ORDER 1. Petitioner has filed this petition with regard to grant of higher pay scale after completing nine years of service as Welfare Assistant. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Grade III on 27 .4.1977. Thereafter he was up-lifted to the post of Junior Steno on 12.4.1980 and further as Senior Steno on 27.7.1989. The petitioner appeared in the departmental examination for appointment on the post of Welfare Officer. Thereafter he has been appointed after getting success in departmental examination as Welfare Assistant on 12.2.1991. The grievance of the petitioner is that after completing nine years of service as Welfare Assistant he has not been given benefit of higher pay scale. 3. The respondents in the return have submitted that the post of Welfare Assistant which was at that time was in isolated cadre the petitioner himself had chosen to join the post. Hence, he was in an isolated cadre and he was not entitled for the higher pay scale after considering nine years of service as Welfare Assistant because the provision of giving higher pay scale was not available to the isolated cadre. It has further been submitted that there are three types of cadre in the department i.e. isolated, static and promotional. The Welfare Assistant was brought in the static cadre by an order dated 29.9.2003 and vide order dated 3.1.2004 facility of higher pay scale has been given to the aforesaid post. It has further been submitted that in the year of 2005 the post of Welfare Assistant has further been given channel of promotion and accordingly, the petitioner has been given the higher pay scale w.e.f. September 2004. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that non-grant of higher pay scale to the petitioner on account of isolated cadre is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He has further submitted that persons who were working along with the petitioner as OA Grade III thereafter promoted as Junior Steno and Senior Steno were granted the benefit of higher pay scale and they were fixed at the pay scale of Rs. 9,200/-, however, the petitioner was getting only Rs.8,600/-. 5. Contrary to this counsel for respondents has submitted that the petitioner himself has chosen the post of Welfare Assistant which was at that time an isolated cadre and he was not given benefit of higher pay scale. 6. 9,200/-, however, the petitioner was getting only Rs.8,600/-. 5. Contrary to this counsel for respondents has submitted that the petitioner himself has chosen the post of Welfare Assistant which was at that time an isolated cadre and he was not given benefit of higher pay scale. 6. In my opinion, non-grant of benefit of higher pay scale to the petitioner because he was in isolated cadre is arbitrary and illegal because the object of granting higher pay scale is that an employee would not feel frustrated because of non-availability of higher promotion avenues. In the present case, certainly the employees who were in static cadre have a promotional channel and they have been granted benefit of higher pay scale. Subsequently, the post of Welfare Assistant has been brought in static cadre in the year 1993 and the petitioner has been granted higher pay scale w.e.f. September 2005. In such circumstances, admittedly, there is no reason not to grant the said benefit to the petitioner from the date after completing qualifying years of service when he was appointed as welfare Assistant i.e. from 12.2.1991. It is well settled principle of law that Article 14 prohibits c1ass legislation but permits valid classification as held by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. P. Narsinga Rao, reported in AIR 1968 SC 349 , which is quoted here in below: "It is well settled that though Article 14 borbids c1ass legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group, and the second test is that the differentia; in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule. As we have already stated, Articles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule. As we have already stated, Articles 14 and 16 form part of the same constitutional code of guarantees and supplement each other. In other words, Article 16 is only an instance of the application of the general rule of equality laid down in Article 14 and it should be construed as such. Hence, there is no denial of equality of opportunity unless the person who complains of discrimination is equally situated with the person or persons who are alleged to have been favoured; Article 16 (1) does not bar a reasonable classification of employees or reasonable tests for their selection." 7. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is allowed and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale after completing qualifying years of service on the post of Welfare Assistant i.e. w.e.f. 12.2.1991 at par with the benefit given to static cadre. If the petitioner be found suitable he be given arrears of salary also. Suitable orders be passed within forty five days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.