P. K. Musahary, J.:- The petitioners, in both these writ petitions, claim benefits as per recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission being granted revised pay scales in the respective posts. Both these writ petitions facts and involve similar griev­ances and as such, they are heard analogously for disposal. 2. In the writ petition No. WP(C) 51 (AP) 2008, the petitioners are serving as District Transport Officer (referred to as the 'DTO' for short) under the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh in the Group-B posts in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/- p.m. As per recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission, as claimed by the petitioners, their pay scale should be revised/enhanced from Rs. 6500-10,500/- p.m. to Rs. 8000-13,500/- p.m. The said revised/enhanced pay scale having not been paid, they made several representations before the Govt. through proper channel. The pay scale of DTO is equal to other Group-B Officers, namely, District Information and Public Relation Officer (DIPRO), District Art & Culture Officer (DACO), District Tourism Officer, Child Development Programme Officer (CDPO), District Statistical Officer, Drug Inspectors, Food Inspectors, Asstt. Research Officer, Asstt. Registrar of Co-operative So­cieties, Compiler of Gazette Department, Urban Programme Officer, Geologists, Dis­trict Library and Information Officer, Employ­ment Officer, Labour Officer, Superintendent of Tax and Excise, Technical Officer of Health Department, Asstt. Unit Officer of Health Department, Asstt. Accounts Officer and District Supply Officer. 3. The officers belonging to the above posts are also claiming enhanced/revised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13,500/- p.m. The cases of all those officers including the petitioners have been placed before the 'Sahoo Com­mittee', which was constituted by the Govt. vide order No. FIN/E-II/08/2005 dated 2nd July, 2005 to examine and finalize the pay anomalies of State Govt. employees. The aforesaid pay anomaly committee did not rec­ommend the enhancement of pay scale of those officers including the petitioners. The State Cabinet, in its meeting held on 7th June, 2007 approved the Sahoo Committee report in principle along with the observations and recommendations of the Finance Department but surprisingly, the Cabinet decided to up­grade/enhance the pay scale of District Sup­ply Officer (SDO) only excluding the other aforesaid officers to Rs. 8000-13,500/- p.m. 4. In WP(C) 110 (AP) 2008, the peti­tioner is working as Technical Officer (Group-B Gazetted) in the Department of Environ­ment and Forest under the State Government in the scale of pay of Rs. 8000-13,500/- p.m. 4. In WP(C) 110 (AP) 2008, the peti­tioner is working as Technical Officer (Group-B Gazetted) in the Department of Environ­ment and Forest under the State Government in the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10,500/- p.m. which is identical with the pay scale of the aforesaid officers mentioned earlier. The pe­titioner belongs to GrouprB Gazetted Officer and the post of Technical Officer under the Department of Environment and Forest is an isolated cadre with single post. He has also been claiming same revised/enhanced scale of pay of Rs. 8000-13,500/- p.m. He made several representations before the Govt. through proper channel. His case was also placed before the aforesaid 'Sahoo Commit­tee' but he received no response. 5. Heard Mr. Dicky Pangging, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 51 (AP) 2008 and Mr. I. Riram, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 110 (AP) 2008 and also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. 6. Mr. Pangging, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) 51 (AP) 2008 submits that although the District Supply Officers (DSO) belong to the same group of officers with identical pay scale (pre-revised) and no recommendation was made by the Sahoo Committee for enhancement/revision of pay scale, their cases were placed before the Cabinet and the Cabinet approved their cases for providing the revised/enhanced pay scale i.e. Rs. 8000-13,500/- p.m. The other offic­ers belonging to the same groups, including the petitioners, have been left out and dis­criminated inasmuch as their cases were not placed before the Cabinet and as such, it is a fit case where this Court may issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent authori­ties to place the petitioners' cases also be­fore the State Cabinet for consideration and taking appropriate decision. 7. Mr. I. Riram, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) 110 (AP) 2008 also advances the similar submissions and prays for similar relief. 8. Mr. Nabam, learned Sr. Govt. Advo­cate and Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, on instructions, submits that the State Cabinet accepted the report of the Sahoo Committee which recommended not to grant the revised pay scale but the cases of the District Supply Officers (DSOs) were placed before the Cabinet and the Cabinet decided to grant the revised pay scale to them. This was done before constitution of high power committee. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh by a notification. This was done before constitution of high power committee. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh by a notification. No. FIN/E-II/08/2005 dated 13th December. 2007 constituted a 'high level standing com­mittee' headed by the Chief Secretary as Chairman, Dev. Commissioner (Finance), as Member Secretary and Commissioner (PWD), Secretary (Admn. Reforms) & Secretary of the concerned Department as its Members to consider the proposal for upgradation of pay scales/pay anomalies per­taining to various categories of employees. Since there is a duly constituted competent expert committee, according to Mr. Nabam, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, the petitioners cases may be placed before the said 'high level standing committee' for consideration and taking its decision. 9. In reply to the above submissions, Mr. Pangging, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the Sahoo Committee has already examined and rejected the petition­ers' cases, it would not be proper to refer their cases again before the 'high level stand­ing committee' inasmuch as the present State Level Committee would not like to interfere or reverse the decision of the former com­mittee which was also a competent commit­tee duly constituted by the Govt. According to Mr. Pangging, a discrimination has been admittedly done to the present petitioners as the State respondents, in an isolated manner, placed the cases of the DSOs and the deci­sion could be taken only by a Superior au­thority i.e. the State Cabinet and as such, the matter is required to be placed before the Cabinet. 10. I have perused the pleadings and the materials supplied by the learned counsel for the parties. The indisputable fact that has emerged from the materials placed before this Court and also the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, is that there are officers in the different departments be­longing to Group-B gazetted carrying identi­cal pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- p.m. and they have been claiming revision of pay at Rs. 8,000-13,500/- p.m. as per the recommen­dation of the Fifth Pay Commission but the committee constituted by the Govt. vide or­der No. FIN/E-II/0872005 dated 2nd July, 2005 headed by Shri DC Sahoo, Secretary (Personnel etc.) as Chairman with.other two officers as Members, which is known as ' Sahoo Committee', submitted a report to the Govt. advising not to recommend the enhanced pay scale of the aforesaid Group-B Officers (gazetted). vide or­der No. FIN/E-II/0872005 dated 2nd July, 2005 headed by Shri DC Sahoo, Secretary (Personnel etc.) as Chairman with.other two officers as Members, which is known as ' Sahoo Committee', submitted a report to the Govt. advising not to recommend the enhanced pay scale of the aforesaid Group-B Officers (gazetted). It is found from the min­utes of the meeting held on 7th June, 2007 under the Chairmanship of State Chief Min­ister, that the Cabinet decided to upgrade the pay scale of DSOs from the existing scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500/- p.m. to Rs. 8,000-13,500/- p.m. The minutes of the said Cabi­net meeting is silent about the up-gradation of pay scale of other Group-B gazetted of­ficers including the present writ petitioners. No reason is available in the minutes of the meeting as to why the cases of the DSOs only have been taken up and approved by the Cabinet. It is submitted at the Bar that the employees of other different categories un­der different departments have approached the State level high power committee for settlement of their pay anomalies. The case of the petitioners should be placed before the Cabinet, in usual course, for review of the matter but it is not expected that the State Cabinet would be in a position to examine each and every case of pay anomalies of the State employees. It is apparent that for smooth and proper examination of various cases of pay anomalies, the State Govern­ment has constituted the aforesaid State level committee and it shall place its report, if nec­essary, before the Cabinet. Moreover, the Cabinet itself cannot be treated as an expert committee to go in details in to the pay anoma­lies of its employees. It is for this reason, I find it fit and proper to again place the peti­tioners' cases before the State level commit­tee for reexamination and to submit the re­port before the Cabinet. 11. In view of the above, these writ peti­tions are disposed of with a direction to the Secretary to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. Department of Transport and Secretary (En­vironment and Forest) to place the cases of the petitioners before the said high power committee within a period of one month from today and on being placed, the said State level committee shall consider and place the same along with its report before the Cabinet within a period of 3 months therefrom. Department of Transport and Secretary (En­vironment and Forest) to place the cases of the petitioners before the said high power committee within a period of one month from today and on being placed, the said State level committee shall consider and place the same along with its report before the Cabinet within a period of 3 months therefrom. It is expected that the State level high power committee shall give due consideration to the cases of the petitioners in the light of the treatment given to the DSOs. The petitioners shall furnish a certified copy of this order along with a copy of the writ petition and other relevant docu­ments to the concerned Secretary. 12. With the above observations and di­rections, these petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.