S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE management of the Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited (B. H. E. L.) being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27th September, 1999 in Writ Petition No. 23781 of 1991 has preferred this appeal. The above writ petition was filed by the B. H. E. L. Supervisory Staff Association, represented by its General Secretary. The above writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein for a mandamus directing the management of B. H. E. L. to keep the difference of Rs. 228. 40 at AICPI No. 685 point for the Executives and to revise the h. R. A. and C. C. A. with effect from 1-1-1987 to 19-6-1991 and to give fitment benefits proportionately as stated in the Bureau of Public enterprises (B. P. E.) circular dated 4-4-1990. ( 2 ) THE background facts of the case, in brief, be noted as follows.- the appellant is one of the public sector undertakings having several divisions all over the country. The employees of the appellant are broadly classified into three categories viz. , Executives, Supervisors and workmen. In most of the public sector undertakings there are only two categories of employees viz. , Executives and Workmen. The wage revision of workmen category is settled always by means of bipartite settlement between the parties. In the case of Supervisors and executives their pay and allowance are unilaterally determined by the bureau of Public Sector Undertakings (BPSU) as per the guidelines issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India. The Government of India, Department of Public Enterprises vide their official Memorandum dated 4-4-1990, issued guidelines for wage revision in all the Public Sector Undertakings on Industrial Dearness allowance (IDA) pattern with effect from 1-1-1987. The management of the appellant sought clarification from the Government of India, department of Public Enterprises vide its letter dated 24th December, 1990 as to how Dearness Allowance is to be merged in the basic pay in respect of supervisory categories to enable the management to process the proposal for further revision in terms of the guidelines contained in official Memorandum dated 4-4-1990. The Department of Public enterprises had clarified vide their circular dated 31-12-1990 that the actual Dearness Allowance drawn at All India Consumer Price Index no. 685 is to be merged with the basic pay as on 1-1-1987. The Department of Public enterprises had clarified vide their circular dated 31-12-1990 that the actual Dearness Allowance drawn at All India Consumer Price Index no. 685 is to be merged with the basic pay as on 1-1-1987. According to the management, the wage revision was issued vide circular dated 19th june, 1991 strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the bpsu. In wage revision of Supervisors and Executives effective from 1-1-1987, the actual Dearness Allowance at AICPI No. 685 drawn by these two categories of employees as on 1-1-1987 has been merged in the new pay structure and this method adopted by the management is in accordance with the guidelines received from the Government of India, department of Public Enterprises. ( 3 ) IN the backdrop of the above facts, the first respondent-association filed Writ Petition No. 23781 of 1991 praying for the following reliefs:"for the reasons stated above the petitioner prays that this hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the records connected with the wage revision circular issued by the Corporation personnel, B. H. E. L. , Annexure-L, dated 19-6-1991 and to quash the same insofar as it fails to keep the difference of Rs. 228. 40 at aicpi No. 685 point for the Executives and insofar as it has fixed h. R. A. and C. C. A. , revision only from 1-4-1989; (b) Issue a writ of mandamus direction the respondents to keep the difference of Rs. 228. 40 at AICPI No. 685 points for the executives and to revise the H. R. A. and C. C. A. with effect from 1-1-1987 to 19-6-1991 and to give fitment benefits proportionately as stated in the B. P. E. circular dated 4-4-1990 in the interest of justice; (c) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to return the amount already recovered from the Supervisors who have been promoted between the period from 1-1-1987 to 19-6-1991 to the grade of E-1/gf; (d) Grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including the award of costs". ( 4 ) THE grievance of the association as reflected in the writ petition is that the management ought to have kept up the difference of Rs. 228. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the association as reflected in the writ petition is that the management ought to have kept up the difference of Rs. 228. 40 at AICPI No. 685 points for the Executives and revised the H. R. A. and c. C. A. with effect from 1-1-1987 to 19-6-1991 and even fitment benefits proportionately as stated in the circular dated 4-4-1990. Opposing the writ petition, the management filed statement of objections dated 1-3-1999. It was pointed out that the difference in Dearness Allowance is on account of different methods adopted for wage revision. It is stated that in the case of Supervisors, the wage revision benefit is Rs. 60/- in pay plus one increment in the revised grade plus Rs. 31a increase in dearness Allowance, whereas, in the case of Executives the wage revision benefit is Rs. 90/- in pay and Rs. 60/- increase in Dearness allowance. It is claimed by the management that the Executives and the supervisors are two separate and distinct classes of employees and they cannot be compared and equated and the first respondent-association is not entitled to the reliefs claimed by them. ( 5 ) A learned Single Judge of this Court who heard the writ petition finally, without recording any specific finding on the contentious issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties, solely on the ground that a declaration is made in paragraph (4) of the letter of the Government of india, Department of Public Enterprises dated 4th April, 1990 to the effect that the quantum of Dearness Allowance to the non-unionized supervisors and Executives as on 1-1-1987 and also from 1-1-1989 would be Rs. 838. 35 but in actual practise what is awarded is only Rs. 609. 95, thought it appropriate to direct the management to re-examine the claim of the first respondent-association and pass appropriate order within three months. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge accordingly. ( 6 ) WE have heard Sri K. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sheela Krishna, learned Counsel for the first respondent-Union. Sri Kasturi would contend that the holding of the learned Single Judge that the fixation of fitment of Deamess Allowance of Rs. 609. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge accordingly. ( 6 ) WE have heard Sri K. Kasturi, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Ms. Sheela Krishna, learned Counsel for the first respondent-Union. Sri Kasturi would contend that the holding of the learned Single Judge that the fixation of fitment of Deamess Allowance of Rs. 609. 95 for the non-unionized Supervisors is illegal, is not well-founded and in so holding, the learned Single Judge has lost sight of the clarification issued by the Government of India, Department of public Enterprises dated 31-12-1990. It was also contended by Sri kasturi that it was not as if for the first time the management introduced the difference in the quantum of Dearness Allowance payable to non-unionized Supervisors and Executives as on 1-1-1987, and in fact, such differences had been there even earlier. According to the learned senior Counsel, as the quantum of Dearness Allowance paid to the supervisors (S1-S3) as on 1-1-1987 linked to AICPI No. 685 was Rs. 609. 95, the same had been taken into account while working out the basic pay in the revised scales, and as the quantum of Dearness allowance payable to Executives at Rs. 838. 35 on 1-1-1987, the said amount was taken and merged into basic pay of the Executives and, therefore, there was no illegality in awarding Rs. 609. 95 to the supervisors and Rs. 838. 35 to the Executives. The said action of the management, according to the learned Senior Counsel, was strictly in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Department of Public enterprises, Government of India in its official memorandum dated 4-4-1990 as also the subsequent clarification issued by it vide circular dated 31-12-1990. Be that as it may, learned Senior Counsel would conclude that the first respondent-association cannot seek mandamus to the Management of the Company to keep the difference of Rs. 228. 40 at aicpi No. 685 points for the Executives in every pay revision, as a matter of right and it is permissible for the pay revising authority to adopt different methods and/or norms to effect revision of pay scales. 228. 40 at aicpi No. 685 points for the Executives in every pay revision, as a matter of right and it is permissible for the pay revising authority to adopt different methods and/or norms to effect revision of pay scales. Sri kasturi would highlight the scope of judicial review in the matter of revision of pay scales and contend that the scope is very much limited and circumscribed and the first respondent-association has utterly failed to make out any of the permissible grounds on the basis of which, they could seek review of the impugned action. ( 7 ) ON the other hand, Ms. Sheela Krishna, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent-association, with her usual vehemence, would contend that the revision of pay with regard to the non-unionized Supervisors is not in conformity with the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Department of Public Enterprises contained in its letter dated 4th April, 1990. According to Ms. Sheela krishna, guidelines contained in the said letter dated 4th April, 1990 equally apply to all the three categories of employees and, therefore, the management acted illegally in adopting different methods/norms in fixing Dearness Allowance for the Executives and non-unionized supervisors. Adverting to the clarification issued by the Government of india, Department of Public Enterprises dated 31-12-1990, Ms. Sheela krishna would contend that the clarificatory letter does not state that the guidelines contained in the letter of the Government of India dated 4th April, 1990 are not applicable to the non-unionized Supervisors. ( 8 ) HAVING heard the learned Counsels for the parties, the only question that arises for decision is whether the first respondent-association is entitled to mandamus directing the respondents to keep the difference of Rs. 228. 40 at AICPI No. 685 points for the Executives and to revise the Dearness Allowance and CCA with effect from 1-1-1987 to 19-6-1991 and to give fitment benefits proportionately as stated in the Department of Public Enterprises circular dated 4-4-1990. ( 9 ) IT is seen from the records that the Dearness Allowance of executives as on 1-9-1978 was Rs. 304. 50 and Dearness Allowance of supervisors was Rs. 196. 00, thus the difference was Rs. 108. 50 at the time of wage revision effective from 1-9-1978 and there was no difference in compensation in per point increase of AICPI which stood at rs. 1. 30 per unit. 304. 50 and Dearness Allowance of supervisors was Rs. 196. 00, thus the difference was Rs. 108. 50 at the time of wage revision effective from 1-9-1978 and there was no difference in compensation in per point increase of AICPI which stood at rs. 1. 30 per unit. In the wage revision effective from 1-9-1978, in the case of workmen in the grade up to Rs. 475-12-535-18-751, the wage revision benefit allowed was 12% of wage (basic pay + DA) as on 31-8-1978 subject to a minimum of Rs. 67. 60/- and maximum of Rs. 90/- and one increment in the revised scale. The Supervisors (S-1 to S-3) and workmen in equivalent grades were allowed Rs. 60/- in pay plus one increment in the revised grade and Rs. 31/- increase in Dearness allowance. The Executives were allowed the wage revision benefit of Rs. 90/- in pay and Rs. 60/- p. m. increase in Dearness Allowance. Therefore, the Supervisors and Executives cannot be equated at par as if they belong to one category. The difference in Dearness Allowance occurred on account of different methods adopted for wage revision benefit and for pay fixation. In respect of Supervisors, the wage revision benefit is rs. 60/- plus one increment in the revised grade plus Rs. 31/- increase in dearness Allowance whereas in the case of Executives, the wage revision benefit is Rs. 90/- in pay and Rs. 60/- increase in Dearness allowance. The question is whether in applying the different methods, the management of the appellant-company has committed any illegality or violated any of the guidelines issued by the Government of India, department of Public Enterprises dated 4th April, 1990. Before dealing with that question, it needs to be noticed that the Executives and supervisors are two separate and distinct categories of employees of the appellant and they cannot be compared or equated for fixation of wage or revision of the same, unless any statute or statutory rules or guidelines issued by the Government of India through the Department of Public Enterprises direct the management to treat them as equals. ( 10 ) IT is pointed out by the management that the wage revision in respect of Executives was made effective from 1-8-1982 whereas, the wages of Supervisors were revised from 1-9-1982. ( 10 ) IT is pointed out by the management that the wage revision in respect of Executives was made effective from 1-8-1982 whereas, the wages of Supervisors were revised from 1-9-1982. It is true that the government of India, Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of industry, issued circular dated 4-4-1990 containing guidelines and parameters for wage revision for Executives and Supervisors. As per these guidelines, the amount of Dearness Allowance at AICPI at 685 points as on 1-1-1987 had to be merged with the basic pay for structuring the revised salary grades of Executives and Supervisors and not to fix the same rate for both Executives and Supervisors. As on 1-1-1987 at AICPI No. 685, the Deamess Allowance of the Executives was Rs. 838. 35 and in the case of Supervisor at the same index, the dearness Allowance was Rs. 609. 95 and the above amount were merged in the basic pay for fixation of pay in the revised salary grades for these two categories respectively. ( 11 ) AFTER the Department of Public Enterprises, Ministry of industries, Government of India issued the circular dated 4-4-1990 containing the guidelines, the company addressed a letter 24th december, 1990 to the Department of Public Enterprises, seeking clarification as to what amount of Dearness Allowance is to be merged to the Supervisor categories. In pursuance of the above letter, the department of Public Enterprises sent a clarification dated 31st december, 1990. It reads as follows.-"dear Shri Rao, kindly refer to your D. O. No. AA/per/404 (S), dated 24-12-1990 soliciting clarification with regard to the quantum of dearness allowance as on 1-1-1987 linked to AICPI No. 685 which is to be merged in the basic pay while working out the revised scales of pay. 2. The matter has been examined in this department. It is clarified that only in those cases where the DA payable to the executives was Rs. 838. 35 as on 1-1-1987 this amount is to be merged in the basic pay. In some cases, as is the case in NJMC and other PSEs the IDA paid to the Supervisors as on 1-1-1987 linked to AICPI No. 685 was a lower figure the same would have to be taken into account while working out the basic pay in the revised scales of pay". In some cases, as is the case in NJMC and other PSEs the IDA paid to the Supervisors as on 1-1-1987 linked to AICPI No. 685 was a lower figure the same would have to be taken into account while working out the basic pay in the revised scales of pay". ( 12 ) IN view of the clarification issued by the Government of India, department of Public Enterprises, the actual amount of Dearness allowance drawn at AICPI No. 685 points is to be merged with the basic pay. While doing so, the Dearness Allowance payable to the Executives was to be taken as Rs. 838. 35 as on 1-1-1987 and that of Supervisors at the same index at Rs. 609. 95. Therefore, the exercise made by the management was in accordance with the clarifications given by the department of Public Enterprises, Government of India. ( 13 ) WE find considerable force in the contention of Sri Kasturi that the first respondent-association cannot seek mandamus to the management of the company to keep the difference of Rs. 228. 40 at aicpi No. 685 points for the Executives in every pay revision, as a matter of right and it is permissible in law for the management to adopt different methods in revising the pay scales of the Executives and the supervisors. The learned Counsel for the respondent-association has utterly failed to place any authority before us on the basis of which the association, as a matter of right, could seek a mandamus to the management to maintain the difference of Rs. 228. 40 at AICPI No. 685 points for the Executives in every pay revision. Simply because, the revision has resulted in some perceived disadvantage, that fact itself, without anything further to show that such difference attracted wrath of article 14 postulates, cannot be a ground for seeking mandamus. In holding so, we are fortified by the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v G. C. Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493 . In that case, the Constitution Bench was pleased to observe:". . . In holding so, we are fortified by the judgment of a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v G. C. Mandawar, AIR 1954 SC 493 . In that case, the Constitution Bench was pleased to observe:". . . It may no doubt sound hard that Government servants doing work of a similar kind and working, it may be, even in the same place, should receive different allowances; but the rights of the parties have to be decided on legal considerations, and it is impossible to hold that the resolution in question is bad under article 14". ( 14 ) IN Workmen of Western India Match Company Limited v Western india Match Company Limited , AIR 1966 SC 976 : 1962-I-LLJ-661 (SC ). a three-Judges Bench of the Supreme court was called upon to decide whether employees in Alambazar, as well as in Calcutta living within the limits of the Corporation of calcutta are entitled to same rate of Dearness Allowance as the sales office employees. The Supreme Court while holding that the Dearness allowance cannot be claimed as a matter of right in paragraph (19) held:" (19) It is true that the employees in Alambazar as well as in calcutta are living within the limits of the Corporation of calcutta. But that circumstance though relevant is not by itself sufficient to justify payment to them of the same rate of Dearness allowance as the sales office employees. We cannot ignore the fact that the employees of other factories situate in that area are not paid Dearness Allowance at the rates formulated by the Bengal chamber of Commerce and, therefore, if those rates are adopted by the respondent with respect to the factory employees the existing industrial peace in that region may be destroyed. The tribunal must, therefore, be said to have exercised its discretion properly in not acceding to the appellant's demand in this respect". Further in paragraph (21), the Court held:" (21) We do not think that there is any valid reason for compelling employers to offer uniform terms of employment to their employees working in different establishments because various considerations must enter into the question such as the value of their work to the employer, the employer's ability to pay, the cost of living, the availability of persons for doing the particular kind of work and so on". ( 15 ) IN Union of India and Others v Lieut (Mrs.) E. Lacats, (1997)7 SCC 334 : 1997 SCC (L and S) 1613 : 1997-II-LLJ-830 (SC ). the Supreme Court was called upon to decide the question if different nursing Services are constituted under separate army instructions carrying their own separate terms and conditions of service, one can complain of discrimination if the ages of retirement prescribed under those different services are different. That question arose before the apex Court in the premise of the fact that there are three different types of Military Nursing Services governed by their own different rules. Those are - (1) Military Nursing Service (Regular), (2) Military Nursing service (Civilian) and (3) Military Nursing Service (Local ). Pursuant to an advertisement, the respondent therein applied for the post of a nursing Sister (Lieutenant) in the Military Nursing Service for local service. She was selected and joined the post on 6-2-1959. On attaining the age of 55 years she was superannuated with effect from 30-11-1981. The respondent filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court challenging her retirement at the age of 55 years on the ground that in other nursing services under the Military Establishment, the age of retirement was 58 years and, therefore, it was discriminatory to retire the nurses who were appointed for local service only at the age of 55 years. The Supreme Court while rejecting the above contention held that since three different services are constituted under separate army instructions carrying their own terms and conditions of services, one cannot complain of discrimination if the ages of retirement prescribed under the different services are different and that each will be governed by its own rules and regulations. The Court held that the respondent is, therefore, not justified in claiming that she has been discriminated against, because she was retired at the age of 55 years. ( 16 ) NO doubt, since the guarantee of equal protection embraces the entire realm of State action, it would extend not only when an individual is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of his rights or in the matter of imposing liabilities upon him, but also in the matter of granting privileges. In all these cases, the principle is the same viz. In all these cases, the principle is the same viz. , that there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation, their position is the same. In other words, the action must not be arbitrary but must be based on some valid principle which itself must not be irrational or discriminatory. What Article 14 prohibits is class legislation and not permissible classification for the purpose of legislation. If care is taken to reasonably classify persons and if it deals equally with all persons belonging to a "well-defined class", it is not open to charge of denial of equal protection on the ground that the law does not apply to other persons. In the instant case, the Executives and Supervisors cannot be regarded as the persons belonging to a "well-defined class", so as to attract the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 17 ) THE decision of the management to adopt different methods for the purpose of revision of Dearness Allowance of the Executives and the supervisors is undoubtedly a policy decision. The Courts have repeatedly held that they will not normally interfere with the policy decision of the Government and governmental authorities and they must exercise jurisdiction of judicial review with circumspection. The wisdom of a policy decision of the Government or statutory authorities, as such, is not justiciable unless such policy decision is capricious, arbitrary, whimsical so as to offend Article 14 of the Constitution or any statutory or constitutional provision. The only thing to be seen by the Court when a policy decision is assailed is whether the policy decision assailed is arbitrary or violative of any mandatory provisions of law. In Tata Iron and Steel Company Limited v Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 2462 : (1996)9 SCC 709 it was held that unless policy decision is inconsistent with Constitution or law, Court must exercise jurisdictional circumspection, particularly when the issues are intertwined with policy decision and technical issues. In M/s. Shri sitaram Sugar Company Limited v Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277 : 1990)3 SCC 223 the Apex Court held that the Court does not possess the expertise required to determine the matter, and the determination has been made by experts appointed by the Government. In M/s. Shri sitaram Sugar Company Limited v Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1277 : 1990)3 SCC 223 the Apex Court held that the Court does not possess the expertise required to determine the matter, and the determination has been made by experts appointed by the Government. In Sher Singh v Union of India, (1995)6 SCC 515 : ] 996 SCC (L and S) 42 the Court opined that there shall be no judicial review if the policy decision is neither unfair nor mala fide. In Assam Madhyamik Sikshak Aru Karmachari Santha, nagoan v State of Assam, AIR 1996 SC 2257 : (1996)9 SCC 186 . the Court has opined that a policy decision shall not be normally questioned in a Court of law and the Court cannot find fault with discrimination based on policy. Keeping these well-settled principles in view, it cannot be said that the policy decision taken by the management in conformity with the clarification issued by the Department of Public Enterprises, Government of India, to adopt different methods for the purpose of revision of Dearness Allowance in the case of Executives and Supervisors cannot be said to be capricious or arbitrary or whimsical so as to attract the wrath of postulates of Article 14 of the Constitution. The following observation of the Supreme Court in U. P. Financial Corporation v M/s. Naini Oxygen and Acetylene Gas limited, (1995)2 SCC 754 . are quite apposite:"however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the Corporation is an independent autonomous statutory body among its own constitution and rules to abide by and functions and obligations to discharge. As such, in the discharge of its functions, it is free to act according to its own light. The views it forms and the decision it takes are on the basis of the information to its own perspective and calculations. Unless its action is mala fide even a wrong decision taken by it is not open to challenge. It is not for the courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however, not prudent, commercial or business like, it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or the lack of it) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the Corporation liable". It is not for the courts or a third party to substitute its decision, however, not prudent, commercial or business like, it may be, for the decision of the Corporation. Hence, whatever the wisdom (or the lack of it) of the conduct of the Corporation, the same cannot be assailed for making the Corporation liable". ( 18 ) IN the result and for the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the order of the learned Single Judge. Although, Ms. Sheela Krishna appealed to us not to interfere with the harmless direction issued by the learned Single Judge to reconsider the claim of the association, that appeal is not acceptable to us. Entitlement to consider for grant or sanction of a thing, right or privilege at the hands of a State or statutory Authority is also a legal right. No Court is entitled to issue a direction to an authority to consider a claim of a person unless such person demonstrates satisfactorily that he has a right to be considered in law. Further, the Court would not be justified in directing an authority to reconsider a decision already taken by such authority unless the reviewing Court finds some substantial flaw or error in the decision already taken by the authority. Since we are of the considered opinion that the method adopted by the management in revising the dearness Allowance in the case of Supervisors is not vitiated by any substantive error or flaw, legal or factual, issuing a direction to the management to reconsider the claim of the appellant would not arise. ( 19 ) IN the result, we allow the writ appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Petition No. 23781 of 1991 with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .