ORDER: The petitioner-Association has filed this writ petition against the respondents praying to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the scale of pay strictly in accordance with recommendations of the fifth pay commission as implemented by the Government, taking into consideration the provisions of G.O.304, dated 28.3.1990 and also considering the existing scales of pay of feeder categories to the post of Divisional Accountants, Junior Accounts Officers and Accounts Officers of the first respondent/Board as follows: I. Divisional Accountants: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.2000-3200 Selection Grade ... Rs.2200-4000 II. Junior Accounts Officer: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.2200-4000 Selection Grade ... Rs.2500-4200 III. Accounts Officers: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.3000-4500 Selection Grade ... Nil with retrospective effect from 1.6.1988 and further directing the respondents to pay arrears and emoluments calculated on the basis of the above mentioned scales of pay. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents as well. 3. Rs.2200-4000 Selection Grade ... Rs.2500-4200 III. Accounts Officers: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.3000-4500 Selection Grade ... Nil with retrospective effect from 1.6.1988 and further directing the respondents to pay arrears and emoluments calculated on the basis of the above mentioned scales of pay. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and for the respondents as well. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner Association would contend that the first respondent Tamil Nadu Water and Drainage Board (TWAD) was constituted under Tamil Nadu Act IV of 1971 with effect from 14.4.1971; that its functions inter alia relate to regulation and development of drinking water and drainage in the State of Tamil Nadu; that Sec.10 of the Act enjoins the duty on the Board to prepare and maintain a schedule of establishments showing the number, designation and rates of the officers and servants necessary and proper to be employed in the service of the Board; that Sec.30 of the Act states that every person who immediately before the notified date, is serving in connection with the affairs of the Department of Public Health Engineering and Municipal Works, including the office of the Chief Engineer under the Government, shall, as and from that date, be deemed to have been allotted to serve in connection with the affairs of the Board; that it is further stated that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the notified date to, any such person shall not be varied by the Board to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Government; that Sec.73 deals with the powers of the Board to make regulations; that Sec.73(2)(b) enables the Board to make regulations providing for the terms and conditions of appointment and service and the scales of pay of the Officers and servants of the Board. 4. The further submissions of the petitioner as per the writ petition are that the Board had framed regulations called Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Service Regulations, 1972; that Regulation 58 states that Fundamental Rules, the amended leave rules and the manual of Special Pay and Allowances and the Pension Code as granted from time to time shall mutatis mutandis apply to the members of the Board service in the matter of their pay, allowances, dearness leave salary and other conditions of service. 5. 5. The further averments of the writ petition are that in the Board, there is Accounts Subordinate Service comprising of Divisional Accountants and Junior Accounts Officers; that there is also Accounts Service wherein there are Accounts Officers; that those employees who are serving as Assistants, Assistant Section Officers and Superintendents in the Ministerial service having minimum three years service in Accounts Branch can write Divisional Accountant’s Grade Examination conducted by the Accountant General, Tamil Nadu, that only those who passed the test are eligible to be promoted as Divisional Accountants and hence these posts are the feeder posts for the post of Divisional Accountant and that only a Divisional Accountant can be promoted and posted as Junior Accounts Officer. 6. The petitioner further submits that it is clear that the post of Divisional Accountant can be achieved by an employee of the Board on successful completion of the test and through promotion; that since the post of Junior Accounts Officer and Accounts Officer are promotional posts for Divisional Accountants, it could be easily understood that those posts are higher posts. But, while fixing the scale of pay of the Accounts Department, the first respondent acting in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner had denied them, their rightful scale of pay which is the main grievance in the writ petition; that for fixing the scale of pay, the first respondent has valid norms adopted by the Highways Department; that before Third Pay Commission, the Divisional Accountants of the first respondent were given higher scales of pay than their counterparts in the Highways Department that is the Government; that through the Third and Fourth Pay Commissions, the scale of pay of the Divisional Accountants of the first respondent and that of the Highways Department were equalised. 7. 7. Accounting for the scale of pay that was in existence during the Third Pay Commission and refixation of the same in the Fourth Pay Commission, the petitioners would further contend that the Divisional Accountants were paid the scale of pay of the Divisional Accountants which was fixed at Rs.1820-3200; that the State Government by G.O.304, dated 28.3.1990 awarded Selection Grade scale of pay between 750-945 to Rs.2500-4200; that though the first respondent was authorised to implement the above G.O. to its employees also, while implementing the same, the first respondent committed errors resulting in discrimination in scales of pay of the employees of the Accounts Department; that the first respondent fixed the Selection Grade pay at Rs.2000-3200 which is unsustainable in law; that Assistant Section Officer and Superintendents are feeder posts to Divisional Accountants and on their attaining Selection Grade will get the pay scale of Rs.2000-3200. But on promotion as Divisional Accountant, he will be given only Rs.1820-3200 thus by promotion an employee would be losing his salary; that this is the irregularity in the fixation of pay committed by the first respondent which is being challenged. 8. But on promotion as Divisional Accountant, he will be given only Rs.1820-3200 thus by promotion an employee would be losing his salary; that this is the irregularity in the fixation of pay committed by the first respondent which is being challenged. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, besides generally denying the allegations contained in the writ petition, it would be specifically submitted that only based on the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, the Divisional Accountants in T.W.A.D. Board were allowed the scale of pay of Rs.1045-1775 on par with Divisional Accountant in the Highways and Rural Works Department; that subsequently, based on the recommendation of the one man Committee, the Government have revised the scale of pay of Divisional Accountant in the Highways and Rural Works Department and the scale of pay of Divisional Accountants in TWAD Board was revised to Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950 notionally with effect from 1.10.1984 but with monetary benefit from 12.6.1987; that since the scale of pay of Divisional Accountant and Junior Accounts Officer were identical, both posts were merged into one category as Junior Accounts Officer; that consequent to this, an issue arose as to whether the Junior Accounts Officer in Head Office be allowed to move to Selection Grade applicable to both the posts of Divisional Accountant and Junior Accounts Officer taking into account their continued service as Divisional Accountant and Junior Accounts Officer, whichever is later; that the Government in their orders (Ms) No.898, P & AR Department, dated 23.9.1983 have ordered that when two posts, one carrying higher scale of pay and the other carrying lesser scale of pay are merged, the incumbents who were carrying lesser scale of pay and lower in status will get elevated to Selection Grade first after 10 years of service from the date of merger and as such, the Divisional Accountants promoted as Junior Accounts Officer can move to the Selection Grade only after 10 years of service from the date of merger; that on further representation by the Accounts Officials Association, the matter was again referred to Government and the Government in their letter dated 8.3.1990 have clarified as follows: “There will be only one category after the merger and there is no question of promotion from the post of Divisional Accountant to the post of Junior Accounts Officer and that all the Divisional Accountants will become Junior Accounts Officer automatically and the duties and responsibilities of both posts will be one and the same.” The Government have also prescribed revised scales of pay for the Posts of Divisional Accountant and Junior Accounts Officer with effect from 1.6.1988, the date of implementation of the V Pay Commission as detailed below: Divisional Accountant : Rs. 1820-60-2300-75-3200 Junior Accounts Officer : Rs. 2000-60-2300-75-3200 Based on this, the scales of pay for Divisional Accountant and Junior Accounts Officer were revised and allowed as below: Divisional Accountant : Rs.1820-3200 Junior Accounts Officer : Rs.2000-3200 9. The first respondent would further submit in his counter that the above two scales allowed to Divisional Accountant and Junior Accounts Officer annulled the earlier decision of the Board that both these posts are merged; that subsequently the Government clarified certain points in its letter dated 29.6.1993 and 15.12.1993; that the pay for the Divisional Accountant may be notionally fixed with effect from 1.6.1988 and the monetary benefits be given and no arrears of pay and allowances need be paid; that from the above, it is seen that the TWAD Board Accounts Officials Association by their protracted representation got revised scales of pay which is beneficial to them by separating, merging and again separating both the above posts and comparing the scales to other departments are not acceptable; however the proposal already approved to merge and fix the pay for these posts at Rs.2000-3200 w.e.f., 1.6.1988 notionally and to give monetary benefit from 15.12.1993 and that no arrears to Divisional Accountants has to be given effect to, in view of Government instructions; that this subject having been considered by the Board was referred to the Government which in their letter dated 19.8.1993 stated that both these posts should not be separated again and informed the Board to amend the regulations suitably; that the orders of the Government issued on 29.6.1993 read with the order dated 19.8.1993 and letter dated 15.12.1993 were placed before the Board for adoption and the Board in its resolution No.27 dated 26.11.1996 resolved to adopt the same and passed orders in B.P.Ms.No.390, dated 6.12.1996; that the TWAD Board followed the scales of pay applicable to the Divisional Accountants of Highways and Rural Works Department in the TWAD Board also, adopting the revised scale as per the recommendations of the V Pay Commission; that the post of Junior Accounts Officer is a promotional post and the scale of pay was fixed at Rs.2000-3200 and therefore the act of fixing the scale of pay for the post of Divisional Accountants and Junior Accounts Officer as per the order of the Government is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. 10. 10. The first respondent would further submit that the posts of Assistants, Assistant Section Officer and Superintendents are not feeder category posts for the post of Divisional Accountant; that the post of Divisional Accountant is filled up by persons with prescribed years of experience and who have passed the competitive Divisional Accountant Examination conducted by the Accountant General; that the post of Administrative Officer is filled up by promotion from the category of Superintendent; that their pay is fixed as per rule and the corresponding scale of pay in the Selection Grade posts are allowed to them; that the duties and responsibilities of Administrative Officer cannot be compared equivalent to that of Divisional Accountant as it belongs to a different service; that the post of Divisional Accountant is not a promotional post to the post of Assistant Section Officer, whose qualification is a degree, besides passing the Divisional Accountant test conducted by the Accountant General; that the post of Section Officer is filled up by Assistant Section Officers by preparing a panel and duly considering the seniority, etc. and no competitive examination is being held for this; that the Board follows the scale of pay intended to the office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department in respect of technical and ministerial staff and for such of the posts not prevailing in those Offices, the scale of pay adopted in Highways and Rural Works Department is followed; that for Junior Accounts Officers in TWAD Board, their scale of pay is adopted as per the Government Order; that the Accounts wing in TWAD Board is stated to be equivalent to the Accounts Wing of Accountant General and not that of the Accounts Wing in Highways and Rural Works Department; that the TWAD Board Service Regulations, TWAD Board Officers and Servants Conduct Regulations and TWAD Board (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations will not apply to fixing of pay of employees of the Board; and according to Regulation 58 of the TWAD Board Service Regulations in respect of pay and allowances, the same that is allowed to the Government Servants shall be followed; that as per Sec.7 of the TWAD Board Act, the Board has power to increase or decrease the pay of employees of the Board with the concurrence of the Government; that the method of appointment adopted for Thiru A.V.Raman is different, since he got appointment by direct recruitment on advertisement, wherein the qualification prescribed was A.C.A., on account of which he was given a special scale of pay; that one post of Accounts Officer was upgraded as that of Deputy Chief Accounts Officer and in view of the higher scale of pay since allowed, he was accommodated in the said post strictly in adherence to the Rules; and on such and other averments, the first respondent would ultimately pray for dismissing the Writ Petition as devoid of merit. 11. The averments contained in the counter affidavit submitted on behalf of the second respondent, are almost same or similar to that of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent and hence it will be only a waste of time to repeat what has already been traced from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent. 12. 12. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner it would be urged that the allegation that the pay of the Divisional Accountants in TWAD Board was revised to Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950 notionally with effect from 1.10.1984 and the monetary benefits were given from 12.6.1987 is not correct; since the monetary benefits were given from 1.4.1986 by Board’s proceeding No.8 dated 19.1.88 on analogous to the other categories of Government Servants and Board employees, which fact has been suppressed by the respondents; that while implementing the V Pay Commission, the respondents fixed different pay scales for Divisional Accountants and Junior Accounts Officers inspite of merger and ordered the pay of Divisional Accountants at Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 1.6.1988 notionally, with monetary benefits from 15.12.1993 and with no arrears from 1.6.1988 to 15.12.1993 which is arbitrary and without any basis; that these posts having been made equal with equal pay from 1.10.1984 as per IV pay commission, the Divisional Accountants ought to have got a pay equal to the Junior Accounts Officers from the date of implementation of V Pay Commission with effect from 1.6.1988; that there cannot be two different scales of pay for the same cadre; that the allegations that the post of Assistants, Assistant Section Officers and Superintendents are not feeder categories for the post of Divisional Accountants are also not correct; that since the nomenclature of the Assistants in the Board, Secretariat Unit has been changed as Assistant Section Officer, they were also considered; that many Assistant Section Officers and Superintendents were already promoted, some of them recently and if the Assistant Section Officer post is not a feeder category, then such promotion would not have been made; that the allegation that the Board has power to increase and decrease the pay of employees with the concurrence of the Government is not sustainable; that the reduction of the scale of pay in the T.N. Public Service Commission for the Assistant Secretary and Section Officers cannot justify the reduction of the Pay of Accounts Officers, since no valid or tangible reason was assigned for such reduction; that the categories of Assistant Secretary and Accounts Officers have different classifications of service with different qualifications and with different duties and responsibilities. 13. 13. Quoting the extracts of Sec.73(2)(b) of the TWAD Board Act, 1970 and Regulation 58 of the TWAD Board Service Regulations, the Rejoinder would contend that there is no mention as stated in the counter that the revision of pay scales are made by the Government by issuing separate rules every time for each Pay Commission and hence they are not governed by any other rules; that the contention of the respondent that Thiru A.V.Raman was appointed by direct recruitment on advertisement in newspapers and hence he was allowed special scales of pay in the category of Accounts Officer is totally unacceptable and there is no such policy in the Government or Board for any other categories for giving separate pay scales for the same category of posts on the ground of direct recruitment; that regarding the prayer for fixation of pay for Accounts Officers, since there are only 12 employees in the said cadre by fixing the salary as prayed for, they will benefit only below Rs.500 which will not cause any heavy financial burden on the respondents; that the first respondent states that as per Government Orders, the arrears for the period from 1.6.1988 to 14.12.1993 have not been authorised and the second respondent’s counter in this regard is also silent for withholding the arrears for the said period and with such averments, the rejoinder would ultimately contend that the Government having pointed out the category of Junior Accounts Officers and Divisional Accountants having been merged, they need not be bifurcated once again and further having accepted that the Divisional Accountants are entitled for the pay of scale as that of the Junior Accounts Officers, they ought to have fixed the pay from 1.6.1999 i.e., the date of effect of the V Pay Commission and to pay the arrears to them as ordered to all the other categories of employees of the respondents and would pray to direct the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 1.6.1988 to 14.12.1993 as prayed for in the writ petition. 14. 14. During arguments, besides tracing the facts as pleaded in the writ petition, the petitioner would also sum up stating that on 1.10.1984 the pay of the Junior Accounts Officers and Divisional Accountants was made equal and one and the same i.e., Rs.1160-1950; that the V Pay Commission fixed the pay for the Divisional Accountants at Rs.1820-3200 and for Junior Accounts Officers at Rs.2000-3200 and thus they bifurcated both these posts. Further contending that the Court can interfere in fixation of pay if the same is done unjustly, the petitioner would cite a Judgment of the Apex Court, delivered in Secretary Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Association, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1203, wherein it is held: "It is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily Courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the pay commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. Several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchial arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. In the instant case presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. In the instant case presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court’s interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. Merely because the Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted status and the Registration Service was included in State Service did not entitle the Sub-Registrars to be placed in the higher scale if their duties and responsibilities did not justify the same. One of the basic principles of pay fixation is that the salary must reflect the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the post, meaning thereby that the pay scale must be commsen-surate with the task to be performed and the responsibility to be undertaken by the holder of the post. Merely because of conferment of gazetted status or placement in State Service, no qualitative change was brought about in the job performance of the Sub-Registrars and their superiors. Educational qualification is only one of the many factors which has relevance to pay fixation. The complexity of the job to be performed and the responsibilities attached thereto are entitled to great weight in determining the appropriate pay scale for the job." 15. The other Judgment quoted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is from one delivered in Dwaraka Nath v. Income-tax Officer, Circle D Ward, Kanpur, A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 81, wherein it is held thus: "Art.226 is couched in comprehensive phraseology and it ex facie confers a wide power on the High Court to reach injustice wherever it is found. A wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purposes for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised was designedly used by the Constitution. A wide language in describing the nature of the power, the purposes for which and the person or authority against whom it can be exercised was designedly used by the Constitution. The High Court can issue writs in the nature of prerogative writs as understood in England; but the scope of those writs also is widened by the use of the expression “nature”, which expression does not equate the writs that can be issued in India with those in England, but only draws an analogy from them. That apart, High Courts can also issue directions, orders or writs other than the prerogative writs. The High Courts are enabled to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. To equate the scope of the power of the High Court Under Art.226 with that of the English Courts to issue prerogative writs is to introduce the unnecessary procedural restrictions grown over the years in a comparatively small country like England with a unitary form of Government to a vast Country like India functioning under a federal structure. Such a construction would defeat the purpose of the article itself. But this does not mean that the High Courts can function arbitrarily under this article. There are some limitations implicit in the article and others may be evolved to direct the article through defined channels. P.J.Rani v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1731: (1962)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 92 and T.C.Basappa v. T.Nagappa, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 440, Foll.“ 16. But this does not mean that the High Courts can function arbitrarily under this article. There are some limitations implicit in the article and others may be evolved to direct the article through defined channels. P.J.Rani v. State of Madras, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1731: (1962)1 M.L.J. (S.C.) 92 and T.C.Basappa v. T.Nagappa, A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 440, Foll.“ 16. In reply, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the prayer is for three categories; that according to the Board’s Regulation three categories are available method of recruitment which we mentioned in Regulation 19, wherein various modes of appointments for various categories are given; that in case of the Junior Accounts Officers persons who are having five year period as Divisional Accountant will be promoted as Junior Accounts Officers whereas in the case of Divisional Accountant, people who have put in 3 years of service in the Ministerial service or accounts branch besides passing the Divisional Accountant’s Test, have become qualified for promotion; that the qualifications are prescribed for these two categories; that there were two grades one is ordinary grade and the other Selection Grade; that by IV Pay Commission Report, recommendations were made by Government to merge these two posts; but however these recommendations were not accepted by many associations/ registered unions; that the recommendation of the IV Pay Commission was not able to be implemented; that in the meantime the V Pay Commission report was announced fixing the Ordinary Grade at Rs.1820-3000 and the Selection Grade at Rs.2000-3200; that whereas in the case of Junior Accounts Officer it was Rs.2200-3000. 17. Continuing the argument, the learned counsel for the respondents would further submit that the Selection Grade is not in controversy; that there were several writ petitions filed on the question whether the Board can bring in a legislation amending the regulation; that there were prolonged litigation; that it is the discretion of the Government; that the G.O. is not the subject matter before this Court. 18. At this juncture, the learned Counsel would cite a judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Union of India and others v. O.P.Saxena and others, (1997)6 S.C.C. 360 , wherein it is held thus; ”One of the conditions laid down in departmental provisions was that “the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts should be identical”. 18. At this juncture, the learned Counsel would cite a judgment of the Apex Court delivered in Union of India and others v. O.P.Saxena and others, (1997)6 S.C.C. 360 , wherein it is held thus; ”One of the conditions laid down in departmental provisions was that “the scales of pay of the lower and higher posts should be identical”. The condition held, was not satisfied where the seniors were promoted from Driver, Grade “C” to Loco Supervisor while the Junior was promoted from Driver, Grade “A” to Loco Supervisor. Hence the seniors were not entitled to removal of anomaly even if their junior was getting more pay than them.“ 19. The other Judgment cited is one delivered in Shiba Kumar Dutta and others v. Union of India and others, (1997)3 S.C.C. 545 , wherein also it is held thus; ”Nomenclature and fitment is one of executive policy of the Government. Unless the action is arbitrary or there is invidious discrimination between persons similarly situated, doing some type of work it would be difficult for the Courts to go into the question of equation of posts or fitment into a particular scale of pay. They must be left to be decided by Expert Committees and Government. The Courts cannot go into them and evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for each category." 20. Giving the extracts of the above judgments, the learned counsel would further argue to the effect that at different points of time, different representations have been made for which there is no proof at all; that at the time when decadre was effected (1991) petitioners were not qualified; that they cannot have any grievance regarding the decadre done in the year 1986 and with these arguments advanced, the learned counsel would ultimately pray for dismissal of the above writ petition with costs. 21. 21. In consideration of the pleadings, counter pleadings and the rejoinder and having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the Accounts Officials Association of the TWAD Board since got aggrieved regarding the fixation of scale of pay by the Board and the Government of Tamilnadu, have come forward to file the writ petition praying to issue the writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the scale of pay strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the V Pay Commission as implemented by the Government and in consideration of the provisions of G.O.No.304, dated 28.3.1990 and the existing scales of pay with retrospective effect from 1.6.1988 and further to direct the respondents to pay the arrears and emoluments calculated on the basis of the scales of pay which are: I. Divisional Accountants: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.2000-3200 Selection Grade ... Rs.2200-4000 II. Junior Accounts Officer: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.2200-4000 Selection Grade ... Rs.2500-4200 III. Accounts Officers: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.3000-4500 Selection Grade ... Nil 22. The relevant contentions of the petitioners if put in a nutshell are that Sec.30 of the TWAD Board Act, 1971 contemplates that if a person who immediately before the notified date is serving in connection with the affairs of the departments of public, health, engineering and municipal works including the Office of the Chief Engineer and the Governments, shall from that date, be deemed to have been allotted to serve the Board and that the conditions of service applicable to any such person shall not be varied by the Board to his disadvantage except with the previous approval of the Government; that Sec.73(2)(b) enables the Board to make regulations providing for the terms and conditions of appointment, the service and scales of pay of the Officers and servants of the Board; that the Board had framed the Tamilnadu Water Supply and Drainage Board Service Regulations 1972; that Regulation 58 states that Fundamental Rules, the amended leave rules and the manual of special pay and allowances and the Pension Code shall mutatis mutandis apply to the members of the Board/ Service in the matter of pay, allowances, dearness leave salary and other conditions of service. 23. 23. The further case of the petitioner- association is that the post of Divisional Accountant can be achieved by an employee of the Board on passing of the Test and through promotion; that since the post of the Junior Accounts Officer and Accounts Officer are promotional posts for Divisional Accountants, they are higher posts but while fixing the scale of pay, the first respondent acting in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner, had denied them their rightful scale of pay which is the main grievance in the writ petition; that for Divisional Accountants during IV Pay Commission scale of pay was fixed at Rs.1820-3200; that the State Government by G.O.No.304, dated 28.3.1990 awarded Selection Grade scale of pay from Rs.750-945 to Rs.2500-4200; that though the first respondent was authorised to implement the said G.O. to its employees during implementation it had committed errors resulting in discrimination in scales of pay of the employees of the Accounts department; that fixing of the Selection Grade pay at Rs.2000-3200 is unsustainable while Assistant Section Officers and Superintendents being feeder posts to Divisional Accountants and on their attaining Selection Grade will get a pay scale of Rs.2000-3200; but on promotion as Divisional Accountant, he will be given only Rs.1820-3200; thus by promotion an employee will be losing his salary and this is the irregularity in the fixation of pay committed by the first respondent which is being challenged. 24. 24. The counter arguments put forth on the part of the first respondent are that based on recommendations of the IV Pay Commission, the Divisional Accountants in TWAD Board were allowed the scale of pay of Rs.1045-1775 on par with the Divisional Accountants in Highways and Rural Works Department and subsequently it got revised by the Government as Rs.1160-50-1460-70-1950 notionally with effect from 1.10.1984, but with monetary benefit from 12.6.1987; that since the scale of pay of Divisional Accountants and Junior Accounts Officers were identical both posts were merged into one category as Junior Accounts Officers; and the Government in its letter dated 8.3.1990 clarified regarding the status and promotion of these two posts after merger and there is no question of promotion from the post of Divisional Accountant to the post of Junior Accounts Officer and that all the Divisional Accountants will become Junior Accounts Officer automatically and the duties and responsibilities of both posts will be one and the same; that the Government have also prescribed revised scale of pay for the posts of Divisional Accountant and Junior Accounts Officer with effect from 1.6.1988 i.e., the date of implementation of the V Pay Commission fixing the scale of pay for Divisional Accountants at Rs.1820-3200 and as of Junior Accounts Officers at Rs.2000-3200, thus annulling the earlier decision of the Board that both these posts are merged, but however the proposal already approved to merge and fix the pay for those posts at Rs.2000-3200 w.e.f., 1.6.1988 notionally and to give monetary benefits from 15.12.1993 and that no arrears to Divisional Accountants be given effect to and on clarification with the Government, the stand was adopted by the Board in its B.P.Ms.No.390, dated 6.12.1996. On such arguments, the first respondent would say that the TWAD Board followed the scales of pay applicable to the Divisional Accountants of Highways and Rural Works Department in the TWAD Board also, adopting the revised scale, as per the recommendations of the V Pay Commission. It would further be pointed out that the post of Junior Accounts Officer being a promotional post, the scale of pay was fixed at Rs.2000-3200 and therefore the act of fixing the scale of pay for the post of Divisional Accountants and Junior Accounts Officers as per the order of the Government is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. 25. It would further be pointed out that the post of Junior Accounts Officer being a promotional post, the scale of pay was fixed at Rs.2000-3200 and therefore the act of fixing the scale of pay for the post of Divisional Accountants and Junior Accounts Officers as per the order of the Government is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. 25. It is the further case of the respondent that the post of the Divisional Accountant is filled up by persons with prescribed years of experience and who have passed competitive Divisional Accountant Examination; that the post of Administrative Officer is filled up by promotion from the category of Superintendent; that the duties and responsibilities of both cannot be compared equivalent to each other; that the opportunity follows scale of pay intended to the Office of the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department in respect of Technical and Ministerial Staff and in other cases the Highways and Rural Works Departments; that for Junior Accounts Officer in TWAD Board, their scale of pay is adopted as per the Government order; that the Accounts Wing of TWAD Board is equivalent to that of Accounts Wing of Accountant General and that of Rural Works Department; that according to Regulation 58, of TWAD Board Service Regulation in respect of pay and allowances, the same that is allowed to the Government servants; that the Board has power to increase or decrease the pay to its employees with the concurrence of the Government; that the case of A.V.Raman is different when he got appointed by Direct Recruitment on Advertisement. 26. In retaliation to these arguments the petitioners would submit that the Divisional Accountant’s pay in TWAD Board was revised to Rs.1160-60-50-1460-70-1950 notionally with effect from 1.10.1984, and with monitory benefits as per 12.6.1987 is not correct. 26. In retaliation to these arguments the petitioners would submit that the Divisional Accountant’s pay in TWAD Board was revised to Rs.1160-60-50-1460-70-1950 notionally with effect from 1.10.1984, and with monitory benefits as per 12.6.1987 is not correct. Since the monitory benefits were given from 1.4.1986 that while implementing the 5th Pay Commission, the respondent fixed different pay scales for Divisional Accountants and Junior Accounts Officers inspite of merger and orders the pay of Divisional Accountants at Rs.2000-3200 with effect from 1.6.1988 notionally and monitory benefits from 16.12.1993, and with no arrears from 1.6.1986 to 15.12.1993 which is arbitrary and without any basis; that these post having been made equal with equal pay from 1.10.1984 as per the 4th Pay Commission, the Divisional Accountants ought to have got a pay equal to the Junior Accounts Officers from the date of implementation of the 5th Pay Commission with effect from 1.6.1988; that there cannot be two different scales of pay for the same cadre that without assigning valid or tangible reason, no reduction in pay could be effected that in the case of A.V.Raman, there is no such policy in the Government or Board for giving separate pay scales for the same category of posts on ground of direct recruitment; that at present there are 12 employees in the said cadre for fixing the salary as prayed for and they will also benefit only below Rs.500 which will not cause any heavy financial burdens on the respondents; that on the part of the Government since it has been pointed out that category of Junior Accounts Officers and Divisional Accountants having been merged and further having accepted that the Divisional Accounts are entitled to the pay scale as that of the Junior Accounts Officers, they ought to have fixed the pay from 1.6.1988; that is the date of effect of the 5th Pay Commission and to pay the arrears to them as ordered to all the other categories of employees of the respondents directing the respondents to pay the arrears of salary from 1.6.1988 to 14.12.1993. 27. The above arguments put forth on the part of the petitioner are not only sound but also quite convincing. 27. The above arguments put forth on the part of the petitioner are not only sound but also quite convincing. However, as pointed out in the Judgment reported in Secretary Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Association, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1203, fixation of pay scales studying the equation of posts is to be determined by the executive and not by the judiciary since according to the learned Judges of the Apex Court, ordinarily Court will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the pay Commission etc. But that is not to say the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedies if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction. After all in the case in hand the number of members of the petitioner’s Association aggrieved and will be benefited if their prayers are answered in the affirmative would be 12 in number and the monitory benefit also would not exceed Rs.500 at any cost which facts are not denied on the part of the respondents and since on sufficient and valid grounds the petitioners have come forward to seek direction to fix the scale of pay strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, in full consideration of G.O.Ms.No.304, dated 28.3.1990 in further consideration of the existing scale of pay of feeder categories to the post of Divisional Accountants, Junior Accounts Officers and Accounts Officers in the manner provided for in the prayer column of the writ petition and with retrospective effect from 1.6.1988 with arrears of payment calculated on such basis since being on relevant grounds this Court is inclined to answer the prayer of the petitioners in the affirmative. Since arguments of the petitioners have been made on sound reasons as extracted here before as against such reasoning put forth on the part of the petitioners, the respondents are not able to convince the Court as to why the relief sought for on such reasons by the petitioner should not be granted and hence the following orders are passed. 28. In result, the above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. 29. 28. In result, the above writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. 29. The respondents are directed to fix the scale of pay of those eligible members of the petitioner’s Association strictly in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission as implemented by the Government and in consideration of the provision of G.O.Ms. No.304, dated 28.3.1990 and in further consideration of the existing scales of pay of the feeder categories to the post of Divisional Accountants, Junior Accounts Officers and Accounts Officiers of the first respondent Board as follows: I. Divisional Accountants: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.2000-3200 Selection Grade ... Rs.2200-4000 II. Junior Accounts Officer: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.2200-4000 Selection Grade ... Rs.2500-4200 III. Accounts Officers: Ordinary Grade ... Rs.3000-4500 Selection Grade ... Nil with retrospective effect from 1.6.1988 and further directing the respondents to pay arrears and emoluments calculated on the basis of the above mentioned scales of pay. 30. In this circumstance of the case there shall be no order to costs.