A. K. SIKRI,j ( 1 ) IN this petition, petitioners are demanding revision in pay scales fromretrospective date i. e. w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996. Revision in pay scales have been given tothe petitioners but prospectively only i. e. w. e. f. 10. 10. 1997 when the orders to thiseffect were issued. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS in this case are working invarious ranks namely Inspector, Sub-Inspector and Constable in Para Military Organisations like ITBP, CRPF and BSFas non-gazetted combatised cadre of the Central Police Organisations (CPOs inshort) being the armed forces of UOI. ITBP, CRPF and BSF are CPOs under theministry of Home Affairs, other two being Assam Rifles and CISF. All these 5 CPOsare declared armed forces of the Union by Acts of Parliament. According to thepetitioners, IV Central Pay Commission in its recommendations to the Governmenthad suggested that there should be uniformity in the pay scales of the personnel inall these 5 CPOs and it recommended same scale for Delhi Police and CPOs. However while implementing the recommendations, Government granted higherpay scales to subordinate officers of Delhi Police, IB and CBI but denied the samepay scale to the personnel of CPOs. The pay scales as. implemented by thegovernment in respect of CPOs personnel and Delhi Police personnel w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986are as under: ( 3 ) IN fact the pay scales of CPOs as given by the Government and mentionedabove were the same as recommended by IVth Central Pay Commission. However the personnel of Delhi Police were given higher pay scales thanrecommended by IV Central Pay Commission. As CPOs personnel were givenlesser pay scales than their counterparts in Delhi Police, this disparity wasprotested. It is stated by the petitioners that although the Government realisedthat the petitioners were entitled to same pay scale, due to time factor to completethe process and limitation of the Government for the payment of huge arrears whenthe country was facing financial crisis during 1989-90 the upgradation of the CPOscould not be implemented at that time but assurances were given by respondents 1and 2 to the effect that such anomalies and disparities would be removed in the Vthpay Commission. Vth Pay Commission which was set up by Resolution dated9. 4. 1994 gave its report on 30. 1. 1997. Vth Pay Commission which was set up by Resolution dated9. 4. 1994 gave its report on 30. 1. 1997. However, according to the petitioners, it didnot consider the representations made by respondents 3 to 5 recommending forparity in pay scales of subordinate officers and other in CPOs qua Delhi Policepersonnel and recommended the normal replacement scales of subordinate officersin CPOs which are as under : ( 4 ) AS anomaly persisted, matter was referred by Ministry of Home Affairs forreview of pay structure of such personnel to Committee of Secretaries and Group o1ministers of the. Government Resolution No. 50 (1) IC/97 dated 30. 9. 1997 was issuedby Ministry of Finance as per which the pay scales of the subordinate officers ofcpos were brought at par with the pay scales enjoyed by their counterparts in Delhipolice, IB and CBI. However para 7 of this Resolution reads as under :-In respect of personnel of Central Police Organisations, in the rank fromconstable to Subedar Major, Ministry of Home Affairs will carry out anexercise for rationalisation of ranks so as to achieve parity with Delhi Police,pending which the scales recommended by the Fifth Civil Procedure Code will be applied. " ( 5 ) FROM para 7, it is clear that the petitioners for time being were given the payscales as recommended by V Central Pay Commission. However exercise forrationalisation of ranks so as to achieve parity with Delhi Police was to be undertaken. This exercise was ultimately undertaken and it resulted in issuance of order dated10. 10. 1997 as per which the pay scales of subordinate officers in CPOs wererationalised and were brought at par with the pay scales being given to Delhi Police. However in para 5 of this order it was mentioned that it would be effective fromdate of issue and for the period from 1. 1. 1996 till the date of issue of this order i. e. 10. 10. 1997 pay in the revised scales will be regulated in accordance with theprovisions of CCS (Revised) Pay Rules, 1997 namely Notification dated 30. 9. 1997. Paras2and5 of this order being subject matter of controversy are quoted below forproper appreciation of the problem:- PARA :2"the President is also pleased to rationalise the pre-revised pay scalesand replacement pay scales in respect of the above cadres as indicatedbelow:-3972. htmpara 5: "the above orders will be effective from the date of issue. For the periodfrom 01. 9. 1997. Paras2and5 of this order being subject matter of controversy are quoted below forproper appreciation of the problem:- PARA :2"the President is also pleased to rationalise the pre-revised pay scalesand replacement pay scales in respect of the above cadres as indicatedbelow:-3972. htmpara 5: "the above orders will be effective from the date of issue. For the periodfrom 01. 01. 1996 till the issue of this order, the pay in the revised scale willbe regulated in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Revised) Pay Rules, 1997. " ( 6 ) THUS although petitioners have been given the pay scales which are enjoyed bytheir counterparts in Delhi Police etc. this revision in the pay scales is made effectivefrom 10. 10. 1997 only. Petitioners claim that it should have been given w. e. f 1. 1. 1996the date from it was given to their counterparts in Delhi Police. ( 7 ) GIVING justification in support of the aforesaid claim, Ms. Shyamala Pappulearned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that entry level educationalqualifications, physical standards and mode of recruitment etc. of Delhi Police andcpos personnel are more or less the same. Not only this CPOs personnel afterjoining service are put through comparatively more rigorous training and coursesto make them fit to combat both against the militancy for maintaining the internalsecurity and also against any external aggression. Their duties are more onerousthan their counterparts in Delhi Police. Therefore they are entitled to the atleastsame pay as is being given to their counterparts in Delhi Police, IB and CBI etc. Thiswas recognised by even IV Central Pay Commission which suggested uniformityin pay scales of personnel in all CPOs and Delhi Police. However it is only at thetime of implementation of the recommendations of IV Central Pay Commission,higher pay scales were granted to the subordinate officers of Delhi Police, IB andcbi. On protest being made by respondents 3 to 5, namely employers of thepetitioner, it. was recognised that petitioners were also entitled to same pay scalesbut the matter was deferred due to the Government s own limitations with assurancethat such anomaly would be removed in V Central Pay Commission. On protest being made by respondents 3 to 5, namely employers of thepetitioner, it. was recognised that petitioners were also entitled to same pay scalesbut the matter was deferred due to the Government s own limitations with assurancethat such anomaly would be removed in V Central Pay Commission. Howevereven V Central Pay Commission did not consider this aspect and recommendednormal pay scales but Government ultimately realised this anomaly and disparityand therefore reviewed the entire matter and ultimately recognised that petitionerswere entitled to same pay scales as are being enjoyed by their counterparts indelhi Police, IB and CBI which resulted in issuance of order dated 10. 10. 1997. Oncehaving realised that there was an anomaly and anomaly has been removed by therespondents themselves, it should have been removed at least from 1. 1. 1996when the higher pay scale was granted to their counterparts in Delhi Police etc. Infact, it was submitted that relying upon para 2 of order dated 10. 10. 1997, thepetitioners were entitled to the upward revision in pay scales w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 i. e. when the pay scales as per the recommendations of IV Central Pay Commissionwere implemented because as per the petitioners in para 2 rationalisation of pre-revised pay scales has also been given in para 2 of 10. 10. 1997. Thus respondentshave recognised the fact that the pre-revised pay scales of the petitioners shouldhave been more than what was given to them. In any case, the petitioners wereentitled to the revision in pay scales w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996 and it could not have beenmade effective from the date of issue i. e. 10. 10. 1997. Reliance was also placedupon office memorandum dated 8. 2. 1996 as per which the pay scale of DSP and SPin CBI were revised from 1. 1. 1986 on the recommendations of IV Central Paycommission and it was argued that in 1996 when revising the pay scales ofaforesaid officials in CBI, the revision could be made effective from the date whenthe recommendations of IV Central Pay Commission were implemented i. e. 1. 1. 1986,why such a treatment could not have been given to the petitioners in revising the payscales of the petitioners from 1. 1. 1986 when recommendations of V Central Paycommission were accepted. Reliance was also placed on para 79. 1. 1986,why such a treatment could not have been given to the petitioners in revising the payscales of the petitioners from 1. 1. 1986 when recommendations of V Central Paycommission were accepted. Reliance was also placed on para 79. 35 of the VCentral Pay Commission wherein it is mentioned that pay scales for personnel ofcbi, IB and CPOs. should follow a uniform pattern and it was submitted that onceexistence of anomaly was accepted and recognised and the said anomaly wasremoved, it should be from the initial date i. e. 1. 1. 1996 and not from the date ofissuing of the order. In support of these submissions, reliance was placed upon thefollowing judgments:-1) Order dated 14. 12. 1987 passed by Supreme Court in CWP No. 1193 of1987 entitled G. S. Rathees Kumar and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. This brieforder reads as under:- "we have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are satisfied thatthe petitioners are entitled to the revised pay scale with effect from 1/01/1986 which is the date applicable to the Central Government Employeesinstead of 11/06/1987. It is ordered accordingly. This writ petition isdisposed of. " 2) Judgment dated 7. 6. 1991 of Punjab and Haryana High Court incwpno. 592/88 entitled Satpal Singh and Ors. Vs. Haryana State Electricity Board andanr. andparticularly the following observations made therein:-"after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that thepetitioners are entitled to the revised grade of Rs. 1200-2040. 00 w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986when the Board decided to revise the grades of different categories of itsemployees, it is not dispute that different pay scales were revised witheffect from this date and it was only when some anomalies came to surfacein the implementation of those revised grades that a committee wasconstituted with a view to remove anomalies. This committee after examiningvarious anomalies and obviously with a view to remove them recommendedto the Board the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. 00. If anomalies existed inthe implementation of the revised grades and the same had to be removedthey must necessarily be removed from the date when the grades wererevised. There would be no meaning in removing an anomaly from a datesubsequent to the date when the grades were revised. 1200-2040. 00. If anomalies existed inthe implementation of the revised grades and the same had to be removedthey must necessarily be removed from the date when the grades wererevised. There would be no meaning in removing an anomaly from a datesubsequent to the date when the grades were revised. In other words, ifnow grades had to be given by way of removing an anomaly, such gradesshould take effect from the date when the grades were originally revised. Inthis view of the matter, the petitioners are justified in claiming the grade ofrs. 1200-2040. 00w. e. f. 1/01/1986. " 3) Judgment dated 22. 9. 1997 passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWPNo. 13360 of 1996 entitled Shyam Sunder and Ors. Vs. Haryana State Electricityboard and Anr. wherein the Court extended the benefit from 1. 1. 1986 instead of1. 5. 1990 granted by Haryana State Electricity Board by observing as under :-"once the claim of pay parity has been granted to the petitioners, there isno reason to assign different date for its effect. The revised pay scaleshould be given from the same date as in the case of other categories ofemployees. The petitioners contention is that the revised pay scale givenfrom 1/05/1990 instead of 1/01/1986 is the result of discriminationand arbitrariness. Some junior Draftsman filed a Writ Petition (No. 592 of 1988 titled as satpalsingh and Others V. s. Haryana State Electricity Board) and the High court in that petition gave a direction on 7/06/1991 to give the pay scaleof Rs. 1200-2040. 00 to the petitioners therein from 1/01/1986. " 4) Shri Alvare Noronha Ferriera and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors. , reportedin JT 1999 (3) SC 223. In this case principle of equal pay for equal work was appliedfor granting same pay scale to District and Session Judges as was enjoyed by theircounterparts in Delhi. Paras 11 to 13 of this judgment read as under :- "para 11: The parameters for invoking the said principles would include,inter alia, nature of the work and common employer. There can be no twoviews that the nature of work of District and Sessions Judges is the samethough in some areas pendency of cases would be highe than others. Differences in the backlog are not uncommon even in two different stationsor the same territory, nay, in two different courts of the same station. There can be no twoviews that the nature of work of District and Sessions Judges is the samethough in some areas pendency of cases would be highe than others. Differences in the backlog are not uncommon even in two different stationsor the same territory, nay, in two different courts of the same station. Sucheopsidedness is hardly the ground to conclude that the nature of work doneby one judicial officer at once place is different from other. The dutyhours would be substantially the same, the powers to be discharged arein no way different, whether they are District Judges in Goa or in Delhi. Itwould be a futile exercise to make an endeavour for drawing a distinctionbetween the work pattern at the two different places, for, such differencesare discernible every where. But what would not make the nature of workdifferent. It was not necessary to cast the burden of proof on the appellantsto establish "the pendency of litigation or the norms fixed for disposal ofcases by the Delhi court to enable comparison between the nature of dutiesand the responsibilities carried by the officers of the Delhi Territory and thegoa Territory. "para 12: One admitted fact which looms large is that till hike in the pay-scale was brought about in 1982 for Delhi Judges the parity maintained asbetween Union Territory of Goa and Delhi applied to the same cadre ofjudicial officers. Nobody doubted till then that the nature and dimension ofwork discharged by the officers of the same cadre of judicial officers at twodifferent territories were different from any perceptible standard. It is forthe contesting respondents to show that there was change in the nature ofwork which necessitated the Government to keep two different levels ofpay to the same officers working at two different places. Para 13: Pay-scale of District and Sessions Judges in the Union Territory ofgoa was made on a par with that of Delhi by means of the rules andregulations formulated by the Central Government in exercise of the powersconferred on it by the provisions of "the Goa, Daman and Diu (Absorbedemployees) Act, 1965". The change was effected in 1982 on the premisethat the judicial officers in Delhi were upgraded as class I officers and sinceunion Territory of Delhi was declared a Metropolitan city, the pay-scaleswere equated with the pay-scales of judicial officers in other Metropolitancities. The change was effected in 1982 on the premisethat the judicial officers in Delhi were upgraded as class I officers and sinceunion Territory of Delhi was declared a Metropolitan city, the pay-scaleswere equated with the pay-scales of judicial officers in other Metropolitancities. We are not against revision of the pay-scales of the judicial officersin the Union Territory of Delhi on the basis of any justifiable grounds. But indoing so the pay scales of their counterparts working in other Unionterritories cannot suffer. " ( 8 ) RELIANCE was also placed upon the orders dated 18. 12. 1998 and 12. 5. 1999passed in CWP Nos. 801/86 and 1201/86 in the case of Supreme Court Employeeswelfare Assn. Vs. Union of lndiaand Ors. ( 9 ) MR. Jayant Bhushan learned counsel who appeared on behalf of UOI defendedthe decision of the Government in giving the higher pay scale to the petitionersw. e. f. 10. 10. 1997 i. e. from the date of issuance of order. His submission wasthat the replacement scale of the petitioners as per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997, on the recommendations of V Central Pay Commission,was given to the petitioners. It has specifically mentioned the following pay scales ofcpos and the relevant entries in these rules were as under:- ( 10 ) REFERRING to para 7 of resolution dated 30. 9. 1997 it was submitted that therespondents were to "carry out an exercise for rationalisation of ranks so as toachieve parity with Delhi Police. " This rationalisation was done after carrying outnecessary exercise and a conscious decision was taken to give the upgraded pay-scales to the petitioners with effect from the date of issue of office order dated10. 10. 1997. When rationalisation is done, it is not necessary that it has to relateback to the date when the recommendations of Vth Central Pay Commissionare implemented and the executive could choose the date from which these are tobeimplemented. Fixation of such a date was prerogative of the Government and ithad no relevance with 1. 1. 1996. The rationalisation made and the pay-scales givenultimately were not based on findings to the effect that the subordinate officers ofcpos were doing the same work which was being done by their counterparts indelhi Police, IB and CBI etc. and therefore it cannot be presumed that rationalisationwas done and higher pay given to the petitioners was the result of removing anyalleged anomaly. and therefore it cannot be presumed that rationalisationwas done and higher pay given to the petitioners was the result of removing anyalleged anomaly. The presumption of the petitioners therefore that any anomalyexisting which was allegedly removed is far fetched. It was further submitted thatfixation of such a cut off date being prerogative of the Government was dulyrecognised by the Supreme Court in various judgments wherein it was held thatcourts are not to interfere with fixation of cut off date that is the date from which theparticular decision is to be implemented. It was also submitted that when decision togive upward revision of any pay scale from aparticular date was taken, such datewas specifically upheld in various cases rejecting the claim for retrospectiverevision. It was also submitted that there was a difference between demanding apay scale at par with certain other officers and removal of anomalies on left outcases. In the latter case when the anomaly is found or it is found that a particularcategory is left out of the. benefit, while removing the said anomaly it could be madeeffective from the date when similarly situated persons are given. However samewould not hold good when the demand of particular class to make them at par withsome other class is accepted and in this case while accepting the demanddifferent date i. e. the date from which the demand is accepted can beprescribedand officers cannot claim retrospective revision. The case of the petitioners fell inthis category. The petitioners were in different organisations and the personnel indelhi Police, CBI and IB belong to different organisations. It was their demand that theyshould be brought at par with the officers in Delhi Police etc. and when this demandwas accepted, Government had right to fix the date from which it is to beacceptedit was also submitted that admittedly recommendations of Pay Commission werenot binding on the Government and it was for Government to accept or reject therecommendations or accept part of recommendations and reject another part. Whenthis is the position in law and the recommendations come into force when thegovernment accepts it has right to accept the same from later date also. Thereforein the present case when the demand of the petitioners is accepted and they arebrought at par with Delhi Police etc. Whenthis is the position in law and the recommendations come into force when thegovernment accepts it has right to accept the same from later date also. Thereforein the present case when the demand of the petitioners is accepted and they arebrought at par with Delhi Police etc. for the purpose of pay-scale the date on whichsuch decision was taken it becomes relevant date and claim of the petitioners togive pay scale from retrospective date was not permissible. In support of aforesaidpropositions, the learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (1) Union of India Vs. Secretary,madrascivil Audit and Accounts Assn reportedin (1992) 2 SCC 1 . (2) Joint Action Council of Service -Doctors Organisations Vs. Union ofindia reported in (1996) 7 SCC 256 . (3) State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopaldasreported in (1995) 2 SCC 396 : AIR1995 SC 809. ( 11 ) I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have gone throughthe records. Pay Commission constituted by the Government, which is a Highpowered Expert Committee, after going through all relevant aspects, makesrecommendations in regard to revision of pay scale, pay structure and parity in thepay scales of different cadres of employees. However pay scale suggested by itwould be recommendatory in nature and ultimately it is for the Government toaccept or not to accept the recommendations. It is a different matter that therecommendations of high powered committee like Pay Commission are not rejectedwithout cogent reasons (Joint Action Council of Service Doctors Organisationvs. U. O. I. ). Once such recommendations are to be accepted by the Government, itis also the prerogative of the Government to fix. the date from which theserecommendations would be applicable and fixing of such cut offdate cannot beinterfered with by the Courts unless it is arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of theconstitution. It is also well settled that question of parity in the pay scales of theemployees of two cadres on the basis of qualifications, job descriptions,responsibilities etc. is the function of the Pay Commission s and/or Governmentand Courts would generally keep themselves away from indulging into such exercisewhich is better left to such High Powered Committees. However. it is also anaccepted fact that in the process of consideration of the recommendations of Paycommission and its implementation, the likelihood of various anomalies andomissions cannot be ruled out. is the function of the Pay Commission s and/or Governmentand Courts would generally keep themselves away from indulging into such exercisewhich is better left to such High Powered Committees. However. it is also anaccepted fact that in the process of consideration of the recommendations of Paycommission and its implementation, the likelihood of various anomalies andomissions cannot be ruled out. It is for this reason that Anomaly Committees arenormally appointed to straighten the discrepancies and deal with the omissionswhich might come to the notice of the Government after the initial process of payrevision once by the anomaly committee it is found that there was such anomalyand a particular class of employees were not given the proper pay scale or were leftout while implementing the recommendations of the Pay Commission. Suchanomaly is normally removed from the date fixed by the Government forimplementation of the recommendations of the Pay Commission i. e. the date fromwhich other similarly situated employees got the revised pay scale. However theremay be a situation where it may not be a case of anomaly in the implementationof recommendations of the Pay Commission but a case where certain class ofemployees make a demand that they be given the same pay scales given to theircounterparts in other cadre on the ground that they also belong to same category. Once this exercise of rationalisation is done as a result of the acceptance ofdemand of such class of employees for grant of higher pay scale which was givento their counterparts and notification is issued to this effect, such a notification can beissued from a later date and can have prospective date. It need not be from thedate when their counterparts got the revised pay scales (State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopaldass ). ( 12 ) THE question therefore which falls for consideration is that in the given factsof the present case, what was the exercise undertaken by the Government whenthe Government agreed that the petitioners were entitled to the same pay scalewhich was being given to their counterparts in Delhi Police etc. ( 13 ) FACTS of this case, as already incorporated above, would show that IVthcentral Pay Commission in their recommendation to the Government hadsuggested that there should be uniformity in the pay scales of the personnel in allcpos viz. BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF and Assam Rifles. However after theimplementation of the recommendations of IVth Central Pay Commission, the othercpos. ( 13 ) FACTS of this case, as already incorporated above, would show that IVthcentral Pay Commission in their recommendation to the Government hadsuggested that there should be uniformity in the pay scales of the personnel in allcpos viz. BSF, CRPF, ITBP, CISF and Assam Rifles. However after theimplementation of the recommendations of IVth Central Pay Commission, the othercpos. were given lesser pay scales than given to Delhi Police, IB, CBI etc. What isto be borne in mind that different pay scales were given, notwithstanding therecommendations of IVth Central Pay Commission that the pay scales of CPOs anddelhi Police should be the same. It is the case of the petitioners that they protestedagainst this discriminatory treatment and the Government even realised that thepetitioners were entitled to same pay scale, due to time factor to complete theprocess and limitation of the Government for payment of huge arrears when thecountry was facing financial crisis during 1989-90. The upgradation of CPOs. couldnot be implemented and assurance was given that this anomaly would be removed inthe Vth Central Pay Commission. Vth Central Pay Commission in para 79. 35mentioned that pay scales of personnel of CBI, IB and CPOs. should follow a uniformpattern but did not take care of this aspect while recommending the revised payscales. The implementation of the Vth Central Pay Commission recommendationsalso resulted into varying pay scales for CPOs on the one hand and Delhi Policeetc. on the other hand. This resuited into issuance of Resolution dated 30. 9. 1997,on the demand of the petitioners that, as per which Ministry of Home Affairs was tocarry out an exercise for rationalisation of ranks so as to achieve parity with Delhipolice. This exercise was undertaken which resulted into issuance of order dated10. 10. 1997 as per which subordinate officers in CPOs. are given the same payscales as were being given to Delhi Police. ( 14 ) THE picture that emerges from the aforesaid discussion is that IVth Centralpay Commission specifically recommended same pay scales for CPOs as that ofdelhi Police, CBI etc. Even the V Central Pay Commission stated that there shouldbe a uniformity in the pay scales of these cadres. The claim of the petitioners thatthe petitioners cadre level educational qualifications, physical standards and modeof recruitment etc. are more or less the same as that of Delhi Police is also notdisputed. Even the V Central Pay Commission stated that there shouldbe a uniformity in the pay scales of these cadres. The claim of the petitioners thatthe petitioners cadre level educational qualifications, physical standards and modeof recruitment etc. are more or less the same as that of Delhi Police is also notdisputed. The petitioners also claim that their training and duties are moreonerous than their counterparts in Delhi Police. However in any case it is notdisputed that they are no less onerous than their counterparts in Delhi Police. Stillthe petitioners were not paid the same pay scale as was to their counterparts indelhi Police and the petitioners tried foul. Nodoubt in para 7 of Resolution dated30. 9. 1997, it is mentioned that Ministry of Home Affairs will carry out an exercisefor rationalisation in respect of personnel of CPOs in the rank from Constable tosubedar Major. It also specifically mentions that this exercise was for the purpose to achieve parity with Delhi Police . Thus function was to achieve pay parity withdelhi Police after realising that there was an anomaly which erupted in granting therevised pay scales to the petitioners belonging to CPOs when compared to theircounterparts in Delhi Police etc. This would be further clear from para 2 of theimpugned order dated 10. 10. 1997 as per which President is pleased to rationalisethe pre-revised pay scales and replacement pay scales inrespect of the concernedcadres to which the petitioners belong. In fact what is stated in this para clinchesthe issue. The pay scales which are rationalised are not only rationalised in therevised pay scales but pre-revised pay scales i. e. which were in existence beforethe V Central Pay Commission s recommendations were accepted w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996are also revised. For example as on 31. 12. 1995, an Inspector in CPO was gettinga pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. This pre-revised pay scale is rationalised to Rs. 2000-3200. This was the pay scale of Inspector in Delhi Police. Same is the position inrespect of other subordinate cadres in CPO. Thus first the pre-revised pay scalesof these CPOs were brought at par with that of Delhi Police and on that basis higherreplacement pay scales were granted to the petitioners. 1640-2900. This pre-revised pay scale is rationalised to Rs. 2000-3200. This was the pay scale of Inspector in Delhi Police. Same is the position inrespect of other subordinate cadres in CPO. Thus first the pre-revised pay scalesof these CPOs were brought at par with that of Delhi Police and on that basis higherreplacement pay scales were granted to the petitioners. Therefore it cannot be acase where rationalisation is done as on the date of issuance of the order and thehigher pay scales granted to the petitioners at par with Delhi Police is given fromthe date of issuance of the order. In fact first these petitioners are brought at par withtheir counterparts in Delhi Police etc. in the pre-revised pay scales which was theposition as on 31. 12. 1995 and on that basis they are given the replacement payscales. In view of this exercise having been done by the Government itself, thenecessary consequence is that the petitioners are deemed to be in the pre-revised pay scales as rationalised as per para 2 of order dated 10. 10. 1997 on31. 12:1995 and that the basis it is but natural that the replacement pay scale is to begiven to the w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996. Position would have been different if as a result of thisrationalisation, it was mentioned in the order dated 10. 10. 1997 that the Governmenthas agreed to give the revised pay scales as given to their counterparts in Delhipolice and then date of 10. 10. 1997 i. e. the date from issuance of order is fixed forgrant of these pay scales. Position has totally changed when even the pre-revisedpay scales are rationalised for which there has to be adate anterior to 1. 1. 1996as these pre-revised pay scales were applicable only upto 31. 12. 1995. Oncepre-revised pay scales are also made higher, granting revision in the replacementpay scales w. e. f. 10. 10. 1997 would have the effect of persisting the anomaly forthe period from 1. 1. 1996 till 9. 10. 1997. This can be again illustrated by taking thecase of an Inspector in CPO. He is given the higher pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500w. e. f. 10. 10. 1997 as per impugned order and the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 from1. 1. 1996 to 9. 10. 1997. However the pre-revised pay scale ofrs. 5500-9000isrs. 1640-2900. When the pre-revised pay scale itself is rationalised to thoseare Rs. 2000-3200. He is given the higher pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500w. e. f. 10. 10. 1997 as per impugned order and the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 from1. 1. 1996 to 9. 10. 1997. However the pre-revised pay scale ofrs. 5500-9000isrs. 1640-2900. When the pre-revised pay scale itself is rationalised to thoseare Rs. 2000-3200. 00 which has to be as on 31. 12. 1995, how he can be given thereplacement pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996. In view of this position,once it is to be treated as a case of removal of anomaly by the Government itself,which existed in the implementation of revised grades, it had necessary to beremoved from the date when the grades were revised i. e. 1. 1. 1996. The ratio of thejudgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners therefore become applicableto the present case also. In fact, as pointed out by the petitioners, Government hasgranted higher pay scales from 1. 1. 1996 in many other cases and few such examplesare as under: ( 15 ) AS far as the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondents areconcerned, there cannot be any quarrel with the legal proposition mentionedtherein which has already been stated above. However in those cases, prospectivedate fixed for revision of pay scales was accepted in altogether different factualbackground. In so far as case of UOI Vs. Secretary, Madras Civil Audit andaccounts Association reported in (1992) 2 SCC 1 is concerned, the effect wouldshow that Indian Audit and Accounts was bifurcated into two department and separatewings namely audit wing and accounts wing. IVth Central Pay Commissionrecommended that i) there should be a parity in pay scales of staff in IA and AD andother accounts organisation and accordingly scales should be revised and (ii)certain revised pay scales in the accounts wing should be treated as functional (grades) requiring permission as per normal procedure and number of posts to beplaced in those scales to be decided by Government. In so far as first part of therecommendations is concerned, effect was given from 1. 1. 1986 and as such allthose officers of both the wings who were entitled to scales of pay from 1. 1. 1986were granted the same w. e. f. that date. It was the second part of the recommendationswhich was given effect from 1. 4. 1987. In so far as first part of therecommendations is concerned, effect was given from 1. 1. 1986 and as such allthose officers of both the wings who were entitled to scales of pay from 1. 1. 1986were granted the same w. e. f. that date. It was the second part of the recommendationswhich was given effect from 1. 4. 1987. The Court found that on the reference to thesecond part of recommendations, categories of posts in functional grades in theaccounts wing had to be identified and graded and without undergoing this exerciseupgraded pay scales could not have been given. This exercise was done andthereafter upgraded pay scales given to the post which were identified and broughtinto functional grades from a future date i. e. 1. 4. 1987 on completion of such anexercise was held to be valid. The Court found that identification of these posts andthe upgradation cannot be treated as mere administrative difficulties. Implementationof the recommendations of the Pay Commission according to terms thereof itselfinvolved this exercise of creation of posts after identification which naturally tooksometime and therefore the two categories being different, principle of equal payfor equal work was not attracted. It was found, as a matter of fact, it cannot besaid that the post identified specifically were in existence as on 1. 1. 1986, andtherefore, claim to get the same pay scale from 1. 1. 1986 could not bejustified. Inthe case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopaldass (supra) the Court found on thefacts of that case that it was not a case of removal of anomaly but acceptance of thedemand of the UDCs of the subordinate offices for grant of higher pay scale whichwas given to their counterparts in Secretariat, and therefore, it could be qiven from alater date. Therefore this case is distinguishable on facts. ( 16 ) IT may be mentioned at this stage that at the time of arguments, counsel for thepetitioner had even tried to argue that petitioners were entitled to the revision in thepay scales at par with Delhi Police etc. w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 and directions be given tothis effect. However, I am not indined to accept this submission. First of all, it maybe noticed that the prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition is for grant of revisionin the pay scales w. e. f. 1. 1. w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 and directions be given tothis effect. However, I am not indined to accept this submission. First of all, it maybe noticed that the prayer of the petitioners in the writ petition is for grant of revisionin the pay scales w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996 and there is no prayer that the petitioners areentitled to the same pay scale as was given to their counterparts in Delhi Policew. e. f. 1. 1. 1986. Secondly, the entire case is based on order dated 10. 10. 1997which had been passed after undertaking the exercise of rationalisation ofimplementation of recommendations of Vth Central Pay Commission. Thereforethe relevant date has to be 1. 1. 1996. Thirdly, even on merits, there is no basis tomake the claim of parity w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986. Para2 of order dated 10. 10. 1997whereby pre-revised pay scales are rationalised (i. e. the pay scales of IVth Centralpay Commission) is for the purpose of giving replacement pay scales after theimplementation of recommendations of V Central Pay Commission and not for anyother purposes. Therefore, as pointed out above, the rationalisation of pre-revisedpay scales has to be as on 31/12/1995 to make the replacement scaleapplicable to the petitioners, and therefore, pre-revised pay scales cannot begranted to the petitioners w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986 as claimed. ( 17 ) THE result of the aforesaid discussion is that this petition succeeds. Rule ismade absolute. Petitioners are entitled to the revised pay scales w. e. f. 1. 1. 1996. Para 5 of the order dated 10. 10. 1997 is quashed. The arrears to which the petitionersshall be entitled to as a result of the aforesaid directions be calculated and paid tothe petitioners within a period of four months from today. ( 18 ) HOWEVER in the peculiar circumstances of this case, parties would bear theirown costs.