Devinder Gupta, J. ( 1 ) ON 23. 5. 1974 the petitioners approached this court seeking redressal of their grievances and praying for issuance of the following directions:- " (A)TO issue a writ of mandamud, appropriate writ order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondents No. 1 to 3 to fix one pay scale of the petitioners along with the other officers appointed to the Delhi Judicial Service on its initial constitution, as required by Rule 25 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, 1970; (B)TO issue a writ of cerceroriri or direction in nature thereof, quashing the letter dated 19th February, 1971 being Annexure iv of the writ petition, as un-constitutional and illegal and contrary to the requirements of Rule 25 of the said Service Rules and without authority of law; (C)TO issue a further writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof directing the respondent No. 1 to fix pay of the petitioners along with the other officers appointed on its initial constitution of the Delhi Judicial Service as required by Rule 25 of the said Service Rules on a uniform basis, and in such a manner that no junior officer gets a higher pay or other extra benefits in respect of entitlement of benefits of house, vehicle, cooler in the court room etc. etc. than the petitioners; (D)TO issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof to give full justice to the petitioners in the circumstances of the case and may pass such further writ, order or orders as this Hon ble court may deem fit, proper,just and expedient in the circumstances of the case; and (E)TO award the costs of this writ petition to the petitioners. " ( 2 ) RULE D. B. was issued on 10. 9. 1974. On 10. 2. 1981 the petition came up for final hearing. It was noticed that actual date notices had been issued to all the respondents. Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 stated that counter affidavit filed at the show cause stage may be treated as a counter affidavit by way of reply to the writ petition. Hearing was adjourned from time to time. On 5. 10. It was noticed that actual date notices had been issued to all the respondents. Counsel for respondents 1 to 3 stated that counter affidavit filed at the show cause stage may be treated as a counter affidavit by way of reply to the writ petition. Hearing was adjourned from time to time. On 5. 10. 1981 after hearing learned counsel for the parties the bench observed that while keeping the petition pending, certain interim directions deserves to be issued to the respondents on one of the issues raised before the Court. Instead of stating the facts, the dispute involved and the respective stand of the parties in our own words, it will be but appropriate that we reproduce the order, which was passed on 5. 10. 1981 in this case, so as to form part of this judgment, which we hereby do. "the petitioners in this writ petition are permanent members of the Delhi Judicial Service (DJS, for short ). The DJS was constituted by a notification of the Delhi Administration (respondent No. 1) dated 2. 8. 1971. But even before this service was constituted there were, functioning in Delhi, Judicial Officers, who had been brought on deputation from other States. These officers belonged to their respective cadres in the judicial services of the States of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. The number of officers drawn from Uttar Pradesh cadre was substantial. It would also appear that some officers on the Punjab and Haryana cadres were earmarked for the Union Territory of Delhi. It is also necessary to mention that the following scales of pay were prevalent in some of the several States referred to above:- ( 3 ) AS already mentioned, the rules regulating the Delhi Judicial Service were framed and notified on 27. 8. 1970. These rules were framed by the Lt. Governor of Delhi in consultation with the High Court of Delhi in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Under Rule 3, the DJS was constituted with effect from the date of commencement of the rules and was to have two grades of officers, Grade I and Grade II. Recruitment to the service was to be effected by a selection committee, the constitution of which was specified in Rule 7. Under Rule 3, the DJS was constituted with effect from the date of commencement of the rules and was to have two grades of officers, Grade I and Grade II. Recruitment to the service was to be effected by a selection committee, the constitution of which was specified in Rule 7. Part III of the rules dealt with initial Recruitment , perhaps more appropriately referable as the initial constitution of the service. Rule 8 provided that the initial recruitment was to be made by the Administrator of Delhi upon the recommendation of the selection committee referred to in Rule 7. However, for purposes of initial recruitment the selection committee was to recommend suitable persons from amongst" (a) Subordinate Judges and Law Graduate Judicial Magistrates working in the union Territory of Delhi on deputation from other states; (b) Members of Civil Judicial cadre of States whose names may be recommended by their respective State Governments for appointment; and (c) Members of the Delhi, Himachal Pradesh and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Civil Service, who are law Graduates. " The consents of the officer and parent Government were necessary for appointment to the service. Rule 12 provided that the number of officers to be appointed from the Stated of Punjab and Haryana was not to be less than the number of posts borne on the cadre of the said States for the purpose of the Union Territory of Delhi. Under Rule 20, persons appointed to the service at the initial recruitment were to stand confirmed with effect from the date of appointment whereas other candidates appointed subsequently were to be on probation for a period of two years. The only two other Rules which are relevant for our present purposes are Rules 24 and 25 in Part VI dealing with pay and they are in the following terms: "24. THE scale of pay of members of the service shall be as follows:- (1)Time Scale: Rs. 400-25-500-30-590- EB-30-800-EB-30- -830-35-900. (2)Selection Grade: Rs. 900-50-1250. " "25. THE pay and scale of the officers appointed at the time of initial recruitment shall be fixed by the Administrator in consultation with the Government of India in this behalf. " ( 4 ) SOON after the above rules were framed, the Registrar of the High Court of Delhi addressed a letter,on 27. 8. 1970. , to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration. " ( 4 ) SOON after the above rules were framed, the Registrar of the High Court of Delhi addressed a letter,on 27. 8. 1970. , to the Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration. In this letter he drew attention to the communication dated 11. 11. 1968. referred to earlier "under which the Government had given an assurance that officers of the Punjab and Haryana Judicial Service who would be appointed to the new judicial service at its initial constitution would be given the option to retain their existing scales of pay". Referring to Rule 25 of the DJS Rules, the Registrar wrote: "it is presumed that the assurance given by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, in its letter dated 11th November, 1968, is duly covered by the said rule and shall be given effect to while applying the said provision. Kindly confirm. " ( 5 ) TO this the Delhi Administration gave a reply on 3. 9. 1970 to the following effect:- "as you are aware, rule 25 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules, as notified, already provides that the pay and scale of the officers appointed at the time of initial recruitment shall be fixed by the Administration in consultation with the Government of India. The matter is being taken up with them. " ( 6 ) APPARENTLY in pursuance of the above communication the Secretary (Law and Judicial), Delhi Administration, addressed a letter to the Joint Secretary (UT), Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi on 10. 11. 1970. After referring to the fact that the rules for the DJS had come into force on 27. 8. 1970 and after referring to rule 25 thereof he stated: "although a time scale has been prescribed under rule 24 as approved by the Government of India, the aforesaid rule 25 was nevertheless incorporated with a view to settling the claims of officers of the other States appointed at the time of initial recruitment. We have, in particular, to examine the case of the officers belong (ing) to the State of Punjab and Haryana where the existing scales of pay are higher than those mentioned in rule 24. These officers are already pressing for a clear cut decision on the issue of pay scales prior to their induction into the lower judicial service in the process of initial recruitment. These officers are already pressing for a clear cut decision on the issue of pay scales prior to their induction into the lower judicial service in the process of initial recruitment. They are requesting that the Punjab/haryana/pay scales may be provided. They are basing their claim on the letter No. 1/21/66/dh (S) dated 11th Nov. 1968 from the Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi to Shri Guru Dutta, Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The Administration feels that the Govt. of India can under rule 25 allow the officers coming from States having better pay ales, the option to get the benefit of their own scales. This will greatly help in attracting suitable officers. " ( 7 ) HE requested the Government to communicate its orders after examining the implications of the demand and particularly "whether any future variations in the pay scales of the States concerned will affect the pay scales sanctioned with reference to any particular date. " The Government of India in reply to the above communication called for certain details regarding the names of the judicial officers who were continuing in the Punjab\haryana scales of pay together with their promotion to the next higher scales of pay by their letter dated 10. 12. 1970. After obtaining these details the Government of India by its letter dated 19. 2. 1971 communicated the following decision of the President: "i am directed to say that the President is pleased to decide that officers belonging to Punjab\haryana Civil Service (Executive and Judicial) and other States selected at the time of initial constitution of Delhi Judicial Service will be allowed option to draw pay in their parent grades as on the date of the constitution of the Service as personal to them but the deputation allowance if any drawn at present would be discontinued. These personal scales would be admissible in their existing posts only and on promotion they would have to come over to the Delhi scales. " ( 8 ) THE above correspondence represents the first stage of the proceedings with which we are concerned. ( 9 ) THE DJS was constituted, as already mentioned, by a notification dated 2. 8. 1971. At the time of initial recruitment officers from various State cadres were recruited to the service and the service started functioning with effect from 2. 8. 1971. ( 9 ) THE DJS was constituted, as already mentioned, by a notification dated 2. 8. 1971. At the time of initial recruitment officers from various State cadres were recruited to the service and the service started functioning with effect from 2. 8. 1971. From the narration of the correspondence earlier it will be seen that long before the initial recruitment was made the officers belonging to the Punjab and Haryana Judicial Service, whose scales of pay were higher than the scales of pay of Grade II given to new service, has been able to obtain from the Government of India an assurance that they would be given an option to continue on their existing scales of pay and on this assurance they joined the DJS. The other officers had come from other State service in all of which the scales of pay were lower than that provided for the new service. It is no doubt true that these officers may have agreed to join the new service because the scale of pay proposed for the new service was better than the one on which they were functioning at the time. But, at the same time, it is equally clear that, in giving their consent to join the new service, they would also have taken into account the provisions of Rule 25 which envisaged that, so far as initial recruitees were concerned, the Administrator had to fix the pay and scale of the officers in consultation with the Government of India. They knew then that the initial recruitment also included officers from the Punjab and Haryana Services who were on much higher scales of pay and, even if they had not then known about the assurances given to those officers by the Government of India, they may have even hoped that the Administrator might fix, if not the Punjab/haryana Scales, some scale of pay higher than Rs. 400-900 for the initial recruitees. ( 10 ) THESE initial recruitees to the DJS were straightaway given permanent appointment and their inter se seniority was fixed in accordance with the length of the service of each of them in the respective cadre to which he belonged. This was in accordance with the Rules 11 and 20 (1) of the rules and the seniority is not in dispute. The seniority had nothing to do with the scales of pay enjoyed by the individual officers. This was in accordance with the Rules 11 and 20 (1) of the rules and the seniority is not in dispute. The seniority had nothing to do with the scales of pay enjoyed by the individual officers. For instance under one of the notifications dated 2. 8. 1971. which has been placed before us we find that the first four officers are from U. P. cadre while the next 12 officers come from the Punjab and Haryana cadres. The U. P. officers were senior to those of Punjab and Haryana though the officers from Punjab and Haryana were drawing higher pay under the assurance earlier mentioned. In other words, the position at the time of initial constitution was that some of the senior officers were on a scale of pay which was lower that the scale on the basis of which some of their juniors were drawing their salary. Some time after these appointments were made and the question of the salary to be drawn by the several officers came up for consideration it appears that the Accountant General, Central Revenues raised some objections regarding the payment of salaries to the officers drawn from States other than Punjab and Haryana service did not have any difficulty perhaps because of the correspondence that had passed between the concerned authorities to which reference had already been made. The officers drawn from other States, however, were in difficulty; it appears that before they were allowed to draw their salaries they were required to give their option in terms of the Government of India s letter dated 19. 2. 1971. which had already been referred to, i,e. , for the DJS scale or their earlier pay scale. The petitioners state in the writ petition that they were placed in such a situation that if the option was not given in the stated manner, they would not be able to draw any salary. Faced with this situation the petitioners did give an option for the DJS scale in terms of the letter dated 19. 2. 1971. and they were able to draw their salaries on the basis of the pay fixed for Grade II officers of the new service. There were some other minor difficulties which have been subsequently sorted out and with which we are now not concerned. 2. 1971. and they were able to draw their salaries on the basis of the pay fixed for Grade II officers of the new service. There were some other minor difficulties which have been subsequently sorted out and with which we are now not concerned. The resultant situation was that of the officers who were all functioning as Sub Judges and Grade II officers of the DJS, those who had been recruited from Punjab and Haryana cadres were drawing their pay on the basis of the scales of pay enjoyed by them earlier in their states. On the other hand the petitioners and other officers who had been recruited from the judicial services of other States were allowed to opt for the Grade II scale of pay of the new service and were drawing their salaries on that footing. There was thus created an anomaly that some of the senior officers of the DJS were able to draw salaries much lower than those drawn by officers who were junior to the present writ petition. ( 11 ) THE present petitioners soon realized that, for the same work and responsibility in the same service, they were getting not only lesser salaries than some persons junior to them but also suffered certain disadvantages in the matter of other facilities like housing accommodation and conveyance and other amenities (like a cooler in the court-room and so on) which depended on the salary drawn. They made a representation to the Delhi Administration. The representation made by the first petitioner here, Shri R. Dayal, on 14. 4. 1971. may be referred to by way of illustration. He pointed out in his representation that though the letter dated 19. 2. 1971 of the Government of India purported to give an option to all initial recruitees in respect of the pay scale, it had really resulted in discrimination on the basis of something which pre-existed before their appointments to the unified cadre known as DJS and tended to perpetuate several pay scales for the members of one unified service cadre. It was submitted that this discrimination was unreasonable and violative of the provisions of Rule 25 and also of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It was pointed out that when he joined the DJS he had not been informed about the contents of the letter dated 19. 2. It was submitted that this discrimination was unreasonable and violative of the provisions of Rule 25 and also of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It was pointed out that when he joined the DJS he had not been informed about the contents of the letter dated 19. 2. 1971 and did not know that his pay would be fixed on a basis different from that which would be applicable to the fixation of pay of some other members of the service. He submitted that Rule 25 contemplated the fixation of a uniform pay scale for all the members of the service and that he had opted for the Delhi scale only in order that he might be able to get the pay pending the disposal of representations that had been made earlier. He, therefore, requested that his substantive pay should be fixed as if he had been posted to the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial) together with all annual increments applicable to the members of that service. ( 12 ) ON receipt of these representations on behalf of some of the petitioners the Secretary (Law and Judicial), Delhi Administration wrote a letter to the Government of India on 16. 8. 1972. In this letter he drew attention to Rules 24 and 25. He pointed out that the provisions of scale for all officers who were appointed to the service after the initial constitution but that the provisions of Rule 25 gave powers to the Administrator to fix in consultation with the Government of India the pay and scale of the officers initially recruited to the service. After referring to the earlier correspondence culminating in the letter dated 19. 2. 1971 of the Government of India it was pointed out that the assurance given to the officers belonging to the States of Punjab and Haryana prior to enactment of Rule 25 and translated into action by the letter of the Government of India dated 19. 2. 1971 by allowing an option to those officers to draw pay in their parent grades had resulted in the situation that the officers belonging to those States were getting much higher emoluments than many senior members of the service drawn from other States. It was pointed out that the decision of the Government of India in the letters of 11. 11. 1968 and 19. 2. It was pointed out that the decision of the Government of India in the letters of 11. 11. 1968 and 19. 2. 1971 were intended only to protect the pay scales of officers drawn from Punjab and Haryana and to give them a incentive to join the DJS but that it was not the intention that the Punjab and Haryana scales should be given to them without final fixation by the Administrator in consultation with the Government of India. It was pointed out that the matter had never been referred to the Administrator nor any final fixation done. In his view the entire fixation of pay of certain officers who had managed to obtain pay slips from the Accountant General was irregular. The letter further pointed out that Rule 25 had not given any particular scale of officers from any particular State for at the time the rules were framed it was not know how many officers would come from each State or how they would be placed inter se each other. After the recruitment was complete the matter should have been brought to the notice of the Administrator by the officers concerned and pay scales thereafter fixed by the Administrator, who would then have had an opportunity to see what disparity had arisen and to determine what should be done for the officers from other States who could have never anticipated that rule 25 was meant only for Punjab and Haryana officers. It was observed that a great deal of resentment had consequently arisen and required to be remedied. It was stated that if the Rules were interpreted by themselves without reference to the correspondence and considerations which brought them into existence it would be seen that Rule 25 did not envisage different pay scales for officers appointed at the initial recruitment though from different States. Such a discrimination, even if it was intended to be brought about, it was observed, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a discrimination, even if it was intended to be brought about, it was observed, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. After referring to certain judicial decisions the letter proceeded to state:- "there is, therefore, an immediate necessity for prescribing a uniform scale of pay for the officers appointed at the time of initial recruitment and the anomaly could be removed not by adopting a scale lower than the higher scale at present allowed to the officers originally belonging to Punjab and Haryana because if such lower scale is allowed, it will give rise to other legal complications at the instance of officers who have been allowed Punjab and Haryana Scales. The anomaly, therefore, could be removed by adopting the Punjab scales ( 14 ) REPLIED to this letter pointing out that 22 officers had come from other States and that they were in the scale of Rs. 400-900. On 5. 3. 1973 the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (U. T. ). This was, broadly speaking, a reiteration of what had already been set out in the letter dated 16. 8. 1972 and requested the Government of India that the pay of all the officers appointed at the initial recruitment should be fixed on the Punjab scale on the basis of their length of service so that officers with equal number of years of service to their credit got equal pay. ( 15 ) ON 5. 4. 1973 the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice conveyed the reply of the Government of India to the Delhi Administration s letter dated 16. 8. 1972. In this letter it was pointed out that in November, 1970 the Delhi Administration had proposed that officers coming from States "having better scales" should be given the option to draw pay from their parent scales on appointment to the DJS under Rule 25 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules. Presuming that the proposal of the Delhi Administration had the approval of the Administrator, the Government of India had agreed to the proposal by their letter dated 19. 2. 1971 and gave an option to all officers to draw pay in their parent cadres if that was higher as long as they continued in their existing posts. Presuming that the proposal of the Delhi Administration had the approval of the Administrator, the Government of India had agreed to the proposal by their letter dated 19. 2. 1971 and gave an option to all officers to draw pay in their parent cadres if that was higher as long as they continued in their existing posts. It was pointed out that under Rule 25 the pay and scale of the officers appointed at the time of initial recruitment was to be fixed by the Administrator in consultation with the Government of India in this behalf. When the proposal for protection of the scales of pay of the Punjab and Haryana officers itself came from the Delhi Administration it was presumed that it had the approval of the Administrator and fixation of pay in each case by the Administrator separately was not necessary. It was in this view that the earlier orders had been issued and it was rather strange that the Law Secretary of the Delhi Administrator. It was stated that the Government of India had been advised by the Law Ministry that the procedure adopted for the pay fixation satisfied substantially the requirements of Rule 25 and that the Government of India would like to know whether the proposal contained in the letter of 16. 8. 1972 had been made with the concurrence of the Lt. Governor and if not what his recommendations in the matter were. The letter proceeded to state: "it may be recalled that the terms and conditions of Judicial Officers working in Delhi at the time of the constitution of the Delhi Judicial Service were discussed and finalized in consultation with the Delhi Administration. The option to the Punjab and Haryana officers to retain their parent scales was agreed to at the specific request of the Delhi High Court and on the recommendation of the Delhi Administration. Such options are usually given when appointments to a Service are made from various cadres and the scales of the parent cadres happen to be higher than the scales in the new service. However, the proposal of the Delhi Administration contained in the enclosed letter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and we regret that it is not possible to extend the Punjab and Haryana scales of pay to officers drawing from other cadres. However, the proposal of the Delhi Administration contained in the enclosed letter has been examined in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and we regret that it is not possible to extend the Punjab and Haryana scales of pay to officers drawing from other cadres. Some hardship would have been caused to the Punjab and Haryana Officers if they were required to join the Delhi Judicial Service on scales of pay which were lower than their parent scales but no such hardship would be caused to officers drawn from other cadres, and drawing pay in lower scales of pay at the time of appointment to the Delhi Judicial Service. " ( 16 ) ON receipt of this communication the Lt. Governor had the matter examined and he replied to the Government of India on 6. 9. 1973. He stated that the proposals contained in the letter dated 10. 11. 1970 had been sent to the Government of India with the approval of the then Lt. Governor but that the letter dated 16. 8. 1972 had been sent by the Secretary (Law and Justice), Delhi Administration without the approval of the Lt. Governor. Having stated this factual position the Lt. Governor expressed his opinion in the matter in the following words: "however, I would like to mention that the decision to allow a set of officers to continue in pay scales other than that of the service in which they have been absorbed is not a happy one at all. A person opts for a new service with full understanding of the financial advantages and prospects in that service. Their pay in the parent cadre is generally protected by means of suitable pay fixation in the scales of the new service. The question of their continuing on an entirety different pay scale other than the scale of service for which they have opted does not arise. This decision is also unfair to the other members of the service and I feel that if the matter is agitated in a court of law, we may have a weak case. However, since a decision has already been taken and acted upon perhaps, we have to acquiesce. " ( 17 ) WHEN the writ petitioners came to this court they were not fully aware of the correspondence that had passed between the Delhi Administration and the Government of India in the matter. However, since a decision has already been taken and acted upon perhaps, we have to acquiesce. " ( 17 ) WHEN the writ petitioners came to this court they were not fully aware of the correspondence that had passed between the Delhi Administration and the Government of India in the matter. At the time the writ petition was filed they had only come to know of the letter of the Government of India dated 19. 2. 1971. In their reply to the writ petition the respondents had relied upon a letter of the Government of India dated 2. 2. 1974. This was addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary (Law and Justice), Delhi Administration. It is not necessary to set out this letter in extenso as this is practically a reiteration of what had already been said on behalf of the Government of India in the letter dated 5. 4. 1973. It was only observed that the giving of options to members recruited from other cadres to retain the scales of the parent cadres which might happen to be higher was quite usual and that there was nothing irregular, discriminatory or illegal in doing so, particularly when the proposal had emanated from the Delhi Administration with the approval of the Lt. Governor and thus, it was emphasized, the requirements of Rule 25 had been substantially complied with. It was also reiterated that the matter had been carefully examined again in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and it was recorded that it was not possible to agree to the proposal to allow the Punjab and Haryana scales of pay to other officers who were also initially appointed to the DJS from other States. The stand taken in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent was that the petitioners pay had been fixed under Rule 25 by the decision communicated filed and some time before the writ petition was heard the writ petitioners came across the letters dated 16. 8. 1972 and 5. 3. 1973 which have been referred to earlier. The letters filed by the parties indicated that there were certain other letters which had been left out and it was at our instance that the learned counsel for the respondents called for the entire file and placed before us in proper sequence the entire correspondence that had taken place. 3. 1973 which have been referred to earlier. The letters filed by the parties indicated that there were certain other letters which had been left out and it was at our instance that the learned counsel for the respondents called for the entire file and placed before us in proper sequence the entire correspondence that had taken place. It is this correspondence that we have set out in detail earlier. Mr. G. D. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that a perusal of the full correspondence only reinforced the petitioners contentions set out in the writ petition. His contentions were mainly three in number: (1)THERE has been no determination of the pay and scale of the officers recruited initially to the service as required by Rule 25; (2)RULE 25 does not contemplate a fixation of pay or scale of pay in the case of each member of the service which may differ from individual to individual or group to group; it envisages the fixation of a uniform scale of pay applicable to all initial recruitees under Rule 24;and (3)IF Rule 25 is construed as enabling the fixation of different scales of pay for different officers or groups of officers who had been taken over at the time of initial constitution of the DJS from other State cadres, such an interpretation and such determination was violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. MR. Gupta contended that Rule 25 requires that the pay and scale of the officers, who were initially recruited to the service, "shall be fixed by the Administrator (i. e. , the Lt. Governor of Delhi ) in consultation with the Government of India in this behalf". He pointed out that in this case the Administrator had not fixed any pay or scale of pay in compliance with this requirement. He pointed out that, according to the respondents, Rule 25 had been complied with by means of the communication dated 19. 2. 1971. This was the stand taken in the original reply filed on behalf of the respondents. This was clearly not correct because the letter dated 19. 2. 1971 was a letter that emanated from the Government of India and not from the Lt. Governor. The subsequent correspondence indicates that the Delhi Administration has been expressing a view that no scale of pay had been determined under Rule 25. This was clearly not correct because the letter dated 19. 2. 1971 was a letter that emanated from the Government of India and not from the Lt. Governor. The subsequent correspondence indicates that the Delhi Administration has been expressing a view that no scale of pay had been determined under Rule 25. Even assuming that the letter dated 16. 8. 1972 voicing this view had been sent without the approval of the Lt. Governor, it was clear from the letter dated 6. 9. 1973 that the Lt. Governor himself shared these views. Learned counsel, therefore, contended that terms of Rule 25 had not been complied with and that the Lt. Governor had not at any point of the time applied his mind to the issue or fixed the pay and scaled of the officers initially recruited to the service. So far as the second and third contentions were fully borne out by the letters written by the Delhi Administration and several judicial decisions and that the contrary views expressed in the letters of the Government of India were not correct. After hearing learned counsel on both sides, we are of opinion that the first contention urged by the learned counsel had great force. When we indicated this view to the counsel and proposed to dispose of the writ petition, allowing it on this point only, Mr. G. D. Gupta urged that we might, even so, proceed to hear him on the other contentions as well and give a complete disposal to all the points raised in the writ petition. But it seems to us that in the view we are taking on the first contention, it will be pre-mature to discuss the second and third contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners. They relate to the interpretation of Rule 25 and the question whether the interpretation thereof indicated in the letters of the Government of India is correct and, if correct, would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. But we think that since we have come to the conclusion that there has been no determination of pay and scale by the Lt. Governor in terms of Rule 25, it will only be proper for us to give an opportunity to the respondents to apply their minds and take a decision under Rule 25, whatever it may be. But we think that since we have come to the conclusion that there has been no determination of pay and scale by the Lt. Governor in terms of Rule 25, it will only be proper for us to give an opportunity to the respondents to apply their minds and take a decision under Rule 25, whatever it may be. We do not know the nature of the decision which the respondents will take when they apply their minds to the Rule and since an answer to the second and third contentions urged by Mr. Gupta would completely depend upon the nature of the fixation of pay and scale that might be made by the Lt. Governor under Rule 25, we think it would not be fair or correct to deal with the second and third contentions of the petitioners on an assumption that the Lt. Governor may only reaffirm the decisiontaken earlier by the Government of India and fix different pay scales for different officers and proceed to discuss whether this would be in conformity with the Rule and the constitution. We, therefore, express no opinion on the second and third contentions and proceed to deal only with the first contention of the learned counsel. However, we will not dispose of the writ petition resting our decision on this point only but shall keep it pending to await the outcome of our directions to the respondents on this point and, if it is found necessary thereafter, we shall proceed to deal with the other two contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. ON a perusal of the correspondence referred to in detail above, there is no doubt in our minds that the terms of Rule 25 have not been complied with in this case. Even in the letters of the Government of India, on which strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Narula, the opinion expressed is only that the requirements of Rule 25 have been substantially complied with. But even this claim does not appear to be borne out by the terms of the correspondence between the two Governments. Once again it is necessary to emphasize that what Rule 25 contemplate is the fixation of pay and scale of the new recruitees by the Administration, i. e. , the Lt. Governor. In other words this Rule envisages a positive and clear decision by the Lt. Governor. Once again it is necessary to emphasize that what Rule 25 contemplate is the fixation of pay and scale of the new recruitees by the Administration, i. e. , the Lt. Governor. In other words this Rule envisages a positive and clear decision by the Lt. Governor. He has to determine the pay and scale decision by the Lt. Governor. He has to determine the pay and scale of pay of the officers who are initially recruited to the service. As we have already said it is perhaps a little premature now to discuss whether this Rule contemplates the fixation of a uniform pay scale for everyone of the officers who were initially recruited to the service whatever his original cadre might be or whether it contemplates or permits the fixation of different scales of pay for different officers. But there has been no determination at all under Rule 25. WE are not much impressed by the argument that the fixation has taken place because of the option that has been given to, and exercised by, everyone of the officers. There are two difficulties in accepting this argument. The first is that the option was given by the Government of India, not the Lt. Governor. No doubt the proposal emanated from the Lt. Governor and the Government of India, when consulted, agreed with the proposal. But, after the consultation was effected, it was necessary that this should have been given effect to by a formal determination by the Administrator or the Lt. Governor. There has been no such determination in this case. The respondents rely on the letters dated 19. 2. 1971 and 5. 4. 1973 but these are letters from the Government of India and cannot be considered to be a determination by the Lt. Governor under Rule 25. Moreover, the earlier proposal of 10. 11. 1970 on behalf of the Lt. Governor was not in terms of Rule 25 but, as will be pointed out below, was purely intended to allay the fears of the officers drawn from Punjab/haryana and to implement the assurance that had already been given to them be the Government of India. No doubt the subsequent letter dated 16. 8. 1972 was not sent with the approval of the Lt. Governor but the Lt. Governor s letter dated 6. 9. 1973 clearly shows that he agrees with these views substantially. No doubt the subsequent letter dated 16. 8. 1972 was not sent with the approval of the Lt. Governor but the Lt. Governor s letter dated 6. 9. 1973 clearly shows that he agrees with these views substantially. However, he feels that the earlier Lt. Governor having referred the matter to the Government of India and the Government of India having taken a decision and that this having been implemented, there is no choice for him but to acquiesce in the existing state of affairs. In other words, to sum up the position: At the stage when the recommendations were made to the Government of India in 1970 with the approval of the Lt. Governor the proposal was not in terms of Rule 25 and did not refer to this rule though the letter dated 10. 11. 1970 apparently came to be written to enable the Delhi Administration to confirm the presumption raised by the Registration of the High Court in his letter dated 27. 8. 1970 -vide, its interim reply dated 3. 9. 1970 to the Registration. That apart, while the Government of India was no doubt consulted, the obligation on the part of the Lt. Governor, after such consultation with the Government of India, to make a factual determination of pay and scale of the initial recruitees was not done. The position regarding the subsequent letter of 5. 4. 1973 is no better. The Lt. Governor s letter of 6. 9. 1973 shows that the Lt. Governor did not accept the views of the Government of India, still he could have perhaps proceeded to make a determination in the light of the opinion of the Government. He did not do this but merely presumed that, since the decision had already been taken - apparently by the Central Government for his predecessor had taken none - and acted upon, he had option but "to acquiesce". Even if these words can be taken to mean - which we doubt - that he decided to fix the scales of pay on the basis of the option as determined earlier, he had to make formal determination to that effect with reference to Rule 25 which was not done. In these circumstances, there has been no literal compliance with Rule 25 and it is even difficult to say that there has been a substantial compliance therewith when the Lt. In these circumstances, there has been no literal compliance with Rule 25 and it is even difficult to say that there has been a substantial compliance therewith when the Lt. Governor is seen to have had serious misgivings on the Government of India s decision. BUT the more important aspect which makes us reluctant to accept the argument that there has been a determination under Rule 25 is the context in which the matter has been considered and the decision taken by the Government of India. At the time of the earlier decision on 19. 2. 1971, the Registrar of the Delhi High Court, the Delhi Administration as well as the Government of India were entirely concerning themselves with the claim put forward by officers who were to be recruited from the Punjab and Haryana cadres that they would not like to join the new service unless they were assured that they would be allowed to retain their existing scales of pay. In other words the matter had been entirely examined from the point of view only of the officers belonging to those States and the Government of India was only considering the financial loss and loss of promotional chances that such officers may suffer, if not given the proposed option. The letters of the Government of India dated 10. 12. 1970 and 28. 9. 1972 leave no doubt on this. The Government was only thinking how much more expenditure it would have to incur if this were done. Faced with this problem, the Government, having regard to the fact that "such options are usually given when appointments to a service are made from various cadres and the scales of the parent cadres happen to be higher than the scales of new service" -we quote from the letter dated 5. 4. 1973, (emphasis added by us ) - decided that the proposal was in accord with the procedure that is usual in such cases and that there was nothing wrong, irregular or unconstitutional in permitting those officers who were drawing higher scales of pay, to opt for their earlier scales even though the scale prescribed for the new recruitees under the DJS was a smaller scale. Though the letter dated 10. 2. Though the letter dated 10. 2. 1971 purported to give the option not merely to the officers drawn from Punjab and Haryana but made a casual reference to those from "other Stated" as well, it is clear that the Government of India at that time neither adverted to nor was even conscious of the impactthat the above decision might have on persons who were to be recruited form other States. In fact, as pointed out on behalf of the petitioners the Government was not aware at that time how many officers would be recruited from different States and what functioning would be at the time of their appointment of DJS. This information was called for and supplied only be the letters dated 28. 9. 1972 and 15. 12. 1972 respectively. However, it is now sought to be suggested in the letter of 5. 4. 1973 that the Government had considered the position regarding the Punjab\haryana officers only not because it was not mindful of others but simply because the Punjab\haryana officers were the only ones who would suffer a hardship by the new scales whether the others stood to benefit thereby. This statement is correct only in a very restricted sense. In the first place, the correspondence prior to 19. 2. 1971 contain no reference to the officers from other States on this aspect now mentioned for the first time. That apart, it is not wholly correct to infer that the officers of the other States opted to the new scales because they were decidedly advantageous to them. It is no doubt true that, though not initially, even the present writ petitioners exercised an option in favour of the DJS scales subsequently some time in 1972 before they were allowed to draw their salaries We shall ignore the circumstance and plea that this option was exercised by them under indirect compulsion and because of the immediate necessity of their being allowed to draw their salaries. It is also no doubt true that so far as the petitioners were concerned, they exercised the option because it was clearly advantageous to them in that the scales of drawing earlier were definitely lower than the scale of Rs. 400-900 to which they opted. It is also no doubt true that so far as the petitioners were concerned, they exercised the option because it was clearly advantageous to them in that the scales of drawing earlier were definitely lower than the scale of Rs. 400-900 to which they opted. At first sight it might appear that be exercising this option the petitioners obtained an advantage and that having thus obtained such an advantage they cannot be heard to say that the fixation of pay in accordance with their options is not fair of just. But this criticism overlooks the most important point that, at the time when these options had been exercised, the petitioners were legitimately hoping and expecting that a uniform scales of pay would be fixed for all the officers under Rule 25. Perhaps they were aware that the Punjab and Haryana officers were on a higher scale and, perhaps, they could also legitimately hope, that in view of the commitment already made be the Government of India to those officers, the Lt. Governor might fix the pay of all of them on the Punjab and Haryana scales. This may have been too optimistic a view but they were exercising was only an interim arrangement to draw their salaries pending fixation of a scale of pay for all. They could not have known and they were not told that this exercise of option was in terms of Rule 25 of Delhi Judicial Service Rules. The Government of India or even the Delhi Administration was not thinking at all of these officers at the time of their correspondence in 1968, 1969, 1970 and 1971. The plight of the present petitioners came to light only some time in 1972 when everyone came to realize the obvious disparities between two sets of officers functioning in the same service and when they realized that they came forward with their objections which, as already pointed out , were also echoed by the Delhi Administration. As indicated in the letter of the Administration dated 10. 11. 1970 and 16. 8. 1972, before making a determination under Rule 25, it was necessary for the Lt. As indicated in the letter of the Administration dated 10. 11. 1970 and 16. 8. 1972, before making a determination under Rule 25, it was necessary for the Lt. Governor to consider (i) the initial constitution, with particular reference to the States from which the officers were drawn and the pay scales on which they were functioning; (ii) how a proposal to allow them an option for their existing pay scales or DJS scale would affect their positions interse; (iii) how such an option could be worked in case the scale of one of the parent cadres were to undergo a revision; (iv) whether the Rule envisages the fixation of a uniform pay scale or not and, if yes, whether it would be appropriate to fix the Punjab\haryana or DJS or an intermediate scale, particularly in the context of the assurance given to the Punjab\haryana or DJS or an intermediate scale, particularly in the context of the assurance given to the Punjab/haryana officers; and (v) if not, whether the fixation of different scales of pay for different officers would be violate of Articles 14 and 16, as contended for by the petitioners. It is difficult to agree that the grant of an option decided upon without a full consideration of the scope and factors relevant for the application of the Rule can be described as a determination under that Rule. " THIS may kindly be treated as consultation by the Administrator with the Government of India as envisaged in rule 25 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules. " ( 18 ) ON 28. 9. 1972 the Government of India enquired from the Delhi Administration how may officers from States other than Punjab and Haryana had been initially recruited and what the scales enjoyed by them at present, on the basis of their options were. On 15. 12. 1972 the Delhi Administration ( 19 ) AFTER having concluded about the disparities between the two sets of officers functioning in the same service, which had also come to the notice of respondents in the year 1972 on which no decision had been taken, the bench hearing the petition issued the following directions:- "for the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion that there has been no fixation of pay and scale by the Lt. Governor in terms of Rule 25. Governor in terms of Rule 25. Since this determination is necessary under the Rules, and there is no time limit prescribed for this fixation, we direct that respondent No. 1 should now apply his mind to this requirement and fix the pay and scale of pay of the initial recruitees to the service in accordance with that rule. The first respondent may take his decision within three months from today. We shall list the writ petition again on 11th January, 1982. We expect that the decision of the Lt. Governor under Rule 25 will be available by that time. A decision on the other two contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners would depend upon the result of such determination as the Lt. Governor may make under the terms of Rule 25 and these will be discussed later, if necessary. " ( 20 ) THE writ petition was adjourned to 11th January, 1982. A copy of the order was directed to be given to counsel for both the parties so as to enable respondent No. 1 to take necessary decision within the framework of Rule 25, if considered necessary, in consultation with respondent No. 2. ( 21 ) NEEDLESS to add that the first respondent was to take decision within a period of three months from 5th October, 1981under Rule 25 of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules. An application (C. M. 141/82) was filed on 11. 1. 1982 on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 seeking extension of time to comply with the decision dated 5. 10. 1981 and for passing of appropriate orders. It was stated in the application that after passing of the aforementioned order dated 5. 10. 1981 and after collecting all files and the records from the counsel for the respondents, the Delhi Administration, on 13. 11. 1981 had referred the case to its Associated Finance Department. The Finance Department was informed as the Judicial Service falls directly under the control and superintendence of the High Court, a proposal had been received by the Delhi Administration on 22. 12. 11. 1981 had referred the case to its Associated Finance Department. The Finance Department was informed as the Judicial Service falls directly under the control and superintendence of the High Court, a proposal had been received by the Delhi Administration on 22. 12. 1981from the High Court approving the case of the petitioners that 24 officers, who were from other judicial services including Haryana Judicial Service where the scales were lower the Punjab scales be also given the benefit of the Punjab Scales and be deemed to have been appointed to the Punjab Service from the dates of their appointment in their respective State cadres. The application further states that this proposal of the High Court was forwarded to the Finance Department on 28. 12. 1981. The Finance Department also gave its concurrence and referred the case for approval of the Lt. Governor so that after the Lt. Governor s approval the same could be referred to the Government of India for its concurrence. The application further stated that on 4. 1. 1982, the Lt. Governor also gave his approval to the original proposal of the Delhi High Court, which had further been approved and concurred by the Finance Department. Accordingly on 6. 1. 1982, a reference was made to the Government of India. On going through the proposal and reference, the Law and Justice Department of the Union of India had asked for particulars regarding pay, dearness allowance, etc. of the petitioners and other similarly situated officers so that the amount, which would fall due could be worked out and it was also stated that in terms of the Government of India Allocation of Business Rules, 1961, as amended from time to time, the Department of Personnel and Administration Reforms and Ministry of Finance were also to be consulted and if it was felt necessary, the matter will have to be referred to the Cabinet. The application stated that as this procedure was likely to take some time, four months extension was sought for passing appropriate orders. ( 22 ) EXTENSION, as prayed for in the application (C. M. 141/82) was allowed on 13. 1. 1982. The case was adjourned thereafter from time to time, when it was stated that the matter was still under active consideration of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. On 5. 11. ( 22 ) EXTENSION, as prayed for in the application (C. M. 141/82) was allowed on 13. 1. 1982. The case was adjourned thereafter from time to time, when it was stated that the matter was still under active consideration of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. On 5. 11. 1982 the following order was passed:- "learned counsel states that since he is also appearing for the Accountant General Central Revenue, New Delhi and the Union of India, he will take steps to get the relief sought for in this application otherwise and that he is not pressing this application. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to give any directions as prayed for in the application to the Director of Audit and Central Revenue. However, this application also seeks an extension of the time granted to enable the Government to take a decision in this matter. It is, therefore, necessary to give notice to the counsel for the writ petitioners so far as this prayer is concerned. Notice for 26th November, 1982. " ( 23 ) AGAIN on 26. 11. 1982 further extension was sought to comply with the order dated 5. 10. 1981. One last opportunity was allowed by the following order:- "learned counsel for the applicant seeks further time to enable the Administration to take a decision in the matter in pursuance of this court s earlier order dated 5th October, 1981. He says that some delay has been occasioned because of the difficulties in getting the concerned department of the Central Government (A. G. C. R.) to cooperate in the matter. We think that a last opportunity should be given to the parties to have the matter settled outside the court, if possible, on the lines indicated earlier. We,therefore, grant time till 21st January, 1983. The writ petition may be listed for directions on that date. " ( 24 ) WHEN no decision was taken and the case was adjourned from time to time, on 28. 10. 1983 the following order was passed:- "counsel for the respondents wants further time to obtain instructions. The matter has been pending for a very long time and we do not want to grant any indefinite adjournments. " ( 24 ) WHEN no decision was taken and the case was adjourned from time to time, on 28. 10. 1983 the following order was passed:- "counsel for the respondents wants further time to obtain instructions. The matter has been pending for a very long time and we do not want to grant any indefinite adjournments. As a last chance this matter is adjourned to 16th December, 1983 by which time the respondents may either take a decision or we will proceed with the further hearing of the writ petition. The matter may be listed on 16th December, 1983 for directions so that a date for hearing of the writ petition may be fixed in case it becomes necessary. " ( 25 ) DESPITE the above stop order, the Court was apprised of further development, if any, on the implementation of the approval of the Lt. Governor. Considering the circumstances of the case, another opportunity was allowed on 17. 8. 1984 and it was clarified that in case no decision is taken by the respondents, the Court will proceed to hear the petition on merits. The order reads:- "in this matter counsel for the respondents seeks another adjournment to obtain instructions. A very long time has already been given to the respondents to take a decision in the matter as per the earlier orders of this Court but nothing has come out so far. It is not possible to adjourn the hearing of the writ petition indefinitely. However, as a last chance the respondents are given some more time to take a decision in the matter. We direct the writ petition to be listed for hearing on 2nd January, 1985. If in the meantime no decision is taken by the respondents as per the earlier orders of this Court, the hearing of the writ petition on merits will proceed as it is not possible to hold up the hearing of the writ petition such longer. " ( 26 ) ON 1. 3. 1985 one further adjournment was allowed by the following order, when it was requested that there has been further development in the case. The order reads:- "this writ petition has been adjourned from time to time to await a decision being taken by the first respondent in regard to the subject matter of the writ petition. 3. 1985 one further adjournment was allowed by the following order, when it was requested that there has been further development in the case. The order reads:- "this writ petition has been adjourned from time to time to await a decision being taken by the first respondent in regard to the subject matter of the writ petition. Though this matter has been adjourned a number of times, the decision of the first respondent No. 1 was not forthcoming and so on the last occasion we directed the writ petition to be listed for hearing on 22nd February, 1985. TODAY both counsel states that there have been some developments and that the matter is now being considered by theCentral Government which after obtaining certain clarifications from the Delhi Administration may take a decision in the matter soon. In view of this statement we grant one further adjournment. The writ petition may be listed on 26th April, 1985. " ( 27 ) LASTLY, on 3. 5. 1985 one more adjournment was allowed by the following order, in the hope that some decision might be taken in the light of various observations made from time to time:- "both counsel seek a further adjournment. Mr. R. M. Bagai, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, states that the Delhi Administration is expecting some details to be furnished by the High Court on the Administrative Side. He is hopeful that a conference of the concerned authorities can be held within a short time and that a decision can be taken by the Administration after getting requisite sanction from the Central Government in the next 2/3 months. In view of the statement made on behalf of respondent No. 1, this writ petition is adjourned to 26. 7. 1985. THIS writ petition has been pending for hearing for a very long time after an order was passed by us in October, 1981. As the matter has not been heard subsequently, we direct that this application need not be treated as part heard and be listed on 26. 7. 1985 before a Regular Bench. " ( 28 ) IN view of the above order, the petition was posted for hearing. The hearing was also adjourned from time to time and finally we proceeded to hear the petition on 20. 8. 1997 and 27. 8. 1997. At the time of hearing only learned counsel for the petitioners appeared. 7. 1985 before a Regular Bench. " ( 28 ) IN view of the above order, the petition was posted for hearing. The hearing was also adjourned from time to time and finally we proceeded to hear the petition on 20. 8. 1997 and 27. 8. 1997. At the time of hearing only learned counsel for the petitioners appeared. None appeared for the respondents. No further affidavits were filed, after 5. 10. 1981 except moving of one miscellaneous application (C. M. 141/82), seeking extension of time and another application (C. M. 5365/82) for issuing directions to the Directorate of Audit and Central Revenue. ( 29 ) AS a matter of fact, the narration of the aforementioned developments, which have happened, after passing of the order dated 5. 10. 1981, became necessary as in our view what is stated in the application (C. M. 141/82) by respondents 1 to 3 has the effect of almost accepting the petitioners case. Admittedly, a proposal was received by respondents 1 to 3 on 22. 12. 1981 from the High Court approving the case of the petitioners that they be given the benefit of the Punjab Scales and be deemed to have been appointed to the Punjab Service from the dates of their appointment in their respective State Cadres. This proposal was duly considered by the Delhi Administration and was forwarded to the Finance Department, which also gave its concurrence and in its turn referred the same for approval of the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor, as per the averments made in the application on 4. 1. 1982, duly approved the proposal of the High Court that 24 officers, who were from judicial service, including Harayana Judicial Service where the scales were lower than the Punjab scales be also given the benefit of the Punjab scales and be deemed to have been appointed to the Punjab service from the date of their appointment in their respective State cadres. A further narration of facts would suggest that the approval of the Lt. Governor, namely, the Administration on the proposal of the High Court was sent to the Government of India for its concurrence, for which purpose the case was duly forwarded on 6. 1. 1982. The case thereafter did not move further. A further narration of facts would suggest that the approval of the Lt. Governor, namely, the Administration on the proposal of the High Court was sent to the Government of India for its concurrence, for which purpose the case was duly forwarded on 6. 1. 1982. The case thereafter did not move further. Various orders passed thereafter in this petition do suggest the inaction on the part of the Central Government, despite of opportunities granted in that behalf, leads to draw an inference that in the facts and circumstances, there is concurrence on the part of the Central Government to the orders of the Administrator. Rule 25 of the Rules enjoins upon the Administrator to fix the pay scales of the persons appointed at the time of initial recruitment, in consultation with the Government of India in that behalf. In case there has been no response at all for almost fifteen years, it must be presumed that Government of India had noting to say in the matter and has no objection for its concurrence on the proposal of the High Court duly approved by the Administrator, otherwise it would have come forward with its objection, in case there would have been any. When no objection has been raised obviously there is none, meaning thereby the no more consultation was deemed necessary and Government of India concurred with the approval of the Administrator. ( 30 ) IN the circumstances aforementioned, we are of the view that the proposal received by the Delhi Administration from the High Court, which ultimately was duly processed and concurred by the Finance Department was duly approved by the Lt. Governor and the same will be deemed to have been approved in consultation with the Government of India within the ambitof Rule 25 of the Rules. This in turn amounts to fixation of the pay scales of the officers appointed at the time of initial recruitment, namely, the 24 officers, who were from other Judicial Services including Harayana Judicial Service where the scales were lower than the Punjab scales that they will be given the benefit of the Punjab scales and are deemed to have been appointed to the Punjab service from the dates of their appointments in their respective State cadres. ( 31 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the writ petition is allowed to the extent aforementioned. The letter dated 19. 2. 1971 is quashed. ( 31 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the writ petition is allowed to the extent aforementioned. The letter dated 19. 2. 1971 is quashed. Respondents 1 to 3 are directed to grant to the petitioners the benefit of the Punjab scale on the assumption that the petitioners are deemed to have been appointed to the Punjab service from the date of their appointments in their respective State cadres. Appropriate follow up action will be taken by respondents 1 to 3 by working out the amounts becoming due and payable to the petitioners, which will be paid to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of writ order from this Court. Interest will be calculated on the arrears becoming due and payable at the rate of 10% p. a. from the date when the arrears became due and payable till the date of payment.