JUDGMENT 1. 1. Challenge in the instant appeal is to the order dated November 13, 1996 of learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition of appellant was dismissed and prayer of grant of regular pay scale was denied on the ground that the appellant had not raised the said plea of regular pay scale before the Labour Court. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and scanned the material on record. 3. It appears that learned Labour Court vide Award dated July 21, 1984 answered the reference made to it under section 10(1) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short 'ID Act') in favour of the appellant and directed the respondent Bank to reinstate the appellant in service. 4. The appellant came to be appointed as Clerk-cum-Cashier with respondent Bank on September 17, 1975 at a fix salary of Rs. 250/- per month. His services were terminated on March 28, 1979. The appellant took recourse of the provisions contained in ID Act. The Labour Court passed the award dated July 21, 1984 in favour of the appellant reinstating his services with full back wages and consequential benefits. The appellant was reinstated on January 10, 1985 but full benefits pertaining to services were not given to him, therefore, he filed the writ petition before learned Single Judge, which was dismissed as indicated herein above. 5. It appears from the material on record that minimum education qualification for the post of Clerk in the year 1975 was Higher Secondary and the appellant was duly qualified for the said post. However in the year 1978 the minimum qualification for the post of Clerk was Graduation. It also appears that the services of the persons viz. Tansukh Ram, Ram Swaroop and Ranjeet Singh Kajla, who were similarly situated, were regularised and they were confirmed on the post of Clerk and were given all consequential benefits. 6. Having surveyed the material on record, we notice that learned Single Judge did not properly consider this fact that the appellant was discriminated with that of the persons similarly situated. The act of respondent Bank, in our opinion, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Once the appellant was reinstated in service with all consequential benefits he was entitled to regular pay scale and other consequential benefits. 7. The act of respondent Bank, in our opinion, was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Once the appellant was reinstated in service with all consequential benefits he was entitled to regular pay scale and other consequential benefits. 7. For these reasons we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of learned Single Judge dated February 13, 1996. We direct the respondent Bank to regularise the services of appellant from the date, when the services of similarly situated persons were regularised, and grant regular pay scale to him. Since the appellant has been superannuated in January, 2005, the respondent Bank is directed to pay the arrears to appellant within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.Appeal allowed - Order of single judge set aside. *******