KUMAR RAJARATNAM, J. ( 1 ) THE tussle in Court between Assistants and Stenographers is working in respondent-Corporation culminated in a writ petition being filed by the Assistants before the learned Single Judge way back in 1993-1994. ( 2 ) THE Assistants working in the Karnataka Power Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) moved the High Court in the year 1993 and 1994 seeking parity with respect to pay as is being extended to the Stenographers working in the Corporation with effect from 1977. In other words, a writ of mandamus was sought directing the Corporation to extend to the Assistants all the benefits which are extended to the Stenographers right from the date on which the Assistants were appointed and also to grant the Assistants all the arrears and consequential benefits as if these benefits have been granted from the date on which they were appointed initially that is from 1977. ( 3 ) THIS Court by an order dated 4th of October, 1996 in a batch of writ petitions filed by the Assistants held that although Assistants and Stenographers were in the same basket their starting salary was different and also dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of latches. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge Bakthavatsalam, J. , the Assistants preferred an appeal to the Division Bench. ( 5 ) THE Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos. 9291 to 9303/1996 directed the Corporation to examine whether there were any Assistants similarly situated as Stenographers and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible and accordingly set aside the order of the learned Single Judge. The operative portion of the order of the Division Bench reads as follows: - we shall straight away state that the three categories which had been grouped together for the purpose of pay-scales as Assistants Secretary or Stenographer or Assistant Engineer, though grouped together cannot be stated either to possess identical qualification or discharge identical duties. By no stretch of imagination we can say job requirement of Assistant who are Engineers and Assistants or Stenographers could be identical. It is only for the purpose of pay-scale they had been grouped together. By no stretch of imagination we can say job requirement of Assistant who are Engineers and Assistants or Stenographers could be identical. It is only for the purpose of pay-scale they had been grouped together. Even so if there has been any revision of pay-scale or the manner of application of those payscales to the employees falling in anyone or the other category is done in one manner and different mode or principle is adopted to others grouped together in the same category cannot be countenanced at all. In the present case, what has been done pursuant to the orders made by this Court is Stenographers recruited and reported for duty on 9. 9. 1977 and upto 31. 12. 1985 have been accorded a particular benefit of a higher pay scale on par with those who had been recruited on or after 1. 4. 1976 but on or before 9. 9. 1977. It is not clear from the orders made by the Corporation or in their statement of objections filed before the Court or in the course of the argument as to whether the Assistants recruited and reported after 9. 9. 1977 and upto 31. 12. 1985 could be given a higher basic pay on par with those who had been recruited on or after 1. 4. 1976 but on or before 9. 9. 1977. Whether there was any such category of Assistants and whether such benefit had been given or not had not been brought out before the Court at all. In fact the essence of the submissions made on behalf of the appellants is that the above situation discrimination. (Sic) That aspect, it appears to us does not seem to have been highlighted before the learned Single Judge or dealt with by the Corporation. This is the only point to be considered in the whole case. Whatever treatment is accorded to the Stenographers fully must be the treatment accorded to the Assistants also. Merely because their job requirements are different or the kind or work they discharge is entirely different would not come in the way of extending the said benefit. The principle upon which such benefit had been extended to set right the anomoly is pointed out. If that anomaly arises in relation to the Assistants also similar benefit should be given to them also. The principle upon which such benefit had been extended to set right the anomoly is pointed out. If that anomaly arises in relation to the Assistants also similar benefit should be given to them also. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the order made by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition to the extent of directing the respondents to examine whether there were any Assistants similarly situated as the Stenographers adverted to in Annexure H and pass appropriate orders thereto as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from to-day. If there is no anomaly in relation to the Assistants, it is needless to say that the position may be made clear and appropriate orders passed. Writ appeals stand allowed accordingly. ( 6 ) THE Corporation understood the Division Bench Judgment to mean that if there were any anamolies in the starting pay between those Assistants who were appointed between 1. 4. 1976 to 9. 9. 1977 and those Assistants appointed after 9. 9. 1977 those anamolies should be set right with respect to their starting salary. ( 7 ) IN obedience to the Division Bench Judgment the Corporation issued notice dated 6. 9. 1997 to the Assistants. The appellants also gave a representation on 19. 9. 1997. After considering the same the Corporation passed an order on 26. 11. 1997 at Annexure-M holding that there was no anamoly in the pay of Assis-tants appointed before 1977 and after 1977 and that they had already complied with the orders of the Division Bench. ( 8 ) FEELING aggrieved by the endorsement given by the Corporation the Assistants filed the batch of writ petitions which is under appeal before us. The prayer before the learned Single Judge was to quash the endorsement given by the Corporation at Annexure-M and seek arrears of Salary on par with Stenographers from 9. 9. 1977 to 31. 12. 1985. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Assistants holding that the interpretation of the Division Bench cannot lead to the inference that the Assistants are entitled to pay parity with the Stenographers from 9. 9. 1977 to 31. 12. 1985. 9. 1977 to 31. 12. 1985. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions filed by the Assistants holding that the interpretation of the Division Bench cannot lead to the inference that the Assistants are entitled to pay parity with the Stenographers from 9. 9. 1977 to 31. 12. 1985. The learned Single Judge also came to the conclusion that the Division Bench only directed the Corporation to consider the anamolies of the Assistants who were employed before 1977 and after 1977 and if the anamo1ies were set right the Corporation has complied with the directions of the Division Bench and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions. ( 9 ) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment of the learned Single Judge the Assistants who have subsequently been promoted as Senior Assistants are before us. ( 10 ) WE are now required to interpret the Judgment of the Division Bench. No less no more. ( 11 ) TO appreciate the contentions of the appellants, it would be necessary to briefly state the background to the case. ( 12 ) IT is submitted that a Charter of Demands were made in the year 1977 which ultimately culminated in a settlement under Section 12 (3) of the I. D. Act, 1947. The settlement is dated 29. 1. 1979. As per the settlement two cadres were created amongst Assistants namely Assistants and Senior Assistants. Two separate seniority list, one for Assistants and other for Senior Assistants were maintained. The Senior Assistants were given the pay scale of Rs. 470 to 1150 whereas the Assistants were given 470 to 980/- as per the settlement dated 29. 1. 1979. Needless to say this settlement was binding on all the workmen since the settlement was under Section 12 (3) read with Section 18 (3) of the I. D. Act. ( 13 ) WE shall now briefly deal with the situation which led to the Stenographers appointed before 9. 9. 1977 to claim the same benefit of salary with those Stenographers who were appointed after 9. 9. 1977. ( 14 ) IT is stated that the Stenographers appointed between 1. 4. 1976 to 9. 9. 1977 were offered a starting pay of Rs. 580/- and the Stenographers appointed after 9. 9. 1977 were given a starting pay of Rs. 470/ -. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to this aspect as prior to 1977 and after 1977. 4. 1976 to 9. 9. 1977 were offered a starting pay of Rs. 580/- and the Stenographers appointed after 9. 9. 1977 were given a starting pay of Rs. 470/ -. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to this aspect as prior to 1977 and after 1977. ( 15 ) AGGRIEVED by this discrimination the Stenographers who were appointed after 1977 filed Writ Petition Nos. 5039-40/1984 alleging discrimination. The Writ petitions were allowed. ( 16 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of the learned Single Judge the Corporation took the matter in appeal in Writ Appeal Nos. l009 to 1021/1991. A Division Bench of this court by an order dated 11. 2. 1992 held that there cannot be any discrimination between those Stenographers who were appointed before 1977 and after 1977 with respect to the starting salary. ( 17 ) CONSEQUENT to the decision of the Division Bench the Corporation by an order dated 28. 5. 1993 at Annexure-G set right the anamoly and issued directions that the starting pay of Rs. 530/-per month will apply to both categories of Stenographers who were recruited before 1977 and after 1977. ( 18 ) AS stated earlier the Assistants like Rip Van Wintle woke up in 1993 and sought for an omnibus prayer that they should also get pay parity from 1977 on par with Stenographers. ( 19 ) AS stated earlier the learned Single Judge Bakthavatsalam, J. , dismissed the writ petitions both on the ground of latches and also on the ground that the nature of the work done by the Stenographers is different from the nature of the work done by the Assistants although they are in the same category. ( 20 ) THE Assistants being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge Bakthavatsalam, J. preferred writ appeals. ( 21 ) A Division Bench of this Court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and disposed of the writ appeals with certain directions. The operative portion of the Judgment of the Division Bench has been extracted by us in the earlier part of the Judgment. ( 22 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the Division Bench remanded the matter to the Corporation to set right the anamolies of those Assistants who were appointed prior to 1977 and after 1977. ( 23 ) MR. ( 22 ) IT was submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation that the Division Bench remanded the matter to the Corporation to set right the anamolies of those Assistants who were appointed prior to 1977 and after 1977. ( 23 ) MR. Subba Rao the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, however, submitted that the Division Bench had in fact directed the Corporation to consider paying the same benefits of salary to the Assistants as was being paid to the Stenographers with effect from day one i. e. with effect from 1977 when the Assistants entered service. In other words it was contended by Mr. Subba Rao, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants that Annexure-G issued on 28. 5. 1993 setting right the anamolies between Stenographers appointed before 1977 and after 1977 gave the Assistants a fresh cause of action for the Assistants to c1aim parity of Salary with effect from 1977. ( 24 ) IT was submitted that the Judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal Nos. 9291 to 9303 (rendered by the Division Bench comprising of Rajendra Babu. J. , and a companion Judge) in fact gave directions to the Corporation to give benefits of pay parity with that of the Stenographers from 1977. ( 25 ) ALTHOUGH we have extracted the Division Bench Judgment in the earlier part of the Judgment, it would be necessary to extract the relevant words in the Judgment. After all what we are asked to do by the appellants is to interpret the directions of the Division Bench Judgment. The crucial words in the Division Bench Judgment are as follows: -The principle upon which such benefit had been extended to set right the anomoly is pointed out if that anomaly arises in relation to the Assistants also similar benefit should be given to them also. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the order made by the learned Single Judge and allow the writ petition to the extent of directing the respondents to examine whether there were any Assistants similarly situated as the Stenographers adverted to in Annexure H and pass appropriate orders there to as expenditiously as possible, but not later than three months from to-day. If there is no anomaly in relation to the Assistants, it is needless to say that the position may be made clear and appropriate orders passed. If there is no anomaly in relation to the Assistants, it is needless to say that the position may be made clear and appropriate orders passed. Writ appeals stand allowed accordingly. ( 26 ) IN our view it was never the intention of the Division Bench to reopen old wounds which were settled by Section 12 (3) settlement of the I. D. Act. The Division Bench Judgment cannot be a spring board to raise new issues of pay parity after a lapse of 20 years with retrospective effect. Such interpretation of the Division Bench Judgment will lead to curious consequences and it was not meant by any stretch of imagination to reopen matters settled by a 12 (3) settlement. If the contention of the appellants were to be accepted, it literally means turning the clock back 20 years or more. The difference in actual starting salary between the Stenographers and the Assistants existed right from 1970 and the Assistants the appellants before us have accepted the situation without demur. Now to reopen the whole issue on a misunderstanding of the Judgment is like reopening of old wounds that had healed many years ago. All that the division Bench Judgment did was to direct the Corporation to consider whether there was any anamolies in pay between those Assistants who were appointed between 1977 and after 1977. If those anamolies have been rectified, there can be. no question of the Assistants seeking further reliefs as if a fresh cause of action has arisen with regard to pay parity. ( 27 ) EVEN the appellants admit that there was denial of parity and equal pay to the appellants with effect from 1977. This admission by the appellants is confirmed by the Corporation in its statement of objections. ( 28 ) IT was submitted by the Corporation in an affidavit that Stenographers although were in the same basket as Assistants they were given a starting basic pay of Rs. 215/- prior to 9. 9. 1977 in the pay scale of Rs. 135-405. It was also submitted in the statement of objections that not a single Assistant was appointed in the basic pay of Rs. 215/- in the pay scale of Rs. l35/- to 405/- and not a single Assistant was appointed with a starting basic of Rs. 580/- in the pay scale of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 1150/- after 1. 4. 135-405. It was also submitted in the statement of objections that not a single Assistant was appointed in the basic pay of Rs. 215/- in the pay scale of Rs. l35/- to 405/- and not a single Assistant was appointed with a starting basic of Rs. 580/- in the pay scale of Rs. 400/- to Rs. 1150/- after 1. 4. 76 while Stenographers started with a pay scale of Rs. 580/ -. As such no Assistant can claim that any other Assistant was appointed on a basic pay of Rs. 250/- or Rs. 580/- prior to 9. 9. 77. This clearly indicates that at no point of time there was any parity between the Assistants and the Stenographers. In other words right from 1976 there was no Parity. The Stenographers always started on a higher basic pay than that of the Assistants. For example, when the pay scale was Rs. 135 to 405, the Stenographers were getting Rs. 215/- and when the basic was Rs. 400 to 1150/- the Stenographers were getting Rs. 580/ -. As such no Assistant can claim that they were getting a higher basic pay than the pay scale. On the contrary the Stenographers although were in the same category were getting a higher stating salary. This practice was in vogue from 1976 and has continued till this day. ( 29 ) LET us be clear that the prayer before us was for a direction to implement the order of the Division Bench dated 6. 6. 1997 in W. A. Nos. 9291-9303/1996. It is not possible for this Court to take for granted that the earlier Division Bench of this Court had given pay parity between Stenographers and the Assistants from 1977 to 31. 12. 1985. It was never the command of the Division Bench to pay the Assistants the same pay scale from 1977 to 1985. While it is common ground that although the Stenographers and the Assistants were put in the same basket the starting salary of Stenographer was higher than that of the Assistant and this was the position right from 1977. ( 30 ) THE Assistants did not lift their little finger to raise any objection all this while. It is only when the Stenographers approached the Court the Assistants have woken up after a lapse of 20 years. ( 30 ) THE Assistants did not lift their little finger to raise any objection all this while. It is only when the Stenographers approached the Court the Assistants have woken up after a lapse of 20 years. ( 31 ) AFTER all what Stenographers had sought for was pay parity between those Stenographers appointed before 1977 and after 1977 and this was complied with. Even with respect to Assistants the pay parity between Assistants who were appointed before 1977 and after 1977 were set right. This is what the Division Bench intended in its Judgment with respect to Assistants as well. ( 32 ) IN our view there was no such command by the Division Bench to pay the same pay scale to the Assistants as that of the Stenographers from 1977 to 1985. All that the Division Bench did was to direct the Corporation to find out whether there was any discrimination amongst Assistants themselves between those who were appointed prior to 1977 and after 1977 and if there was any difference in pay parity that should be settled. ( 33 ) IT was never the intention on a careful reading of the Division Bench judgment that arrears if any should be paid to the Assistants from 1977 to 1985 on par with Stenographers. If really the Assistants were aggrieved by the difference in the starting salary between stenographers and the Assistants, they certainly ought to have approached the Court when the so called discrimination started in the year 1977 and not after a lapse of twenty years. ( 34 ) IT is not open to the Assistants to approach the Court for such an extra-ordinary relief after the lapse of nearly 20 years in the guise of a fresh cause of action arising out of the Division Bench Judgment. The Division Bench Judgment only refers to anamolies of pay scale amongst Assistants appointed before 1977 and after 1977. It is also brought to our notice that aggrieved by the Division Bench Judgment the Assistants moved the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Division Bench Judgment of this Court. It is only after the SLP was dismissed the Assistants approached this Court. ( 35 ) WE have persued the grounds in the SLP to understand what was passing in the mind of the Assistants. It is only after the SLP was dismissed the Assistants approached this Court. ( 35 ) WE have persued the grounds in the SLP to understand what was passing in the mind of the Assistants. Even the Assistants understood the Judgment to mean that anamolies between Assistants appointed before 1977 and after 1977 was to be set right by the Corporation. It is because of this direction, the Assistants approached the Supreme Court. The question of law raised before the Supreme Court against the Division Bench Judgment reads as follows: - (1) Whether, after coming to a finding that the two categories of Stenographers and Assistants were really grouped into one class, and as such entitled to one pay scale, it was proper for the Court to have remitted the matter for consideration to the authorities, without giving an appropriate direction, as claimed, in the petition. (2) Whether the action of the Respondents, in prescribing two pay-scales for one class of employees, grouped together under the recruitment rules itself, for purposes of pay-scales, and having interchangeable duties, is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 36 ) THEREFORE it is apparent from the records that the assistants were aggrieved by the Division Bench judgment in not granting parity in pay scales and it is common ground that the Division Bench judgment was affirmed by the Supreme Court and the S. L. P. came to be dismissed. The appellants who are Assistants in the Corporation perfectly understood what the Division Bench had pronounced. It is because the Division Bench directed the Corporation to set right the anamolies of those Assistants appointed before 1977 and after 1977, the Assistants were aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench moved the Supreme Court unsuccessfully. ( 37 ) THE Supreme Court having confirmed the Division Bench Judgment there is no further scope for this Court to interpret the Division Bench Judgment and hold that the Assistants should be given retrospective pay parity from 1977 on the same terms as the Stenographers. ( 38 ) IT is now happily been brought to our notice by the Corporation that the Assistants have now been given the same starting salary as that of the Stenographers. We hope that this will put an end to this protracted litigation. There is no merit in the Writ Appeals and accordingly the Writ Appeals are. dismissed. ( 38 ) IT is now happily been brought to our notice by the Corporation that the Assistants have now been given the same starting salary as that of the Stenographers. We hope that this will put an end to this protracted litigation. There is no merit in the Writ Appeals and accordingly the Writ Appeals are. dismissed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .