rules, 1983 till his option dated 5.7.1985 was acceded to. His representation dt. 27.7.92 (Ann. 7) was referred by the respondent No.3 by letter dt. 7.8.92 (Ann.8) to the Law Secretary for according special sanction of the Finance Department permitting to revision of his option. But, by letter dt. 20.10.92 (Ann. 9) impugned herein, the Law Secretary communicated rejection of the representation for revision of option against the petitioner. The rejection was communicated to the petitioner by respondent No.3s letter dt. 3.12.92 (Ann. 10). Civil Writ Petition No. 6192/1996 Manohar Jain vs. State of Rajasthan & others (5). After having been regularly selected Manohar Kumar Jain petitioner was appointed as substantive L.D.C. in terms of order dt. 24.8.77 by the Registrar of this Court (respondent No.3). He joined on 1.9.77 and was confirmed as LDC by order dt. 25.8.78 (Ann. 1) and promoted as U.D.C. by order dt. 23.4.88. He joined as UDC on 30.4.1988. The petitioner had appeared in the recruitment test for the post of Translator on 30.8.1988 and was declared to have qualified in the said test and accordingly was promoted as Translator by order dt. 29.10.88 (Ann. 5) in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2420. He jointed on the post of Translator on 10.1.1989. (6). At the time of his promotion to the post of UDC on 30.4.88, the petitioner was drawing pay in the pay scale of Rs. 1120-2050 proclaimed by the Revised Pay Rules of 1987. Upon his promotion to the post of Translator, he was fixed at Rs. 1275 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2420 of the Revised Pay Rules, 1987. After proclamation of New Pay Scales under Revised Pay Rules 1989, the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1320/-w.e.f. 1.9.1988 on the post of UDC and fixed at Rs. 1400/-w.e.f. 10.1.89 upon his promotion to the post of Translator. (7). The petitioner presented his representation dt. 1275 in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2420 of the Revised Pay Rules, 1987. After proclamation of New Pay Scales under Revised Pay Rules 1989, the petitioner was fixed at Rs. 1320/-w.e.f. 1.9.1988 on the post of UDC and fixed at Rs. 1400/-w.e.f. 10.1.89 upon his promotion to the post of Translator. (7). The petitioner presented his representation dt. 5.6.92 (Ann.2) to the Registrar of this Court (respondent No.3), stating therein that he may be allowed to re-opt to change his option from date 1.9.88 to 1.9.91 and to continue to draw pay in the pay scale existing before the Revised Pay Rules 1989 came into effect and then accordingly be permitted to opt for refixation for drawing pay in the pay scale of the Revised Pay Rules of 1989 applicable to the post of UDC w.e.f. 1.9.1991 at Rs. 1550/-and then again refixed at pay of Rs. 1650/-as admissible to the post of Translator in the Revised Pay Scale of Rules, 1989, w.e.f. 1.9.1991. He again presented his detailed representation dt. 15.4.93 (Ann.9) which was sent to the respondent State Government authority by letter dt. 8.7.93. The respondent No.3 recommended the matter of the petitioners representations to the State Government by letter dt. 3.1.95. Again on 12.2.96 the petitioner presented a detailed representation (Ann. 12) followed by another letter dt. 21.5.96 (Ann. 4), which was referred by the respondent No.3 to the State Govt. vide letter dt. 28.6.96 (Ann. 16). By letter dt. 27.8.96 (Ann. 17), the Dy. Secretary Law Department communicated rejection of his representation for revision of his previous option. (8). Being aggrieved by the rejection to claim of the petitioners for revision of their previous option as stated in their representations, referred to above, the petitioners have come up to this Court by way of these two writ petitions, which are now being dealt with and finally decided by this common order. (9). During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that by letter dt. 9.8.89 (Ann. 6) the Finance Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan accorded permission in favour of 41 officials of the State Insurance Department for exercising reoption from the date on which they reached at the scale of Rs. 610/-in existing pay scale of the Revised Pay Rules, 1987 and similarly general permission was accorded by the Finance Department by memorandum dt. 20.11.93 (Ann. of Rajasthan accorded permission in favour of 41 officials of the State Insurance Department for exercising reoption from the date on which they reached at the scale of Rs. 610/-in existing pay scale of the Revised Pay Rules, 1987 and similarly general permission was accorded by the Finance Department by memorandum dt. 20.11.93 (Ann. 10) to exercise option/reoption under the Revised Pay Rules, 1989 to all Government servants but when the representations of the petitioners were referred to the Finance Department for exercising option/reoption under the Revised Pay Rules, 1983 and 1987 by the respondent No.3 recommending their case, which were kept pending by the respondents State Government authorities till 20.10.1992 (in the case of petitioner Bhanwararam) and 20.9.1996 (in the case of petitioner Manohar Jain) when rejection was communicated. Moreover, in case of similarly situated officials namely Sarva Shri Ramesh Chand Soni, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, (Mrs) Madhu Jain, Jagat Singh, and Rajesh Jain, who were promoted on the post of UDC by a common order dt. 23.4.88 (Ann. 2 in CWP No. 6192/96) passed by the respondent No.3, alongwith petitioner Manohar Jain, the respondent No.2 permitted them to change their previous option by letter dt. 1.6.92 (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 6192/96), but declined the same to the present petitioners, thus making a case of gross discrimination, which is illegal, arbitrary and the action of the respondent State Government declining to the petitioners their right for exercising reoption is violative of the provisions contained in Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. (10). In reply to the writ petitions and during the course of hearing Shri JS Rastogi learned Additional Advocate General while controverting the contentions of the petitioners, contended that the controversy rotates around Rule 5(2) of the Revised Pay Rules, 1987 and the case of the petitioners is altogether different as such option seeking benefit of extended date can neither be exercised nor extended to them in view of Rule 5(2), referred to above and further the cases of the petitioners cannot be equated with the officials named in the writ petition nor they can seek any relief based on the orders passed in favour of those persons. Lastly Shri Rastogi contended that the writ petitions being belatedly filed deserve to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches. Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1987 provides as under:- ``5. Lastly Shri Rastogi contended that the writ petitions being belatedly filed deserve to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches. Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1987 provides as under:- ``5. Definition:-In these rules, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context; (2) Existing Government Servant means a Government servant, who is in service on 1.09.1986 and drawing pay in an existing pay scale. Explanation: -Government servants who were appointed on or after 1.9.1986 in pay scale under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983 are not `existing Government servants. They will draw pay applicable to their post under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 as a result of retrospective operation of these rules. Accordingly, the fixation tables given in Schedule III appended to these rules shall not apply to them. In other words, pay of such employees in respect of post held by them on 1.9.1986 or on the date of appointment subsequent to 1.9.1986 whichever is later, shall be fixed at minimum of the revised pay scale with reference to their date of appointment. (11). Mr. R.K. Agrawal learned counsel for the High Court (respondent No.3) during course of hearing stated that he has instructions not to contest the matters on behalf of the High Court administration. (12). I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions with reference to the relevant Rules as referred to above. (13). It is not in dispute that by letter dt. 9.8.89 (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 2699/93) the Finance Department accorded permission for exercising re-option to 41 officials of the State Insurance and Provident Fund Department from the date on which they reached at Rs. 610/-in the existing pay scale under the Revised Pay Rules, 1987. Similarly by order dt. 31.5.83 (Ann. R. 3 to CWP No. 2699/93) the Finance Department permitted in general the concerned employees to exercise option or re-option under Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Rules, 1983, and further enjoined upon the Accounts Officers to provide guidance to the Government servants in the matter of exercising of option under the aforesaid Rules as may be advantageous to them within the frame work of the Rules. Further by memorandum dt. Further by memorandum dt. 20.11.93, the Finance Department permitted all the Government Servants to exercise option or reoption under Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Rules, 1989 after five years of the effective date 1.9.88. (14). Therefore, it can be said that the revision of pay has been made with a view to make the case of Government employees more advantageous or in better footing financially as compared to the similarly placed employees on equated posts serving under this Court so as to make out a case of gross discrimination which is constitutionally impermissible. In that view of the matter, even the Government, itself after five years of the promulgation of the Revised Pay Rules, permitted the servants to exercise option or reoption, as has been done by issuing order dt. 20.11.93 for revision under the Revised Pay Rules 1989 which was made effective from 1.9.88. In this view of the matter, the delay, if any, in case of the petitioner Bhanwara Ram for making representation on 27.7.92 requesting for exercise of reoption under Rule 9 of the Revised Pay Rules, 1983, is not at all fatal entailing him to the benefit as sought for specially when the Finance Department has permitted one category of the officials for such reoption by different sets of orders, referred to above. Hence it will be grossly unjust, arbitrary and unfair to deprive the petitioners benefit of revised pay scales as extended to similarly placed employees of State Government. (15). In case of petitioner Manohar Jain, right from 5.6.1992, the petitioner has been persistently making representations by Annexures 7, 9, 12, 14, till rejection was communicated to him on 20.9.96 by respondents vide Annexure 17. The writ petition was filed on 17.12.96. Hence it cannot be construed as delay or latches which may prove fatal to his case in filing writ petition No. 6192/96 so as to disentitle him to the relief prayed for in his writ petition, apart for the reasons stated herein above. (16). The writ petition was filed on 17.12.96. Hence it cannot be construed as delay or latches which may prove fatal to his case in filing writ petition No. 6192/96 so as to disentitle him to the relief prayed for in his writ petition, apart for the reasons stated herein above. (16). Shri Rastogi also contended that in case no option was exercised by Government servants, they shall, in accordance with Rule 10(3) of the Revised Pay Rules be deemed to have elected to draw pay w.e.f. the date that Revised Pay Rules came into force and according to each of the Revised Pay Rules, two months were given to opt for revision of pay to the government servants and accordingly the limitation for exercising option as per aforesaid Revised Pay Rules was two months from the date of publication of each of these Revised Pay rules. According to Shri Rastogi, the option once exercised stands final and it is not open to the concerned employee to retract from the same. In my considered view, the contentions urged above by Shri Rastogi are totally misconceived because it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioners had not given their options under the respective Revised Pay Rules and rather both the petitioners (1) Bhanwara Ram who desired to change his previous option date exercised under the Revised Pay Rules, 1983, and (2) Manohar Jain who desired to change his previous option date under the Revised Pay Rules, 1989, have already opted for, so their cases do not fall within the category of deemed application after expiry of the prescribed period and their cases do not fall under Rule 10(3) of the Revised Pay Rules as urged by Shri Rastogi. Secondly since the Finance department of the State has, itself, even after expiry of the period stipulated in the respective Revised Pay Rules, in cases of the Government servants who has already opted under the Revised Pay Rules, allowed them to change their previous option subsequently by the orders (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 2693/93) and order dated 9.8.89 pertaining to 41 officials of State Insurance Department), dated 1.6.92 (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 6192/96) allowing UDCs working in the High Court administration, who were undoubtedly promoted with present petitioner Manohar Jain by common order, and dated 20.11.93 (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 2693/93) and order dated 9.8.89 pertaining to 41 officials of State Insurance Department), dated 1.6.92 (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 6192/96) allowing UDCs working in the High Court administration, who were undoubtedly promoted with present petitioner Manohar Jain by common order, and dated 20.11.93 (Ann. 10 in CWP No. 6192/96) whereby general permission to exercise reoption under the Revised Pay Rules, 1989 and the State Govt. itself having extended the stipulated time under the aforesaid subsequent orders in favour of its employees so as to enable them to exercise option/reoption with a view to take benefit of revised pay scales under the amended rules, cannot be permitted to take somersault and on such misconception, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the benefit of extended time and in such circumstances, the plea of limitation as urged by Shri Rastogi is not at all applicable in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as referred to above. I am of rather of the opinion that such a classification if permitted would obviously result in unfair and hostile discrimination within the frame work of the same set of Rules which should not be permitted under any circumstances, since it would be a case of wrong pay fixation contrary to the Rules. (17). In M.R.Gupta vs. Union of India (1), on the question of application of the limitation in the matter of fixation of initial pay, the Apex Court observed as under:- ``Where the employees grievance was that his fixation of initial pay was not in accordance with the Rules, the assertion being of continuing wrong the question of limitation would not arise. So long as the employee is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to the Rules. It is no doubt true that if the employees claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future.... ``Thus, the claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules... (18). ``Thus, the claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules... (18). Applying the ratio decendi of the afore said observations of the Apex Court in M.R. Guptas case (supra), in my considered view, the grievance of the present petitioners was that their pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules because no equal treatment was given to them qua the similarly placed fellow Government servants who were allowed to revise their previous option for revision of pay under the same Revised Pay Rules, which are equally applicable to the petitioners who on the contrary were declined to that claim, and this grievance if allowed to stand would make out a case of continuing wrong thus perpetrating illegality which should not be permitted. Hence, the question of limitation in the instant case would not arise. The petitioners are in fact within their rights for assertion of their lawful claim and entitlement to the benefit of revised pay scales under the Rules. Therefore, the contention urged by Shri J.S. Rastogi as to the claim being time barred falls to the ground. (19). Before dealing with crucial controversy firstly I quote the orders of the Finance Department Government of Rajasthan whereby it permitted the Govt. servants to exercise option or re-option under the respective Revised Pay Rules. The order dated 31.5.1983 (Ann. R.1 in CWP No. 2699/93) reads as under:- ``Government of Rajasthan Finance (Gr. 2) Department Order No. F. 17(15)FD (Gr.2)/83dated Jaipur, the 31.5.1983 Sub: Exercise of option under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983 Rule 9 & 10. The undersigned is directed to draw attention to provisions of Rule 9 & 10 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983 which provide for exercise of option. It has been represented to the Government that some of the Government Servants have exercised option incorrectly without understanding the proper implication of the rules governing fixation of pay: and such exercise of option has put them to financial loss. It has been represented to the Government that some of the Government Servants have exercised option incorrectly without understanding the proper implication of the rules governing fixation of pay: and such exercise of option has put them to financial loss. Like-wise, some Government Servants have not been able to exercise option within the time prescribed under Rule 10, and consequently according to the provisions contained in sub-rule (3) of Rule 10 they have been deemed to have exercised option for revised pay scale, 1983 with effect from 1.9.1981, and it is likely that the deemed option might have resulted in placing them in a disadvantageous position. The matter has been considered and it has been decided that the Government servants may be permitted to exercise option or re-option under Rule 9 of the aforesaid rules within a period of three months from the date of publication of these orders in Rajasthan Rajpatra. It is also enjoined upon Accounts Officers/ Asstt. Accounts Officers/Accountants/Jr. Accountants and other staff who are familiar with pay fixation, to provide guidance and assistance to the Government servants in the matter of exercising of option under the aforesaid rules as may be advantageous to them within the frame work of the aforesaid rules. Sd/- (M.L. Gaur) Deputy Secretary to Govt. (20). The order dated 9.8.89 (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 2699/93) whereby 41 officials of the State Insurance Department have been permitted to exercise re-option, reads as under:- ``Finance Department (RA&T) The Director, State Insurance & P.F. Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. No. F.4(16)FD/RA&I/89 Jaipur Dated 9.8.89 Sub: Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 Permission for re-option. Sir, I am directed to refer to the letter No. Option/Estt./Ins./Gr.-1/89/3191 dated 21.6.89 on the subject cited above and to say that in view of the circumstances explained by you in your letter, the Governor has been pleased to accord permission for exercising re-option to all the 41 officials from the date on which they reach at the stage of Rs. 610/-in the existing pay scale under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this letter. All the officials may be informed accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Secretary to Govt. (21). The order dated 20.11.93 (Ann. 610/-in the existing pay scale under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this letter. All the officials may be informed accordingly. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Secretary to Govt. (21). The order dated 20.11.93 (Ann. 10 in CWP No. 6192/96) of the Finance Department on the subject of General Permission to exercise option/re-option under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989, reads as under:- ``Government of Rajasthan Finance (Gr. 2) Department MEMORANDUM No. F.20(85)FD (Gr.2)/89. Jaipur, dated: 20.11.93 Subject: General permission to exercise option/re-option under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989. The undersigned is directed to say that the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 were promulgated vide Notification No. F. 20(1) FD (Gr.2)/89 dt. 23.9.1989 w.e.f. 1.9.1988 and permission to exercise option/re-option upto 31.01.1990 was accorded vide Memorandum of even number dated 27.12.1989. The employees in Class IV/Ministerial and Subordinate Services and those holding isolated posts were allowed first, second and third Selection Grades on completion of 9, 18, and 27 years of service respectively vide Finance Department Order No. F. 20(1) FD (Gr. 2)/92 dated 25.1.1992 as amended from time to time. This order was made effective from 25.1.1992. Now, it has been represented to the Government that introduction of Selection Grades has adversely affected the option already exercised by the employees in accordance with the provisions referred to above and it has been demanded that general permission to exercise option/re-option under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 may be accorded to them. The matter has accordingly been considered and it has been decided that all Government servants belonging to aforesaid categories may be permitted to exercise option or re-option under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 within two months from the date of publication of this order in Rajasthan Rajpatra. Sd/- (Ram Avtar) Dy. Secretary to Govt. (22). Further, by letter dated 1.6.92 (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 6192/96) the Law Secretary communicated the sanction of the Finance Department accorded by ID No. 1196/Finance/Gr. 2/92 dated 22.5.92, permitting some of the Upper Division Clerks of the High Court to exercise option or re-option changing their previous option under the Revised Pay Rules, 1989. (23). Secretary to Govt. (22). Further, by letter dated 1.6.92 (Ann. 6 in CWP No. 6192/96) the Law Secretary communicated the sanction of the Finance Department accorded by ID No. 1196/Finance/Gr. 2/92 dated 22.5.92, permitting some of the Upper Division Clerks of the High Court to exercise option or re-option changing their previous option under the Revised Pay Rules, 1989. (23). The afore-quoted orders and memorandum issued by the Finance Department have neither been disputed nor rebutted by the respondent Department. In the light of the above quoted orders of the Finance Department, it can be said that the Finance Department has been permitting the Govt. servants to exercise option or re-option under the different respective Revised Pay Rules either of 1983 or of 1987 or of 1989, because there has been consistent demand and as pointed out by the Finance Department, itself, in its afore quoted order dated 31.5.1983 that the deemed option might have resulted in placing the Government servants in a disadvantageous position, therefore, it was decided by the Finance Department by permitting to exercise option or reoption under the Revised Pay Rules of 1983, inasmuch as it has been enjoined upon the Accounts Officers etc. to provide guidance and assistance to the Government servants in the matter of exercising of option under the aforesaid rules as may be advantageous to them. That apart, as would be evident from the order dated 20.11.93, quoted above, this order (Ann. 10) was issued after five years of the promulgation of the Revised Pay Rules, 1989 permitting to exercise option or re-option under the said Rules of 1989. (24). Thus, it is very much apparent that the very object of the Finance Department to issue general permission and special permission to exercise option or re-option was to place the Government servants in an advantageous position. But, the impugned action of the respondents in the cases of the present two petitioners who are officials of this High Court by declining them to exercise their re-option by change of previous option under the respective Revised Pay Rules as claimed by them in their representations has put them in a disadvantageous position financially in as much as exercise of option on the part of the present petitioners when promulgated by the respective Revised Pay Rules either of 1983 or subsequent thereto or of 1987 or 1989 has undoubtedly put them to financial loss. Therefore, in these circumstances, the rejection by the Finance Department as to the claim of the petitioners under the impugned orders is totally illegal, unwarranted and against the spirit of the afore quoted orders, which should not be permitted being constitutionally impermissible. (25). That apart, once the Finance Department permitted 41 officials of the State Insurance Department so also five of the Upper Division Clerks, who undoubtedly were promoted by a common order whereby petitioner Manohar Kumar Jain was also promoted alongwith those five officials of this Court, referred to above, even after they had already opted under the respective Revised Pay Rules of 1983 or 1987 or 1989, were permitted to exercise for change of their previous option whereas the present petitioners have been declined their legitimate claim for change of their previous option resulting in financial loss to them by the Finance Department as also against the spirit of the afore quoted orders by which it permitted other Government servants to exercise their reoption qua previous option. (26). Such an impugned action of the State Finance Department as against the present petitioners by decling them to change their previous option under the respective Revised Pay Rules is offending to the provisions contained in Article 14, 16 & 39 (d) of the Constitution of India and hence not sustainable in law. I am fortified with the view expressed by me earlier in Chandra vs. State of Rajasthan and others (2), wherein I have observed as follows after relying upon the decisions in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India (3):- ``Prima facie I am of the considered view that provisions for granting lower pay scale for the pump drivers in the Gardens Department of the State Government of Rajasthan as compared to the pay scale which are being given to their counter parts in other departments of the State is grossly illegal and unjust since it is not open to the State Government to discriminate its employees, who are discharging similar duties and functions on a particular post since it is not based on any `intelligible differential nor there is any nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved by the same. Hence in my view, this approach of the respondents is grossly violative of principles of ``equal pay for equal work besides violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, read with Article 39(d) thereof. It is the primary function of the State Government to remove the existing anomalies which are prevalent in different wings of State Government with regard to those employees who are discharging similar duties and functions on the equal/equated posts and they should also be avoided to be dragged to uncalled for litigation. ``I am further of view that merely because additional allowances are admissible by virtue of revised D.A. as admissible to the State Government employees, would by itself not defeat the case of the petitioner since the fixation of pay scale is altogether different than admissibility of revised pay scale and other allowances which are admissible at par to all the employees irrespective of their pay scales whose importance is that there should be no dis-similarity as regards the fixation of pay scales as regards to those employees who are discharging similar and identical duties though serving in different wings of the PWD such as the pay scale of pumb drivers/pump mistry and the petitioner deserves to succeed. (27). As a result of the above discussion, each of these two writ petitions are allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. The orders of the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 dated 3.12.1992 (Ann. 10 in CWP No. 2699/93) and dt. 27.8.96 (Ann. 17 in CWP No. 6192/96) rejecting the representations of the petitioners are quashed & set aside. The claim of the petitioners as made in their representations, referred to above, is allowed. The respondents are directed to make the fixation under the Revised Pay Rules as prayed for by them in their respective representations which have been allowed by this Court, and are also directed to make fixation of revision of pay under the Revised Pay Rules which came into force subsequent to the impugned revision under re-option allowed by this Court. The petitioners will also be entitled to the consequential benefits as admissible to them consequent upon the reoption as a result of revision of pay under the impugned Revised Pay Rules, including the reoption under subsequent Revised Pay Rules till date so also arrears of pay if to be paid. The petitioners will also be entitled to the consequential benefits as admissible to them consequent upon the reoption as a result of revision of pay under the impugned Revised Pay Rules, including the reoption under subsequent Revised Pay Rules till date so also arrears of pay if to be paid. The benefits allowed by this Court under this judgment be given to the petitioners within a period of three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. @CENT = @CENT =