JUDGMENT M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Articles 226 of the Constitution prays for partially quashing order dated 9- 12-1997 (Annexure P-3) to the extent it imposes an embargo on payment of arrears of pay to the effected employees after the removal of anomalies which have been removed w.e.f. 1-1-1986 whereas arrears have been permitted w.e.f. 1.1.1996. 2. Brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the controversy raised in this petition are that, on the recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission, the Punjab Government revised the pay scales of its employees on 21-5-1989. The revision was made effective from 1-1-1986. Respondent No.3 the Punjab State Cooperative Agricultural Development Bank Ltd. (for brevity “respondent bank”) adopted resolution No.37 dated 6-7- 1989, revising the pay scale of its employees, on the pattern of Punjab Government and obtain the approval of the Registrar. It is appropriate to mention here that the respondent bank is a Cooperative Society and all its resolutions are liable to be approved by the Registrar. Accordingly, on 6-11-1989 an order of revision of pay scale was issued. 3. On 15-6-1990 the Punjab Government, issued a notification and removed certain anomalies in the pay scales, which were revised on 21-5-1989, w.e.f. 1-1-1986. As a consequence, Punjab Government amended and revised the master pay scale by a notification issued on 24.12.1992, which also resulted into introduction of the amended master pay scale, by the respondent bank, on 24-3-1996. Earlier master scale of Rs. 750-20-950-25- 1200-30-1560-40-2000-50-2400-60-2700-75- 3000-100-4000-125-5000- 150-5900 was amended and the new master scale was introduced, which is as under : 750-20-850-25-11 00-40-1300-50-1500-60-1800-75-2100- 100-2700-125-3200-150-4100-200-5100-250-6100-300-6 700. 4. In case of the respondent-bank anomaly was removed and the master pay scale was made applicable by the Registrar from 1- 1-1986, as is evident from the perusal of the impugned order dated 9-12-1997, which reads as under : Sub: Remove of anomaly in the pay scales of employees Memorandum: “Keeping in view the recommendation of the Supervisory Committee dated 20-10-1997, the anomalies are hereby removed as under: i) the Master Scale approved vide this office letter No. Credit/CA-3/5179 dated 15-4-1996 are hereby allowed w.e.f. 1- 1-19fi6 instead of 1-1-1993. All the categories will get the rate of increment as per Master Scale. It is further clarified that arrears of pay to the affected employees on account of revision will only be allowed w.ef 1-4-1996. All the categories will get the rate of increment as per Master Scale. It is further clarified that arrears of pay to the affected employees on account of revision will only be allowed w.ef 1-4-1996. ii) Categories explained in this office letter No. Credit/CA-3/305/6923 dated 26-6-1997 will also include the following categories of employees: 1) Chowkidars, Peon, Gunmen, Electricians and Sweepers. 2) Daftri, Lift-operator and Jamadars” 5. The petitioner submitted a memorandum for implementing the pay scale w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The request of the petitioner was considered by the Supervisory Committee, which was constituted by the Registrar-(respondent No.2). The Committee made recommendations to allow the master pay scale w.e.f. 1-1-1986 instead of 1-1-1993. However, it imposed a rider that the arrears of pay to the concerned employees, on account of revision, may be allowed w.e.f. 1-4-1996 only. The petitioner again made a representation against the imposition of embargo of payment of arrears w.e.f. 1-4-1996 instead of 1-1-1986. Then followed repeated reminders which were sent on 29-9-1998, 2-11-1998, 27-1- 1999, 27-4-1999 and 10- 4-1999. The pay of all the retired employees was re-fixed in the revised pay scale w.e.f. 1-1-1986, but the arrears were paid w.e.f. 1-4-1996 only. However, it has been clarified that since the revision with arrears was made w.e.f. 1-1- 1993, the petitioners have actually been paid the arrears from 1-1-1993. Eventually a justice demand notice was served upon the respondents, on 30-9-1999, which remains undecided. In the reply filed by respondent No.3, the stand taken is that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners, under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 and a revision petition would be competent before the Registrar. It has been asserted that the Administration is competent to fix a cut off date for the revision of the pay scale or fix a different date with regard to payment of arrears. However, issuance of notification amending the master pay scale by the Punjab Government and the implementation of the recommendations made by the Committee, appointed by the Registrar have not been disputed. It has also not been disputed that the recommendations of Committee were implemented and the amended master pay scale was granted by the respondent bank w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The dispute is confined only to the period of arrears w.e.f. 1-1-1986 to 1-1- 1993. 6. Mr. It has also not been disputed that the recommendations of Committee were implemented and the amended master pay scale was granted by the respondent bank w.e.f. 1-1-1986. The dispute is confined only to the period of arrears w.e.f. 1-1-1986 to 1-1- 1993. 6. Mr. Gourav Chopra, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that a perusal of order dated 9-12-1997 passed by the Registrar (respondent No.2) makes it evident that it was not a case of revision of pay scale but the Registrar had removed the anomalies in the pay scale of the employees. of the respondent bank. According to learned counsel, once there is an anomaly in the pay scale, then it requires to be removed from the date the anomaly has occurred and the consequential arrears of salary are also liable to be paid. Learned counsel has maintained that two different dates for same set of employees cannot be adopted for the purpose of grant of arrears because the price rise affected equally to everyone. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Purshottam Lal and others v. Union of India AIR 1973 Supreme Court 1088. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court in Prem Parkash Nayar and others v. Punjab State Electricity Board 2003(2) SCT 550 and argued that denial of arrears of pay to the petitioner would result into arbitrariness, especially when other employees were granted the arrears of pay w.e.f. 1-1-1986. He has then’ placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Joginder Singh Saini v. State of Puniab 1999(1) SCT 520, which is based on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. v. Dr.Dharampaul & Ors. (C.A. No.10549 of 1996 decided on 25.08.1998). 7. Mr. Anupam Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondents has argued that no arrears were paid by the Supreme Court in D.S.Nakara & Ors v. Union of India 1983(2) SLR 246, although benefit of revision in pension was granted. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the observations made in para No.49 of the judgment and argued that despite the fact that the fixation of date for revision was held to be unconstitutional, the scheme was considered prospective, resulting into revision of pay scale only. Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the observations made in para No.49 of the judgment and argued that despite the fact that the fixation of date for revision was held to be unconstitutional, the scheme was considered prospective, resulting into revision of pay scale only. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.K.Bishnoi & Ors. v. State of Haryana 1993(6) SLR 216 and has argued that, as a matter of fact, it was not anomaly but a revision of pay scale. He has then referred to a judgment of Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. The Secretary, Madras Civil Audit & Accounts Association & Anr. 1992(1) SLR 667. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed. A perusal of order dated 9-12-1997 (Annexure P-3) clearly shows that the respondent has removed anomaly from the pay scale of the petitioner which had crept in and it cannot be concluded that the revision of pay was sought to be introduced. The aforementioned situation is further supported by the fact that the respondent No.2- Registrar, on the representations made by the employees constituted a Supervisory Committee and the recommendations C.W.P.No.899 of 2000 made by the aforementioned Committee for revising the master scale, on the pattern of the Punjab Government w.e.f. 1-1-1986 were accepted with a rider that the arrears were to be paid only w.e.f. 1-4-1996. Therefore, it has to be held that it is not a case of revision of pay scale but of removing the anomalies from the pay scale. In such a situation, the view taken by the Supreme Court in case of State of Punjab v. Dr. Dharmapal (C.A. No. 10549 of 1996 decided on 25-8-1998) would fully apply to the facts of the present case. In the afore-mentioned order, the Supreme Court’ has observed as under : “The First, Second and the Third Pay Commissions of the State of Punjab repeatedly recommended parity in the scales of pay of Research Officer and Assistant Research Officer with that of the Executive Engineers and Assistant Executive Engineers respectively in the Irrigation Department. Ultimately, the question of disparity was referred to the Anomaly Committee which recommended that the recommendations of the Pay Commissions be accepted and implemented. Ultimately, the question of disparity was referred to the Anomaly Committee which recommended that the recommendations of the Pay Commissions be accepted and implemented. Consequently, the Administrative Department recommended the implementation w. e.f. 1.1.88, the date with effect from which the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission were implemented but the Finance Department expressed its inability to agree to this proposal and proposed the implementation from a prospective date, namely with effect from 1.1.94. It was at this stage that the matter was taken to High Court which allowed the writ petition and directed the implementation w.e.f. 1.1.86. We see no reason to differ with the view taken by the High Court. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. No costs. “ 9. The view expressed by the Supreme Court was followed Division Bench of this Court in Joginder Singh Saini’s case (supra) an payment of arrears from a date different than the date of revision was he unconstitutional, against Articles 14 and 16(1) and illegal. The same has been taken by this Court in the case of Prem Parkash’s case (supra). 10. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that in essence the order dated 9.12.1997, impugned in the instant petition does not remove the anomaly but has revised the pay scale, has to be out rightly rejected because it is no longer open to the respondent Bank to raise such an argument in view of the language used in that order. According to the purpose of the order as noted in the subject, it has been indicated ‘Removal of anomaly in the pay- scales of employees’. It is also evident that the revision of master scales of the employees of the respondent Bank was the result of clarification issued by the respondents to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Punjab, on 23.12.1997, as is evident from the order itself (P-4) and the consequential pay fixation effected on 21.4.1999 (P-5). In such a situation, no reliance could be placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra) or a Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.K. Bishnoi’s case (supra) because both the judgments proceed on the assumption that there was further revision of pay scale. In such a situation, no reliance could be placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in D.S. Nakara’s case (supra) or a Division Bench judgment of this Court in S.K. Bishnoi’s case (supra) because both the judgments proceed on the assumption that there was further revision of pay scale. It is further appropriate to mention that when anomaly is removed in the pay scale of a set of employees then it is recognition of a fact that earlier some mistake has been committed, which has been rectified later on. In order words the concerned set of employees have suffered on account of delay in payment which rightly belong to them and in fact that has been paid to others. They cannot be made to suffer further by imposing an embargo on the arrears of pay from a date different than the one anomaly has been removed. The order dated 9.12.1997 is a cryptic order in so far as the arrears have been granted only w.e.f. 1.4.1996 than 1.1.1986. The other judgment in the case of Secretary, Madras Civil Audit & Accounts Association (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case because in that case one set of employees wanted to seek parity of pay scale with another set of employees after bifurcation of their cadre as both sets of employees belonging to erstwhile joint cadre were granted revision of pay scale from different dates. A number of reasons have been indicated by the Supreme Court in support of the course adopted by the Union Government as would be evident from the perusal of para 4 of the judgment. It has been concluded that those officer who were subsequently placed in the functional grade would belong to the same grade who were entitled to the respective scales in their own right on 1.1.1986 itself. The following portion of para 4 would be relevant to substantiate the aforementioned legal and factual position and the same reads as under: “......Therefore it is not correct to say that these officers who were subsequently placed in the functional grade belong to the same group who were entitled to the respective scales in their own right on 1.1.86 itself. It must be borne in mind that in order to enable the identification of posts and fitment of proper persons against them the Government had to take a decision. It must be borne in mind that in order to enable the identification of posts and fitment of proper persons against them the Government had to take a decision. We have already noted that the recommendations of the Pay Commission deal with parity of scales of pay of the staff in lA. & A.D. and other Accounts Organisations after holding that Audit and Accounts wings functions are complementary. But the Pay Commission also pointed out that the posts in the scales of pay of Rs. 1,400- 2,000 and Rs. 2,000-3,200 should be treated as functional grades requiring promotion as per normal procedure and it was left to the Government to decide about the number of posts to be placed in these scales. Paragraph 4 of the Office Memo dated 12.6.87 deals with the later part of the recommendations and clearly provides for the identification of the posts carrying somewhat higher responsibilities and duties and for an exercise to be undertaken for fitting the senior and suitable persons against these posts. The Government after due consideration decided the issue. The Circular dated 17.8.87 clearly shows that some of the posts are identified as belonging to the higher functional grade and accordingly issued instructions in conformity with its Office Memo dated 12.6.87 and accordingly they were given the benefit with effect from 1.4.87. 11. It is, thus, evident that the principle laid down in the case Secretary, Madras Civil Audit & Accounts Association (supra), has no application to the facts of the present case because neither any reasons have been given in the order dated 9.12.1997 for adopting a different treatment to the petitioners nor any such thing has been pointed out in the written statement or at the stage of arguments. Therefore, I find that the reliance on the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court by the learned counsel is wholly misplaced and I have no hesitation to reject the argument based on the aforementioned judgment. 12. In view of the above, order dated 9-12-1997 (Annexure P- 3) is declared violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, to the extent it denies the arrears to the petitioners and other affected employees with effect from the date of removal of anomaly i.e. 1-1-1986. The petitioners are held entitled to the arrears of their salary arising on account of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1-1-1986 upto 31.3.1996. The petitioners are held entitled to the arrears of their salary arising on account of revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1-1-1986 upto 31.3.1996. However, it is clarified that if any employee has been paid the arrears w.e.f. 1-1-1993, the same shall be adjusted. As a consequence, the petitioners shall also be entitled to the consequential benefits in the form of revised pension and allowances, where ever such directions are applicable. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to the costs.