ORAL JUDGMENT B.P. Singh, CJ. The petitioners herein are drivers employed in the Police Department. They were at one time classified as Police Drivers (Class I) and Police Drivers (Class II). Pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Pay Revision Committee, from 1.1.1973, the pay-scale of Police Driver (Class I) was fixed at Rs. 260-400 and that of Police Driver (Class II) at Rs. 260-350. It appears that in other Departments as well, drivers had been employed and Driver (Heavy) was given the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 and Driver (Light) was fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-350. It therefore, appears that after the implementation of the recommendations of the Third Pay Revision Committee, the Drivers in the Police Department and the Drivers in the other Departments were assigned two pay-scales which were identical. 2. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, the Police Driver (Class I) was given the revised pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500 with effect from 1.1.1986. The Police Driver (Class II) was given the revised pay-scale of Rs. 950-1400. Similarly, the pay-scales of Drivers in other Departments were revised. We may, at this stage, notice that pursuant to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee, a Police Constable was given the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500, a Head Constable was given the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-1800 and an Assistant Sub-Inspector was given the pay-scale of Rs. 1320-2040. 3. It appears that the Government decided to reorganize the cadre of the Drivers in the Police Department and, therefore, by notification dated 26th of September, 1990 (Exhibit "H"), the Government reorganized the cadre and prescribed the pay-scales for the Drivers of the Police Department with effect from 1.10.1990. The two classes of Police Drivers were placed in three categories as below :- SI. No. Scale Grade Percentage of Posts. 1. Rs. 950-1500 III 55% 2. Rs. 1200-1800 II 25% 3. Rs. 1320-2040 I 20% The notification further provided that the Drivers will have the rank of Constable, Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector. The promotion to the posts of Head Constable Driver (Grade II) and Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade I) shall be made as per the eligibility conditions to be prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the posts. 4. Rs. 1320-2040 I 20% The notification further provided that the Drivers will have the rank of Constable, Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector. The promotion to the posts of Head Constable Driver (Grade II) and Assistant Sub-Inspector (Grade I) shall be made as per the eligibility conditions to be prescribed in the Recruitment Rules for the posts. 4. It thus appears that the Police Drivers were put in three categories, namely, Grade I, Grade II and Grade III, which carried the ranks of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Head Constable and Police Constable, respectively. These Drives were given the same pay-scale as were admissible to the Assistant Sub-Inspector, Head Constable and Police Constable pursuant to the Fourth Pay Revision Committee Report. 5. While the position stood thus, the Government decided to revise the pay-scales attached to the posts mentioned under the Common Accounts Cadre of Goa Government. The order in this regard is dated 18th June, 1990 (Exhibit "B") by which the Government decided to grant revision of the pay-scales of the Assistant Accounts Officer and Accounts Officer/Deputy Director of Accounts. Their existing pay-scale was as recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee but they were given the benefit of revised pay-scale and were consequently given higher pay-scale. Similar revision of pay-scale was effected in respect of posts borne on Secretariat cadre as is evident from the orders Exhibit "C"-Colly dated 23rd March, 1993, 8th March, 1994, 1st January, 1996, etc. It is noticed that in the order dated 8th March, 1994 of Exhibit "C" Colly, there is reference to the Driver (Heavy Vehicle) and Driver (Light Vehicle) whose existing pay-scale of Rs. 950-1500 and Rs. 950-1400 was revised to Rs. 1150-1500 as a consequence of which both categories of Drivers were entitled to the same revised pay-scale of Rs. 1150-1500. Similarly, the Government accorded sanction to the revision of the scale of pay of Grade II posts of Goa Civil Service, by orders dated 30th March, 1993 and 1st February, 1996 (Exhibit "D"-Colly). Vide Exhibit "E", the Government accorded sanction for the revision of scale of pay to the posts of Mamlatdars, B.D.Os., Joint Mamlatdars, and Assistant Director of Civil Supplies of Goa Government, by order dated 26th October, 1992. 6. It would thus appear that the Government issued orders from time to time revising pay-scales of various posts as is evident from Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E". 6. It would thus appear that the Government issued orders from time to time revising pay-scales of various posts as is evident from Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E". The posts for which the revised pay-scale was sanctioned by these orders, earlier carried the pay-scale as recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. 7. It appears from the order Exhibit "F" dated 31st July, 1996, that after Goa became a State certain categories of employees represented to the Government for further revision of pay-scales on various grounds. Accordingly, pay-scales of certain posts were revised (Exhibit "B" to Exhibit "E"). The Goa Government Employees Association had represented for general revision of pay-scales to maintain parity with the Secretariat staff and others. After prolonged discussion and careful examination, the Government decided to upgrade the pay-scales of existing employees in all the Government Departments/Offices [subject to the condition (a)] pending decisions on the basis of Fifth Pay Revision Committee Report. The said order (Exhibit "F") shows the existing pay-scales and the revised pay-scales, upon which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the State. Thereafter Clause (a) reads as follows :- "(a) The benefit of this revision will not be admissible to those whose pay scale were again revised subsequent to the implementation of the recommendations of Fourth Central Pay Commission." 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that though certain categories of employees were given the benefit of revised pay-scales as interim measure under orders Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E", and though the rest of the employees who were left out were given the benefit of revised pay-scales vide order dated 31.7.1996 (Exhibit "F"), that benefit has not been extended to Police Drivers who were reorganized into three categories with effect from 1st October, 1990 vide order dated 26th September, 1990. According to the petitioners, they were entitled to the benefit of the revised pay-scales under Exhibit "F" dated 31st July, 1996. On the other hand, the counsel for the State contends that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the revised pay-scales under Exhibit "F" in view of clause (a) thereof, which has been reproduced earlier. 9. According to the petitioners, they were entitled to the benefit of the revised pay-scales under Exhibit "F" dated 31st July, 1996. On the other hand, the counsel for the State contends that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of the revised pay-scales under Exhibit "F" in view of clause (a) thereof, which has been reproduced earlier. 9. The sole question, therefore, which arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of revision of pay-scales under Exhibit "F" or whether they stand excluded in view of clause (a) of the said Exhibit "F"? 10. We have earlier noticed the facts of the case and it would, therefore, be apparent that in view of the order dated 26th September, 1990, with effect from 1st October, 1990 the cadre of Police Drivers was reorganized and the Police Drivers were placed in three Grades, namely, Grade I, Grade II and Grade III, which corresponded to the ranks of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Head Constable and Police Constable. They were also given the same pay-scales as admissible to these ranks. According to the learned counsel for the State, this amounted to a revision of pay-scales whereas according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this does not amount to revision of pay-scales as it was merely a reorganization of the cadre. We are inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioners that the reorganization of the cadre of the Police Drivers effected by order dated 26th September, 1990 was only a reorganization of the cadre in view of certain decisions of the Supreme Court passed on the principle of equal pay for equal work, as also on the principle that a Government employee must at least have chances of two promotions in his service career. It was with this end in view that the cadre of the Police Drivers was reorganized. It is noteworthy that the pay-scales given to the Drivers Grade I, Grade II and Grade III were the same pay-scales as recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee for Assistant Sub-Inspector, Head Constable and Police Constable, respectively. It is not therefore disputed that the pay-scales given to the Police Drivers Grade I, Grade II and Grade III were the pay-scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee for equivalent posts. It is not therefore disputed that the pay-scales given to the Police Drivers Grade I, Grade II and Grade III were the pay-scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee for equivalent posts. Undoubtedly, after the cadre was reorganized in this manner, there has been no revision of the pay-scales and, therefore, there is no justification for the argument that the case of Police Drivers was covered by Clause (a) of the order dated 31st July, 1996 and, therefore, they stood excluded from the benefit of revision of pay under the said order. The reorganization of the cadre itself will not amount to a revision of pay-scales envisaged under Clause (a) of the order dated 31st July, 1996 (Exhibit "F"). 11. It was faintly submitted, relying on Exhibit "E", that the existing pay-scales mentioned therein are as per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. According to the counsel for the State, the posts which the petitioners are presently holding did not exist when the Fourth Pay Revision Committee made its Report, and therefore, it cannot be said that the pay-scales to which they are presently entitled are those recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. This submission must be rejected because though the benefit of the pay-scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee was given to the Police Drivers with effect from 1.1.1986, the cadre of the Police Drivers was itself reorganized pursuant to the policy decision of the Government and the Police Drivers were placed in three grades w.e.f. 1.10.1990. The three grades carried three different ranks, namely, that of Assistant Sub-Inspector, Head Constable and Police Constable and the pay-scales admissible to them were the pay scales admissible to those three ranks of the Police Department. It is, therefore, quite clear to us that the pay-scales of the three grades of Police Drivers were the pay-scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. In any event, if does not matter whether the petitioners in fact held the post of Police Drivers, (Grade I, Grade II and Grade III) when the Fourth Pay Revision Committee made its recommendations. The intendment of the Clause (a) of Exhibit "F", the order dated 31st July, 1996 is to upgrade the pay-scales of existing employees, subject to the final decision to be taken on the basis of the Fifth Pay Central Commission Report. The intendment of the Clause (a) of Exhibit "F", the order dated 31st July, 1996 is to upgrade the pay-scales of existing employees, subject to the final decision to be taken on the basis of the Fifth Pay Central Commission Report. The order therefore intended to confer benefit on all those categories who had not been given the benefit of revised pay-scales after the pay-scales were revised based on the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee. Clause (a), therefore, sought to exclude categories such as those covered under Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E" because they had already been granted revised pay-scales. Exhibit "F" dated 31st July 1996 was, therefore, intended to benefit all other categories who had not been given similar benefit of revised pay-scales as was given to those covered by the Exhibits "B", "C", "D" and "E". In our considered opinion, the petitioners herein also fall in the category of employees who were not given the benefit of revised pay-scales over and above the revision of pay-scales based on recommendation of Fourth Pay Revision Committee. Therefore, they are not covered by Clause (a) of the order Exhibit "F" date 31st July, 1996. 12. In view of the above discussion, the petitioners must succeed. Consequently, we direct the respondents to give to the petitioners the benefit of revised pay-scales under Government Order Exhibit "F" dated 31st July, 1996. We further direct the respondents to grant benefit of pay-scales to the petitioners treating them as not covered under Clause (a) of the aforesaid order Exhibit "F". In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. We expect the respondents to comply with this order within a period of three months from today. Petition allowed.