JUDGMENT In both these appeals similar question of fact and law are involved therefore they are disposed of by common order. 2. For convenient disposal of both the appeals fact given in the case F.M.A. No. 165 of 1992, State of West Bengal & Anr. v. The West Bengal Fishery Extension Officers Association & Ors., are taken into consideration. 3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th September, 1989 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by petitioners whereby the petitioners have claimed a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to withdraw the Government order dated September 11, 1984 and to forbear from proceeding any further in pursuance of the said Government order and to act in accordance with law. It is also prayed that the erstwhile Fishery Extension Officers may be placed above the Assistant Fishery Officers in the matter of determination of seniority in the West Bengal Junior Fishery Service Grade-II. Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties allowed the writ petition and set aside the principle of seniority as has been determined by the said Government order and the State Government was directed to fix up the seniority of the members of the erstwhile Fishery Extension Officers prior to 1.10.1971, treating them en bloc seniors to that of Assistant Fishery Officers. Learned Single Judge also held that the principle of seniority adopted by the respondents and preparations of the gradation list are also set aside and the State respondents is directed to prepare a Fresh gradation list in accordance with the observation made by the learned Single Judge. Aggrieved against this order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13th September, 1989 in Civil Rule No. 16198 (W) of 1985 this present appeal has been filed by the State Government. 4. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are writ petitioner respondents in the first mentioned appeal are the employees of the Directorate of the Fisheries under the Department of Fisheries of the Government of West Bengal. They are at present members of the newly constituted cadre of West Bengal Junior Fisheries Service Grade-II appointed as Fishery Extension Officers (Rs. 175-325/-). Another cadre known as Assistant Fishery Officer (A. F. 0.) was created in the year 1957 and the same was included in the West Bengal Subordinate Fisheries Service Class-II. They are at present members of the newly constituted cadre of West Bengal Junior Fisheries Service Grade-II appointed as Fishery Extension Officers (Rs. 175-325/-). Another cadre known as Assistant Fishery Officer (A. F. 0.) was created in the year 1957 and the same was included in the West Bengal Subordinate Fisheries Service Class-II. In 1961, the Assistant Fishery Officers were granted pay scale of Rs. 150-250/- which continued upto September 1971. In October 1971 their scale was revised to Rs. 300-600/-. The post of Fishery Extension Officer (F.E.O.) was created in 1965 with the pay scale of Rs. 175-325/-. The said posts were not included in any specific State service. From October 1971, the pay scale of both the posts were given the same pay scale of Rs. 300-600/-. The post of F.E.Os. were not included in any other specified service in the Fisheries Department of the Government of West Bengal and the said F.E.Os. constituted an independent and separate unit of administration and was an independent cadre having higher pay scale and higher status than those of the members of the then West Bengal Subordinate Fisheries Service Class-II which included the post of the A.F.Os. The personnel’s of F.E.Os. who were enjoying higher status and pay scale. Their case is that A.F.Os. were given appointment as F.E.Os on promotion with the incremental benefit which is normally given at the time of promotion. The petitioners in the petition (C.R. No.16198 (W) of 1985) quoted some of the instances of the persons like Santosh Kumar Sarkar and n others that those persons who held the post of the A.F.Os. were promoted to the post of F.E.Os. on promotion. It was also pointed out that A.F.Os. who are being appointed in the post of Fishery Extension Officers had to be confirmed afresh in the post of F.E.Os. It is pointed out that the post of the Fishery Extension Officer enjoyed a higher pay as well as higher status though subsequently the A.F.Os. pay scale was also equated. Therefore, the question which falls for determination is whether A.F.Os. should rank senior to F.E.Os. or not. In this connection, the writ petitioners referred to the decision in C.R. No. 717 (W) of 1913 wherein Justice Amiya Kumar Mookerjee (as he then was) held in deciding the dispute between the F.E.Os. and A.F.Os. that the A.F.Os. Therefore, the question which falls for determination is whether A.F.Os. should rank senior to F.E.Os. or not. In this connection, the writ petitioners referred to the decision in C.R. No. 717 (W) of 1913 wherein Justice Amiya Kumar Mookerjee (as he then was) held in deciding the dispute between the F.E.Os. and A.F.Os. that the A.F.Os. would be entitled to get promotion to the posts of the Fishery Extension Officer and thereafter according to the suitability they are entitled to be considered to higher post. The writ petitioners also placed reliance on the affidavit-in-opposition on behalf of the State Government and affirmed by Sri Bhupendra Nath poddar, the then Joint Secretary Fishery Department filed in C.O. No. 5163 (W) of 1980, (1) Monoj Kumar Ghosh v. State of West Bengal, wherein it was admitted that the pay scale of the Field Extension Officer, Assistant Research Officer; Assay Assistant and Fishery Supervisor is higher and their duties and responsibilities were of greater importance and higher than those of Assistant Fishery Officers. In this connection reliance was placed on another affidavit filed by the State Government in C.R. No. 5319 (W) of 1983 and C.R. No. 8819 (W) of 1983 by the writ petitioners in support of their case that the State has treated Fishery Extension Officers to have held a higher status than that of the Assistant Fishery Officer till 30th September, 1971 when the pay scale of both the posts was equated i.e. Rs. 300-600/-. It is true that after 1971 when post carried same pay scale i.e. Rs. 300-600/-. Now the question is when both posts form one cadre in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600/-, the question is how inter se seniority between them is to be reckoned. 5. On May 21,1983 a new Unified State Service known as West Bengal Fisheries Grade-II was created w.e.f. 1st April, 1981. The said Unified Service comprised of five categories of posts Field Extension Officer, Assistant Research Officer, Assay Assistant, Fishery Supervisor, Assistant Fisheries Officer. After this Unified cadre was constituted the A. F. O. claimed the seniority over F. E. O. The A. F. O. claimed seniority over the F. E. O. on the ground of length of service. 6. As against this, F. E. Os. protested and claimed that they were holding the post of F. E. O. which carried the higher status and the higher pay scale. 6. As against this, F. E. Os. protested and claimed that they were holding the post of F. E. O. which carried the higher status and the higher pay scale. Therefore, they must be treated senior to A. F. O. In 1983 A. F. Os. moved a petition in this Court in the case of Civil Order No. 8819 (W) of 1983, (2) Sunil Kumar Maity v. State of West Bengal, inter alia, challenging the Constitution of Unified Service and direction to the State Government for fixation of their pay in terms of the revision of pay in 1981, though the F.E.OS. were not impleaded. Thereafter, the F.E.Os. added themselves as party respondent. They moved an application in Civil Order No. 8819 (W) of 1983. This Court passed the order in September 1984 directing the State Government to determine the seniority of both these cadres. Thereafter; State Government published a draft gradation list on the basis of the length of service. A.F.Os. who had a longer period of service were placed higher than that of the F. E. Os. Thereafter, some negotiations also took place with the different association. Ultimately, on 11th September, 1984, the State Government decided that the inter se seniority of the Officers of the new service would be fixed on the basis of the date of joining of the incumbent in their respective cadre or post. It is this action of the Government was challenged by the F. E. O. by filing the present writ petition (C. R. No. 16198 (W) of 1985). Learned Single Judge after considering the matter came to the conclusion that since the F. E. Os. enjoyed a higher pay scale and higher ,status and when both the posts have been merged together in one Unified cadre, then for deciding the inter se seniority, the higher status and pay should be taken into consideration for according seniority to these persons. Aggrieved against this order passed by the learned Single Judge, the above two appeals have been filed, one by the State of West Bengal and the other by the State Junior Fishery Officers' Association and others. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Aggrieved against this order passed by the learned Single Judge, the above two appeals have been filed, one by the State of West Bengal and the other by the State Junior Fishery Officers' Association and others. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned Counsel for the State has strenuously urged before us that when one Unified cadre has been formed, then, in normal course, seniority has to be computed on the basis of the length of service and simply because at one point of time particular class of person enjoyed a higher pay scale or a status, is no justification. It is also pointed out that in 1981 when both the cadre merged together and one Unified cadre constituting the various posts carrying the pay scale of Rs. 300-600/- has been created, then the only criteria for determining the seniority is length of service i.e. initial appointment of service is a valid criteria for preparing the gradation list. As against this the learned Counsel for the F. E. Os. has submitted that whenever such amalgamation of the cadres takes place, then the persons who are enjoying higher status is given due weightage for computing seniority. 8. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that in the present case, when the Service Rules had been framed and the same pay scales are there, therefore, the decision of the State Government to count the seniority from length of service should be upheld. In support thereof learned Counsel has invited our attention to the case of (3) State of W. B. v. Subal Chandra Das & Ors., 1996 (7) SCC 191 . In this case, the question was with regard to the payment of higher pay scale arise for the post of 'Moharrir' constituting a feeder post for promotion to the post of L.D.C., redesignated as L. D. C. They were given the same pay scale as that of the L. D. C. Therefore, one L. D. C. cadre was Constituted. The directly recruited L. D. C. claimed for pay scale higher than that of Moharrir on the ground that the Moharrirs were holding the less scale of pay. The directly recruited L. D. C. claimed for pay scale higher than that of Moharrir on the ground that the Moharrirs were holding the less scale of pay. This contention of the directly recruited L. D. C. was negative by the Apex Court and Their Lordships held that the parity in employment means equal pay for equal work and simply because the Moharrirs were getting lower pay scale and have been redesignated as L. D. C. and they are paid the same salary of the L.D.C., that does not mean that directly recruited candidate should be entitled to have a higher pay scale. This case cannot provide any assistance to the State as the contention of the directly recruitees was negatived by the Apex Court. Similarly, our attention was invited to the case of (4) Kailash Chand & Ors. v. Governor of Delhi & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 951 . In this case under the Delhi Administration subordinate Service Rules, 1967, (for short "Rules"), the Executive and Ministerial Class III services were merged by notification dated December 4, 1980. There the question arose how seniority is to be determined. In that context, Their Lordships held that the seniority is to be computed on the basis of length of service.' It was contended that because the chances of the promotion of one Executive Branch are remote because of shorter length of service, therefore, computing of the seniority on the basis of the length of service as laid down in Rule 26 should be struck down. This contention was negatived by the Apex Court that simply because by merger of the two cadres chances of the one cadre diminishes, is no justification to declare Rule 26 as invalid. This is not the case here. As we pointed out above here the question is with regard to according seniority to persons who were discharging functions of greater responsibility and had higher status and higher pay, whether they can be brought down below persons who are not having the status equal to all these Officers. Therefore, this case also does not provide any useful assistance. Similarly, our attention was drawn also to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (5) Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1276 . Therefore, this case also does not provide any useful assistance. Similarly, our attention was drawn also to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of (5) Om Prakash Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1276 . This is a case in which there was amalgamation of different units of department and subsequently when that amalgamation was given go-bye and another amalgamation took place and the earlier cadre was repatriated to their parent department, the question arose how seniority is to be accorded. In that context Their Lordships held when the employees are sent to their present department, they must get earlier seniority. This case is also of no assistance to the appellants. Our attention also was drawn to the decision given in the case of (6) Swapan Kumar Moulick v. State of West Bengal & Ors., 1996 (2) CLJ 401 . This was a case with regard to counting the period of Ad hoc or temporary service for computing the seniority. This case does not provide any useful assistance to the issue before us. Here it is not a case for counting the temporary or Ad hoc Service for computing seniority, here is the question whether people who are enjoying a higher status and pay should be made to be junior to persons who are having lower status and pay. Learned Counsel for the appellants invited our attention to the decision reported in (7) P. K. Goswami v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1985 SC 1605 . There the question of seniority between direct recruits and promotees arose. In that case Their Lordships held that while interpreting the provisions of the West Bengal Services (Determination of Seniority) Rules, 1981 held that seniority of promotee Sub-Inspector must be reckoned from date of their continuous officiation and not from date of confirmation. 'This case also does not provide us any assistance so far as the issue involved in the present case. 9. As against this, learned Counsel for the respondents invited our attention to the recent decisions in (8) Union of India & Ors. v. Anil Kumar & Ors., 1999 (5) SCC 743 and (9) K.C. Gupia & Drs. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi &: Ors.; 1994 Supp (3) SCC 408. This two cases are somewhat akin to the issue involved in the present case. Union of India & Ors. v. Anil Kumar & Ors., 1999 (5) SCC 743 and (9) K.C. Gupia & Drs. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi &: Ors.; 1994 Supp (3) SCC 408. This two cases are somewhat akin to the issue involved in the present case. Union of India & Ors. v. Anil Kumar & Ors., 1999 (5) SCC 743 , related to Defence Research and Development Organization' Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995. There the question arose that while amalgating the cadre how seniority is to be arranged. Their Lordships approved with the finding give by the Central Administrative Tribunal that the action of putting the Assistant Foremen en bloc junior to S.S. As. was without any rationale or valid basis. In this connection Their Lordships made a reference to two earlier decisions of the Apex 'Court given in' the (10) State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, 1981 (4) SCC 130 , as reiterated in (11) S. P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India, 1998 (4) SCC 598 . There the Lordship has laid down that the principle formulated in the matter of equation of the posts. It was observed-(l) where there were regularly constituted similar cadres in the different integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on that basis but (2) where there were no 'such 'similar' cadres; the following factors' will be taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts:- "(a) Nature and duties of a post; (b) Powers exercised by the' Officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held of responsibilities discharge; (c) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post ; (d) The salary of the post." 10. Therefore, keeping in view the celebrated principle formulated by the Apex Court which has been reiterated in the case of Union of India v. Anil Kumar (supra), we have examined whether in the present case as has been mentioned above from the affidavit filed by the State that the persons who are holding post of Fishery Extension Officers were discharging the duty of higher responsibility Or greater importance and higher than those of the Assistant Fishery Officers. It is admitted fact that the Fishery Extension Officers were having a higher pay scale than that of the Assistant Fishery Officer and higher status. It is admitted fact that the Fishery Extension Officers were having a higher pay scale than that of the Assistant Fishery Officer and higher status. Therefore, keeping in view these two considerations that the F.E.O. should be placed en bloc above the A.F.O., the view taken by learned Single Judge cannot be said to be wrong. Similarly, our attention was also invited to a decision of the case of 1994 Supp (3) SCC 408 (supra). In this case trained graduate teachers (Middle) with the lower pay scale and trained graduate teachers (Higher Secondary) with the higher pay scale was merged together and given a Unified grade of pay scale retrospectively from a date prior to the date of absorption. The issue arise that trained graduate teachers (middle) wanted to count their seniority i.e. from the date of initial appointment and to claim seniority over the trained graduate teachers (Higher Secondary). The High Court negatived the contention and same was upheld by the Apex Court. It was observed by the Apex Court- "Where it lower' grade and' a higher grade were merged into one cadre with a higher pay scale, held, period of service in the lower grade would not count for the purpose of seniority in the new cadre." So the ratio emerges as a result of discussion that whenever such integration of the cadres takes place and the question arises about according seniority between these two merged cadres arise than the factors like the mode of recruitment, the higher responsibility discharged by the incumbents, their pas scale etc. should be kept in mind. It is more than apparent that the Fisheries Extension Officers who are discharging higher responsibilities getting higher pay scale cannot be made to be placed in a junior position than that of Assistant Fishery Officer who carried a lower pay scale through their pay scale was subsequently also equated in 1971. When the cadres were merged in 1983 they cannot claim seniority over the Fishery Extension Officers who had a longer period of service in higher pay scale over those employees who were appointed prior to 1971. 11. Hence, as a result of our above discussion, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct and there is no ground to interfere with the said order. Hence, both the appeals have no merit and they are dismissed. 11. Hence, as a result of our above discussion, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge is correct and there is no ground to interfere with the said order. Hence, both the appeals have no merit and they are dismissed. Interim order, if any, is vacated. There will be no order as to costs.