JUDGMENT Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. The orders passed in present appeal shall govern the final disposal of W.A. No. 784/2007 and W.A. No. 785/2007, as common question of law is involved in these Writ Appeals, which are filed under section 2 of Madhya Pradesh, Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against a common order passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 4643/2007(S), W.P. No. 4645/2007 (S) and W.P. No. 4730/2007(S) on 16-4-2007 whereby the challenge put forth by the Appellants/Petitioners against the allocation of their services to newly constituted State of Chhattisgarh has been negatived. 2. The brief facts common to all the cases are that the Appellants are Rural Agriculture Extension Officer (For short RAEO) engaged in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh respectively w.e.f. 7-9-1987, 18-9-1987 and 19-10-1987 in the Department of Agriculture in grade Rs. 4000-6000/-. There exist a Kramonnati grade of Rs. 4500-7000/- which is granted on completion of 12 year of service in lower grade of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Pertinent it will be to note, that the Appellants were granted this benefit of Kramonnati prior to 23-9-2000. That year 2000 witnessed the bifurcation of the State of Madhya Pradesh when a new State of Chhattisgrah was carved out by virtue of M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000; whereunder, besides other things, provisions were made for allocation of 26.23% post, along with the employees, to the State of Chhattisgarh. Section 68(2) of the Act of 2000 empowered the Central Government to frame Rules to facilitate the implementation of the provisions of Act of 2000. The broad principle of allocation inter-alia included allocation first by options, followed by Domicile (Home District) and lastly by inclusion of junior most personnel in the reverse order of seniority i.e. if the number of posts allocated to the successor State of Chhattisagarh was more than the total number of officer and Domicile (Home District) then people lower down in the seniority position in the cadre were considered for allocation even against their options, in order to fill up the balance posts. 3. 3. Keeping in view the aforesaid broad principles for allocation of the services of employees to the successor State on bifurcation of State of Madhya Pradesh various directions were issued by the Central Government in exercise of the powers under section 68(2) of the Act of 2000, one such direction, which we are concerned within the present case, was issued on 22-3-2001 which was published in M.P. Gazette (Extra Ordinary) dated 23-3-2001, stipulating therein certain norms by way of clarification for final allocation of Government servants, including therein within its fold the parameters to be adhered to in allocating on the basis of option, domicile and the reverse order of seniority. In the case at hand, since we are concerned with the allocation on the basis of reverse order of seniority qua Kramonnati, Clause 6(4) and 6(5) provided necessary stipulations which one will advert to little later. 4. The Appellants/Petitioners being the beneficiary of Kramonant Pay Scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- formed a separate group under clause 6(4) of the Notification dated 22-3-2001 and since they were placed lower in the list, their services were allocated to the State of Chhattisgarh. 5. Aggrieved of such allocation grievances were raised mainly on the ground that there were other juniors in grade Rs. 4000-6000/- in the Cadre of RAEO who were given the Kramonant Pay Scale effective from prior to 23-9-2000, though by a subsequent orders, were not included in the group under Clause 6(4) and were therefore, retained in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Writ Petitions were filed, which were disposed of with the direction to the Central Government and the State Government to decide the representations by giving credence to the objections raised by the employees. 6. Consequence thereof, the case of the Appellants/Petitioners were reconsidered and respective orders were passed on 4-10-2006, rejecting their claim against allocation to State of Chhattisgarh. These orders were subjected to challenge in Writ Petitions and by the impugned order these Writ Petitions were dismissed thereby upholding their final allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh. It is these orders which are under challenge in the present set of Writ Appeals. 7. These orders were subjected to challenge in Writ Petitions and by the impugned order these Writ Petitions were dismissed thereby upholding their final allocation to the State of Chhattisgarh. It is these orders which are under challenge in the present set of Writ Appeals. 7. The challenge is on the ground that the order of allocation being ex-facie arbitrary , illegal and violative of policy of allocation as prescribed by the Central Government the learned Writ Court fell in to patent error by upholding the same, resulting therein the retention of Junior RAEO's and the allocation of the Senior RAEO's to the State of Chattisagarh. It is further urged that the respondents were not consistent in adhering to the policy laid down for allocation because while the junior were being retained by not including them within the group of Kramonnati beneficiary, whereas a similarly situated RAEO as the Appellants/Petitioners, viz, Shri S.C. Jain, was retained in the State of Madhya Pradesh and the petitioners were discriminated by not been treated similarly as Shri S.C. Jain. It is further contended that the respondents having deliberately withheld the release of orders of Kramonnati of Juniors caused grave prejudice to the Appellants/Petitioners so much so that the Juniors have been retained in the State of Madhya Pradesh, this act of delay in passing order of Kramonnati is wilful and deliberate. It is accordingly urged that the action of respondent is violative of principle enunciated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. The respondent-Union of India on its turn has supported the order of allocation, contending therein, that the same is strictly in accordance with the norms laid down and clarification issued thereof from time to time. It is further stated that on receiving representation from the respective Appellants/Petitioners, their cases were considered as per direction of this Court and the feed back provided by the State of M.P. It is urged that no error has been committed by not adding the Kramonnati beneficiaries who were granted the benefit from a retrospective date and by an order passed after the cut off date, viz, 23-9-2000. The respondent State of Madhya Pradesh joined the submissions put forth by the Union of India, contending, inter-alia, that the allocation of the Appellants/Petitioners is in accordance with the policy of allocation and therefore the learned Writ Court did not commit any error in rejecting the plea put forth by the Appellants/Petitioners. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 10. Before, adverting to the rival submissions, worth it would be to note the broad features which were the outcome of State Reorganization vide the Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act (referred to as Act of 2000) qua the division of Government Service which was one of the major consequences of the State Reorganisation. 11. Part VIII of the Act of 2000 relates to provisions as to service, providing therein, allocation of serving Government Servants in successor State, protection of service conditions regarding employees, transitional provisions, etc. section 68 stipulates provisions relating to services in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh; section 69 refers to provisions relating to other service; section 70 relates to provisions as to continuance of Officer in the same post, while section 71 pertains to Constitution of Advisory Committees; section 72 empowers the Central Government to give directions to State Government. 12. The Central Government in exercise of its power under section 68(2) the Act of 2000 issued guidelines containing the principles and modalities of handling personnel and service matters vide letter dated 13-9-2000, whereupon, the State of Madhya Pradesh issued comprehensive instructions vide Memorandum No. F-1-3/2000/4(2)/SRC dated 23-9-2000. In sequel whereof, certain clarifications were issued for proper and effective implementation of allocation and one such, which we are presently concerned with, was issued on 22-3-2001 and published in M.P. Gazette dated 23-3-2001, whereunder Clause 6 provided for allotment of service of employees getting Kramonnat Pay Scale, on the basis of reverse order of seniority in the following terms : 13. Thus Clause 6 facilitated the creation of a separate class who got the benefit of higher pay scale, viz, the Kramonnat Pay Scale prior 23-9-2000. Thus Clause 6 facilitated the creation of a separate class who got the benefit of higher pay scale, viz, the Kramonnat Pay Scale prior 23-9-2000. As noted above, the grant of Kramonnat Pay Scale being the continuous process, the orders came to be passed by the State Government even at subsequent dates making it effective from prior to 23-9-2000 and taking care of such situation Clause 6(5) provided, that all such persons who are given a Krammonat Pay Scale retrospectively, irrespective of the date of order, will be in the group along with all such persons who are included in the group constituted under Clause 6(4). Thus an homogeneous class was brought into existence vide Clause 6(4) and Clause 6(5). 14. In the cases at hand, the Central Government in compliance to the order passed in Writ petition considered the representations filed by the Appellants/Petitioners in the light of detailed comments given by the Department of Agriculture and came to hold that since a provision has been made in Government of Madhya Pradesh, General Administration Department, (State Reorganization Cells) letter dated 26-12-2001, that only those employees will be included in the Kramonnati Pay Scale whose orders have been issued before the publication of Tentative Final Allocation list and the employees whose Kramonnati Pay Scale orders were issued after publication of TFAL will not be included in the Kramonnati Pay Scale group for the purpose of allocation, their representations were rejected and accordingly the Appellants/Petitioners were allocated. 15. The Central Government, thus while deciding the representation, besides relying upon the detailed comments by the Department, also relied upon the letter dated 26-12-2001 the stipulations wherein in respect of delayed order of Kramonnati were in the following terms : Meaning thereby, that in a meeting held on 29-11-2001 the matter pertaining to delayed Kramonnati was considered and it was decided that since the Kramonnati, like the promotion, is a continuous process and the allocation could not be finalized therefore any order of Kramonnati issued after the date of publication of TFAL will not be taken into consideration. This was a decision taken in the meeting of State Advisory Committee which was constituted by the Central Government in exercise of its power under section 71 of the Act of 2000 to assist the Central Government in discharge of their Authority. 16. This was a decision taken in the meeting of State Advisory Committee which was constituted by the Central Government in exercise of its power under section 71 of the Act of 2000 to assist the Central Government in discharge of their Authority. 16. The question is whether the respondent-State were justified in diluting the effect of clause 6(5) which aimed at removing disparity by including all such RAEO's who got the benefit of Kramonnati prior to 23-9-2000, irrespective of the date of order by creating a separate class resulting thereby in the retention of juniors by excluding them from forming a part of homogeneous group. 17. True it is, that Article 14 does not forbid a reasonable classification but subject to the conditions that it is based on an intelligible differentia and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought, the concept of equality thus varies from fact to fact and subject-matter to subject matter as held by the Apex Court in the case of M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Assn. vs. State of M.P. and another (2004)4 SCC 646 ; wherein their Lordships were pleased to opine in paragraphs 14 to 16 in the following terms: 14. Article 14, it is trite, does not forbid a reasonable classification. 15. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification subject to the conditions that it is based on an intelligible differentia and that the differrentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. 16. Constitutional interpretation is a difficult task. Its concept varies from statute to statute, fact to fact, situation to situation and subject matter to subject matter. In the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Kosha, 1974 (1) SCC 19 their lordships were pleased to observe in paragragh 31 the following terms : 31. Classification, however, is fraught with the danger that it may produce artificial inequalities and therefore, the right to classify is hedged in with salient restraints; or else, the guarantee of equality will be submerged in class legislation masquerading as laws meant to govern well-marked classes characterized by different and distinct attainments. Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Similarly in the case of E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of A.P. (2005) 1 SCC 394 it was observed by their Lordships of the Apex Court regarding sub-classification standing the test of reasonable classification in the following terms: 39. Legal constitutional policy adumbrated in a statute must answer the test of Article 14 of the Constitution. Classification whether permissible or not must be judged on the touchstone of the object sought to be achieved. If the object of reservation is to take affirmative action in favour of a class which is socially, educationally and economically backward, the State's jurisdiction while exercising its executive or legislative function is to decide as to what extent reservation should be made for them either in public service or for obtaining admission in educational institutions. In our opinion, such a class cannot be subdivided so as to give more preference to a minuscule proportion of the Scheduled Castes in preference to other members of the same class. 18. In the case of Confederation of Ex-Serviceman Assns. vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399 it was held by the Apex Court that for a classification to be legal, valid and permissible, it must fulfil twin test, namely, (i) the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which must distinguish persons or things that are grouped together from others leaving out or left out; and (ii) such a differentia must have rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Statute on legislation in question. 19. In the case at hand one of the mode for allocation of service to the State of Chhattisgarh being the reverse seniority and the government servants getting Krammonat Pay Scale forms a separate group it was incumbent on the government to have harmonized clause 6(4) and 6(5) instead further classify by picking up a separate cut off date i.e. publication of TFAL for determination of a group, this action reflects a discriminative approach and does not satisfy the principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 20. 20. Having thus considered, we are of the considered opinion that the State were not justified in carving out a separate rule by introducing a new cut off date vide its circular dated 26-12-2001 and thus Central Government was not justified in treating such persons who were otherwise covered by Clause 6(5) to be separate than those who formed part of the group constituted under Clause 6(4). As a result the allocation of the Appellants/Petitioners to the State of Chhattisgarh vide Annexure P-6 is hereby set aside and consequent thereof, order dated 4-10-2006 (Annexure P-15) and order dated 3-3-2007 (Annexure P-16) are also quashed. The respondents are directed to retain the appellants in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 21. The petition is allowed to the extent above. However, no costs. Petition allowed