( 1 ) THIS review petition is filed by the respondent in Writ petition No. 16232 of 1994 on the file of this Court praying to review the order of this Court dated 15-03-2004. The writ petitioners-respondents herein are the employees of the review petitioner. They filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare that the action of the review petitioner in not extending the scale of pay of Rs. 700-22-832-26-988-31-1174 (revised) to the respondents herein as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and to direct the review petitioner to extend the said scale of pay to the respondents herein with arrears and consequential benefits. According to the writ petitioners, the Management appointed certain persons as Plant Operators in the year 1986 in the pay scale of Rs. 420-18-528-22-660-26-816 carrying the revised pay scale of Rs. 700-22-832-26-988-31-1174. The writ petitioners were appointed as Plant Operators in the year 1987 in the pay scale of Rs. 365-14-449-18-557-22-689 carrying the revised pay scale of Rs. 640-80-748-22-880-26-1036. The Plant operators appointed in 1986 are doing the same work as that of the writ petitioners, but the writ petitioners are being given lesser scale of pay. Since there was discrimination in treating the writ petitioners on par with the Plant Operators appointed in the year 1986, they are entitled for equal scale of pay that was made applicable to the Plant Operators appointed in the year 1986. ( 2 ) THE Management-review petitioner did not file any counter explaining the circumstances under which two different scales were made applicable, despite giving several opportunities therefore, an order was passed by this Court on the basis of the record placed by the writ petitioners. When the learned counsel for the writ petitioners represented that there cannot be any difference in scales of pay in respect of the employees holding same post and when the duties and responsibilities of all the persons are one and the same, there was no denial by the management through a counter affidavit. Therefore, this Court came to a conclusion that the uncontraverted allegations made by the writ petitioners would clearly indicate that the pay in respect of the writ petitioners is discriminatory with that of the persons who were appointed in the year 1986. Therefore, this Court came to a conclusion that the uncontraverted allegations made by the writ petitioners would clearly indicate that the pay in respect of the writ petitioners is discriminatory with that of the persons who were appointed in the year 1986. This Court, accordingly, allowed the writ petition directing the Management to pay the scales of pay on par with the Plant Operators appointed in 1986 and extend of consequential benefits. The management filed the present review petition seeking review of the order in the writ petition by explaining the circumstances under which the Management could not resist the writ petition, ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the review petitioner G. Sudha submitted that the Court did not notice that the counsel on record did not inform the Management to make alternative arrangement on account of his illness to decide the case on merits and allowed the Court to pass orders basing on the affidavit averments made by the workmen and requested to peruse the record and regulations placed by the Management to know the correct facts and to appreciate whether there is any force in the contention of the writ petitioners or in asking for equal pay with the pay of Plant Operators appointed in 1986. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that though the appointment of the writ petitioners was about one year subsequent to the appointment of Plant Operators in 1986, the writ petitioners are entitled for equal scale of pay and as the management discriminated them by applying lesser scale of pay, this court was right in allowing the writ petition by granting the relief as prayed for. ( 4 ) HINDUSTAN Fluoro Carbons Limited, which is the management herein, is a Government of India Enterprise. This undertaking framed the Rules for recruitment and promotion of workmen. Rule 12 provided for direct recruitment. As per Rule 12. 1, whenever there is a proposal to fill-up the vacancies in the company by the method of direct recruitment, the provisions of employment Exchange (Compulsory Notification of Vacancies) act, 1959 shall be followed insofar as the posts covered by the said Act. Rule 12. 2 prescribed the procedure for advertisement. Rule 13 prescribed the procedure for selection. Rule 13. 6 provided for preparation of a panel of selected candidates, which reads as follows:"rule 13. Rule 12. 2 prescribed the procedure for advertisement. Rule 13 prescribed the procedure for selection. Rule 13. 6 provided for preparation of a panel of selected candidates, which reads as follows:"rule 13. 6 - Panel of Selected Candidates: The Selection committee will prepare a panel of selected candidates in order of merit keeping in view the advance increments if any recommended. It is recommendations will be regarded as final and normally accepted by the appointing authority. Where, in exceptional cases, the appointing authority does not accept the recommendations of the Selection Committee, that authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, modify or set aside its recommendations. These panels will be valid for a maximum period of one year from the date of approval by the appointing authority. "rule 13. 7 reads as follows:"rule 13. 7 - Selection for lower posts: There is no objection to the Selection Committee suggesting appointment of certain candidates found suitable for a lower grade/post than the one interviewed provided the candidate possesses the minimum experience/qualifications prescribed for such lower post and he gives his willingness to accept such post in the lower grade. " ( 5 ) THE writ petitioners did not dispute the notification of posts of Chemical Operators of two different scales of pay starting from Rs. 420 and 365. In Annexure-I of the Rules, the particulars of pay scale, the post, the qualification etc. , were given. In the list of posts carrying the pay scale-Ill i. e. , rs. 365-14-449-18-557-22-689, the post of Chemical Operator Grade-Ill was also included. In the list of posts carrying the pay scale-IV i. e. , Rs. 420-18-528-22-660-26-816, the post of Chemical operator Grade-II was included. In the list of posts carrying the pay scale-V i. e. , Rs. 480-22-612-26-768-30-948, the post of chemical Operator Grade-I was also included. The above particulars of the Annexure made it clear that there are three grades in the posts of Chemical Operators carrying three different scales. The learned counsel for the management submitted that the writ petitioners as well as the persons appointed in 1986 applied for the posts of Chemical operators in pursuance of the notification for filling up the vacancies of Chemical Operators issued by the Management. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners could not get the selection in the first list released in 1986. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners could not get the selection in the first list released in 1986. Therefore, the persons, who got selected in the first list on merit, were appointed as Chemical Operators Grade-II carrying the pay scale of Rs. 420-18-528-22-660-26-816. The Management, which was in need of some more operators, instead of issuing a fresh notification calling for applications from eligible candidates, resorted to exercise the power conferred under Rule 13. 7 and in pursuance of that the selection committee reinterviewed the writ petitioners and ascertained whether they were willing to accept the posts of Chemical Operators Grade-Ill carrying the pay scale of Rs. 365-14-449-18-557-22-689. The writ petitioners readily accepted the said offer and it is an undisputed fact that in the year 1987 the writ petitioners were appointed as Chemical operators Grade-III carrying the pay scale of Rs. 365-14-449-18-557-22-689. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that they had no knowledge that the operators appointed in 1986 were getting better scale of pay and came to know about the discrimination only just before filing of the writ petition and as the writ petitioners and the operators appointed in 1986 are undertaking same work, the writ petitioners are entitled to scale of pay equal to the scale of pay of the Chemical Operators appointed in 1986. ( 7 ) ON perusal of the record produced by the Management, it is noticed that the name of the writ petitioners were not in the first merit list. Therefore, they were not appointed to the posts of Chemical Operators Grade-II. Since the Management was in need of some more operators, they offered the posts of Chemical operators Grade-Ill to the writ petitioners and they accepted those posts and entered the service. Having accepted the posts of Chemical Operators Grade-Ill, which was Indicated in the notification itself, the writ petitioners cannot now agitate that they were given lesser scale of pay. Since the Management was in need of some more operators, they offered the posts of Chemical operators Grade-Ill to the writ petitioners and they accepted those posts and entered the service. Having accepted the posts of Chemical Operators Grade-Ill, which was Indicated in the notification itself, the writ petitioners cannot now agitate that they were given lesser scale of pay. ( 8 ) REGARDING the contention of the writ petitioners that they are doing same work as that of the Chemical Operators Grade- ill, they are entitled for equal scale of pay, it is seen from the record that Rules have been framed providing for reasonable classification among the workmen prescribing different scales of pay depending upon the merit, the experience, and other factors and such classification cannot be said to be bad or discriminative and it is not hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners relied on a catena of decisions in Karnataka State Private College Stop-Gap lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka, 1992 2 Supreme Court Cases 29 bhagwan Dass and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1987 4 Supreme Court Cases 634 surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, C. P. W. D. and others, 1986 1 Supreme Court Cases 639 m/s. Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. , v. Audrey D costa and another, 1987 2 Supreme Court Cases 469 macarthys Ltd. , v. Smith, 1981 1 All ER and Ranhir Singh v. Union of India and others, 1982 1 Supreme Court Cases 618 regarding the entitlement of the workmen for equal pay for doing equal work and other related aspects. ( 9 ) THERE is no dispute about the principles laid down in the above cases cited by the learned advocate. But when a reasonable classification is made under valid rules and different scales of pay are fixed in such cases the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply. Since there was no opportunity to this Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition to peruse the record of the Management and the circumstances under which the petitioners were appointed to the respective posts, this Court rendered the earlier judgment directing the management to extend the scales of pay to the writ petitioners as that of the Operators appointed in 1986. In the light of the material placed through this review petition, I am convinced that there are sufficient grounds to review the order of this Court dated 15-03-2004. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The order of this Court dated 15-03-2004 is set aside. The writ petition covered by W. P. No. 16232 of 1994 is dismissed as devoid of merits. No order as to costs.