JUDGMENT U.B. Shah, J. 1. This writ appeal is the result of the dismissal of the appellant's writ petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 7.6.2005 whereby and whereunder, the learned Single Judge disallowed the appellant's prayer for granting him the higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 5500-9000/-, with effect from his date of joining service, i.e., on and from 1.6.1995, as Health Educator in the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences (for short 'RIMS'), and for a direction to rectify the pay anomaly in between the two posts of Health Educator in the said Department of RIMS. 2. The brief facts needed to be discussed for disposal of the appeal are as follows: The appellant petitioner having been recommended by a Selection Board was appointed to a post of Health Educator in the Department of Community Medicine, RIMS vide order dated 27.5.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. Accordingly, the petitioner joined the said service. But while he was serving as Health Educator, he came to know that there is another post of Health Educator in his Department. One H. Rajen Singh was then holding the said post enjoying the higher pay scale of Rs. 1640- 2900/-. According to the petitioner, these two posts are Central Civil Services Class-Ill, non-ministerial, non-gazette post and are governed by a common Recruitment Rules issued by the North Eastern Regional Medical College Society, (NERMC society), Manipur, vide order dated 21.7.1986. The essential qualifications for appointment to the said posts of Health Educator are the same and these posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment. 3. It may be noted here that earlier vide Memorandum dated 16.5.1988 (Annexure A/4 to the writ petition), the pay scale of the Health Educator was revised from Rs. 640-1410/- to 1600-2660/-. But in other Institutes like RIMS managed by the Govt. of India, the Health Educator has been assigned the revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- which was subsequently revised to pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- in the revision made on the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission. 4. Having learnt the said situation, the then Health Educator made a complaint for rectification of the said anomaly in the pay scale of Health Educator. Thereafter vide memorandum dated 15.5.1993, the pay scale of the Health Educator was again revised from 1600-2600/- Rs. 1640-2900/. 5. 5500-9000/- in the revision made on the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission. 4. Having learnt the said situation, the then Health Educator made a complaint for rectification of the said anomaly in the pay scale of Health Educator. Thereafter vide memorandum dated 15.5.1993, the pay scale of the Health Educator was again revised from 1600-2600/- Rs. 1640-2900/. 5. During the year 1994, the Health Inspector, Male Health Worker and others claimed for increasing their scale of pay in comparison to the post of Health Educator. Thereafter, by the resolution of the 47th Management Committee Meeting of NERMC Society held on 23.2.1994, it has been decided to lower the pay scale of Health Educator as Central Health Services (C.H.S.) Scale from Rs. 1640-2900/- to 1400-2300/- for future recruitment. However, the then incumbent, namely, H. Rajen Singh, the Health Educator was allowed to enjoy the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. 6. The petitioner made representations to the Director, RIMS, Iniphal on different times on 8.1.1998, 13.2.1998 etc. for granting him the higher scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900/-. He also made representation before the Chairman, Executive Council, RIMS Society, NEC, Shillong for rectification of his scale of pay. Thereafter, vide memorandum dated 22.5.1998 (Annexure-A/11 to the writ petition), the Deputy Director (Adm. In-charge), RIMS, Imphal informed the petitioner that he was appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- on 1.6.1995 and his claim cannot be granted. 7. In the mean time, in terms of the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission, another revision of pay has been ordered vide Memorandum dated 13.1.1998 to be effective from 1.1.1996. It is evident from the first schedule enclosed with the said Memorandum that the pay scale for the post of Health Educator shown in S1. No. 11 has been revised to Rs. 4500-7000/- whereas the other post of Health Educator shown in Sl. No. 14 of the same schedule has been revised to Rs. 5500-9000/-. the petitioner was allowed the pay scale at S1. No. 11 i.e., Rs. 4500-7000/-. 8. According to the petitioner both the posts are identical in the department of community Medicine, RIMS. Giving of two different pay scales for the same post is highly irregular, irrational and is not maintainable in the eye of law. 5500-9000/-. the petitioner was allowed the pay scale at S1. No. 11 i.e., Rs. 4500-7000/-. 8. According to the petitioner both the posts are identical in the department of community Medicine, RIMS. Giving of two different pay scales for the same post is highly irregular, irrational and is not maintainable in the eye of law. Such action of the respondents to reduce the pay scale of one post allowing the higher scale to similar other is unwarranted and violates the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Not only that, prescription of different scales for the same post also violates the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Such anomaly is required to be rectified. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the higher pay scale and his pay scale is to be revised to Rs. 5500-9000/- with effect from 1.1.1996 as provided in S1. No. 14 of the First Schedule of the Memorandum dated 13.1.1998. Therefore, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition for issuing an appropriate writ by this Court as stated supra. 9. The case of the respondents is that when the pay scale of Health Educator was revised to Rs. 1600-2660/- with effect from 1.1.1986 which was subsequently re-revised to Rs. 1640-2900/- with effect from 2.3.1993, some group of non-teaching employees including Health Educator submitted representation for rectification of pay anomalies. Thereafter, the Management Committee of NERMC Society constituted a Standing Committee to examine the matter. Then the recommendation of the Standing Committee was placed in the adjourned 47th Management Committee meeting of NERMC Society held on 23.12.1994 and it was agreed to the recommendation of the Standing Committee to lower the pay scale of Health Educator as CHS Scale from Rs. 1640-2900/- to Rs. 1400-2300/- for future recruitment, after carefully examining the matter. It is also the case of the respondents that as per Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 effective from 1.1.1986, the pay of Health Educator is Rs. 1400-2300/- and there is no Health Educator in the Institution holding the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. The petitioner was recommended by the Selection Board for appointment to the post of Health Educator and he accepted the offer and joined to the post of Health Educator in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300/-. This recruitment was made in accordance to the said decision. 1640-2900/-. The petitioner was recommended by the Selection Board for appointment to the post of Health Educator and he accepted the offer and joined to the post of Health Educator in the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300/-. This recruitment was made in accordance to the said decision. Hence, the petitioner cannot now claim to provide him any higher pay scale. It is also stated that H. Rajen Singh was appointed as Health Educator before the decision of the Management Committee held on 23.2.1994 which agreed to the recommendation of the Standing Committee to lower the pay scale of Health Educators as CHS scale from Rs. 1640- 2900/- to Rs. 1400-2300/- for future recruitment and the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- enjoyed by H. Rajen Singh was not disturbed. Consequently, the post vacated by Rajen Singh had been filled up by one Karam Tarunkumar Singh at the same pay scale enjoyed by the appellant petitioner. Therefore, there is no different pay scale in between two posts of Health Educator under RIMS. 10. The learned Singh Bench after considering the case of the petitioner and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, was of the considered view that "there is no material which calls the interference of this Court in fixing the pay scale of the post of Health Educators in RIMS by the Standing Committee (Expert Committee) of the RIMS" and thus dismissed the writ petition being without any merit. Aggrieved by, the petitioner appellant has preferred the instant appeal to allow the writ petition by setting aside the impugned judgment and order. 11. Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner appellant while challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge contends that the respondents have committed great injustice to the appellant by not giving him equal entitlement to all benefits being enjoyed by all other employees under the same Institution while implementing the 4th and 5th Pay Commission Report. 11. Mr. H.N.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner appellant while challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge contends that the respondents have committed great injustice to the appellant by not giving him equal entitlement to all benefits being enjoyed by all other employees under the same Institution while implementing the 4th and 5th Pay Commission Report. Drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-7 to the writ appeal, he again contends that by an order of the Chairman, RIMS, dated 23.10.1998, a decision has been taken to allow the Institute to follow Recruitment Rules (R. Rs.) of the Central Government as provided from time to time for appointment and promotion in the RIMS, Imphal with immediate effect, but subsequently, by an order dated 25.11.1998 (Annexure-8 to the writ appeal), the Director of the Institute has kept the said order in abeyance until further orders without showing any reason. He also contends that the respondents authorities have no power to prescribe a lower pay scale than the pay scale allowed to other Health Educator by way of modification for new recruitees on the basis of purported resolution of the 47th Management Committee meeting of NERMC Society held on 23.2.1994. He also submits that ROP 1986 has been accepted by the RIMS authorities in toto. Therefore, the said authority has no power to modify the scale of the Health Educator in the lower pay scale only to discriminate the petitioner. 12. In support of his aforesaid contention, he referred to paragraph-15 of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Purshottam Lal and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in (1973) 1 SCC 651 wherein the Apex Court while considering the submission of the learned Counsel of the Union of India noted that it was not for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of reference. Either the Government had made reference in respect of all Government employees or it had not. But if it had made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepted the recommendations it was bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. Either the Government had made reference in respect of all Government employees or it had not. But if it had made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepted the recommendations it was bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it did not implement the report regarding some employees only it committed a breach of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The learned Counsel has also drawn our notice to the Annexure-5 to the writ appeal to show that the Management Committee of the NERMC Society in its 34th meeting revised the pay scale on the basis of ROP, 1986 accepting the scale of Rs. 1600-2660/- for Health Educator, but the same scale was not provided to the petitioner which itself is a discrimination. He finally submits that the petitioner is entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/(pre-revised) and Rs. 5500-9000/- (revised) with effect from his date of joining in service as Health Educator i.e., 1.6.1995 and as there appeared pay anomaly, necessary rectification was called for. 13. Per contra, Mr. Serto T Kom, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there was no cause of action for filing the writ petition, as at the relevant time, there was no pay anomaly between the two posts of Health Educator as by that time both the Health Educators were provided the same pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- with its time to time revision. He also contends that down sizing of the pay scale of the Health Educator was taken for future recruitment keeping in mind the fact that the pay scale of the Health Educator was revised to Rs. 1600-2660/- with effect from 1.1.1986 vide office Memorandum dated 16.9.1988 and again the pay scale of the said post was revised to Rs. 1640- 2900/- with effect from 2.3.1993, as a result of which, there was some anomalies in the pay scales of non-teaching employees including the Health Educator. Representation was also submitted by the employees for rectification of anomalies. Accordingly, at the time of consideration of the representation for rectification of anomalies, the Management Committee of the NERMC Society ultimately constituted a Standing Committee to examine the matter and on examination of the same, the Standing Committee recommended the lower pay scale for the Health Educator as CHS scale from Rs. 1640-2900/- to Rs. Accordingly, at the time of consideration of the representation for rectification of anomalies, the Management Committee of the NERMC Society ultimately constituted a Standing Committee to examine the matter and on examination of the same, the Standing Committee recommended the lower pay scale for the Health Educator as CHS scale from Rs. 1640-2900/- to Rs. 1400-2300/- for future recruitment which was agreed and accepted by the Management Committee in its 47th meeting. 14. He also contends that though the Management Committee agreed to the recommendation of the Standing Committee to lower the pay scale of the Health Educator as CHS scale from Rs. 1640- 2900/- to Rs. 1400-2300/- for future recruitment, but the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- enjoyed by H. Rajen Singh, Health Educator, which was revised to Rs. 5500-9000/- in the 5th pay-revision, was not disturbed by the decision of the Management Committee in its 47th meeting. According to him, the said decision is a policy decision and the Court cannot interfere with the said decision of the authorities as the same was not challenged by the appellant petitioner in his writ petition. Not only that, the petitioner also accepted the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- at the time of his entry to the post of Health Educator. Hence, he cannot subsequently raise any question regarding difference of pay scale for the post of Health Educator relating to earlier recruitee and the new recruitee. Learned Counsel further contends that there are two posts of Health Educator in the RIMS, one of which is held by the petitioner and the other was held by Rajen Singh up to 28.1.1997 and after his expiry, in the resulted vacancy, one Karam Tarunkumar Singh was appointed in the same pay scale of the petitioner of Rs. 1400- 2300/- which was revised to Rs. 4500-7000/- on the recommendation of the duly constituted DPC vide order dated 5.5.2000. Therefore, there is no pay anomaly between the pay scale of the petitioner and Karam Tarunkumar Singh, the holder of other post of Health Educator. He finally contends, the reasons for non-acceptance of the claim of the petitioner has been discussed in detail vide Annexure-A 11 to the writ petition. Therefore, there is no pay anomaly between the pay scale of the petitioner and Karam Tarunkumar Singh, the holder of other post of Health Educator. He finally contends, the reasons for non-acceptance of the claim of the petitioner has been discussed in detail vide Annexure-A 11 to the writ petition. Further contention of the learned Counsel is that the respondents authorities did not accept or adopt the revision of pay as prescribed by the Central Government, but revised the pay scale of Health Educator along with other posts as per Central pattern which would be evident from Annexure-5 to the writ appeal. According to him, the difference in the pay scale of two Health Educators i.e., between the earlier recruitee and the new recruitee after the decision of the Management Committee cannot be termed as pay anomaly and after the appointment of the petitioner, nothing has been done by the respondents authorities for altering the terms and conditions as regards the pay scale of the petitioner as well as subsequent revision of pay scale of the petitioner. 15. From the submissions of the learned Counsel of the rival parties as well as from the pleadings of the parties, questions arise for decision are whether the respondent employer has the power to prescribe lower pay scale for future recruitment to a post protecting the higher pay scale enjoyed by earlier recruitee in the same post and whether a pay scale provided by the employer to an employee creates a right to another employee for getting the same benefit of the pay scale in violation of the terms and conditions? 16. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and the impugned judgment. It appears from the record that the respondents authorities noticed of providing a higher pay scale to the erstwhile Health Educator than which he was entitled to as per the revision of pay at the time of examination of the representation of the employees regarding pay anomalies and to cure the same, a lower pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- instead of Rs. 1640-2900/- was adopted for future recruitment to the post of Health Educator which would be evident from Annexure-A 8 to the writ petition. 1400-2300/- instead of Rs. 1640-2900/- was adopted for future recruitment to the post of Health Educator which would be evident from Annexure-A 8 to the writ petition. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the said Annexure is quoted hereunder: EXTRACT COPIES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ADJOURNED 47TH MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE MEETING OF N.E.R.M.C. SOCIETY MANIPUR HELD ON 23.2.1994 AT 3.30 P.M. AT THE CHIEF SECRETARY'S CONFERENCE HALL, IMPHAL; Item No. 3. II-* * * III. (B) CONSIDERATION OF REPRESENTATION OF OTHER GROUPS OF NON-TEACHING EMPLOYEES: (V) * * * (xiv) Health Educator No notional benefit can be given w.e.f. 1.1.1986 Management Committee agreed to the recommendation of the Standing Committee to lower the pay scale of Health Educator as CHS scale from Rs. 1640-2900/- to 1400-2300/- for future recruitment. 17. The above decision was subsequently clarified in Memorandum dated 22.5.1998 (Annexure-A 11 to the writ petition) while rejecting the claim of the petitioner appellant. 18. 1640-2900/- to 1400-2300/- for future recruitment. 17. The above decision was subsequently clarified in Memorandum dated 22.5.1998 (Annexure-A 11 to the writ petition) while rejecting the claim of the petitioner appellant. 18. On going through the aforesaid documents, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellant petitioner to the effect that the RIMS respondents had accepted the ROP Rules, 1986 in toto, rather it can be said that they adopted the Central pay revision pattern with modification as would be evident from Annexure-5 to the writ appeal wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of the resolution No. 2 of the 34th meeting of Management Committee of the North Eastern Regional Medical College Society, Manipur and in supersession of this office Memorandum of even number dated 10.2.1988, the Chairman, North Eastern Regional Medical College Society, Manipur is pleased to revise the pay scale of the posts as shown in the Annexure as per Central pattern under the terms and conditions as laid down hereunder: No. B/314/75-RMC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY NORTH-EASTERN REGIONAL MEDICAL COLLEGE SOCIETY, MANIPUR Memorandum Imphal, the 16th May, 1988 In pursuance of the resolution No. 2 of the 34th meeting of Management Committee of the North Eastern Regional Medical College Society, Manipur and in supersession of this office Memorandum of even number dated 10.2.1988, the Chairman, North Eastern Regional Medical College Society, Manipur is pleased to revise the pay scale of the posts as shown in the Annexure as per Central pattern under the terms and conditions as laid down hereunder: Annexure Revised scales for posts carrying present scales in Groups 'D', 'C, 'B'; and 'A' except posts for which different revised scales are notified separately. Sl. Name pre- Revised scale Remarks No. of revised Posts scale *** 11. Medical social Rs. 840-1720/- Rs. 1600-50-2300- Worker Health Educator Rs. 640-1410/-EB-60-2660/- 19. It is to be noted here that though the petitioner initially did not challenge the recommendation/proceedings of the 47th Management Committee meeting of NERMC Society held on 23.2.1994, wherein the Management Committee proposed to lower the pay scale of Health Educator, subsequently he filed an amendment petition which was allowed, but ultimately the writ petition was not amended, meaning thereby, the same was not challenged, thus the earlier prayer remained unaltered. Not only that, the appellant petitioner has neither pressed for incorporating the amendment in the writ petition nor made any prayer for quashing the same before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there was no scope for consideration of the said aspect by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge mainly considered whether there was any pay anomaly in between the two posts of Health Educator and whether the petitioner is entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900/- (pre-revised) which was revised to Rs. 5500-2900/- with effect from the date of joining in the service as Health Educator i.e., on and from 1.6.1995 applying the principle of equal pay for equal work. At the time of consideration of the aforesaid subject matter, the learned Single Judge discussed the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of UP and Ors. v. J.P. Chourasia and Ors. reported in AIR 1989 SC 19 wherein it was held that the equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the executive government and it must be determined by the expert bodies like Pay Commission who are the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the post. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should ordinarily accept it. While considering the claim of the petitioner mat he is entitled to pay parity with the Health Educator in other Central Govt. Institution, the learned Single Judge noted the decision of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Ram Chander and Anr. reported in 1997 (5) SCC 253 . But we refrain us from discussion of the aforesaid point being the learned Counsel of the petitioner appellant at the first instance submits that the petitioner is not claiming the similar pay scale of the Health Educator as in other Central Institutions. According to us, if the employer has the power to revise the pay scale for its employee on the basis of the recommendation of the expert committee, then it should not be prohibited from taking any policy decision prescribing the lower pay scale instead of higher pay scale for future recruits like the instant case on the recommendation by Standing Committee i.e., an expert committee. It is also not the case of appellant petitioner that he was provided the higher pay scale at par with the erstwhile Health Educator, namely, Rajen Singh at the time of his entry into the service and subsequently for certain reasons difference arose between the pay scales of two Health Educators, which can be said as pay anomaly. The petitioner is claiming a pay scale which was provided to the erstwhile Health Educator, namely, Rajen Singh due to certain reasons which was considered by the learned Single Judge in paragraph-5 of the impugned judgment wherein it has been stated that the said mistake in revising the pay scale of Shri H. Rajen Singh who was working as Health Educator while adopting the said CCS (Revised pay) Rules, 1986 was referred to the Standing Committee (Expert Committee) and the Expert Committee had recommended to lower down the pay scale of the post of Health Educator from Rs. 1640-2900/- which had already been enjoyed by Sri H. Rajen Singh to Rs. 1400-2300/-. The fact of the instant case also does not disclose that the respondents after accepting the recommendation of the Standing Committee regarding the pay scale of the Health Educator or other posts subsequently not implemented the said recommendation as a whole, but implemented the said recommendation for certain categories of employees only. Hence, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned senior Counsel appearing for the appellant petitioner, inter alia, that the respondents failed to implement the report of the Pay Commission partly not as a whole and it committed discrimination amongst the employees including the Health Educators and violated the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, though we have no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Purshottam Lal and Ors. (supra), even the facts of that case are different than the case in hand. 20. (supra), even the facts of that case are different than the case in hand. 20. We have also noticed that at the time of filing the writ petition, the said Rajen Singh was not in service and in his place another person, namely, Karam Tarunkumar Singh was appointed as Health Educator in the pay scale which was provided to the petitioner which would be apparent from Paragraph-5 of the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondents wherein it has been specifically stated that there are two posts of Health Educator, one of which is held by the petitioner and the other was held by H. Rajen Singh till 28.1.1997, when he expired, the vacancy caused due his expiry, the said post had been filled' up by another person, namely, Karam Tarunkumar Singh in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- which was revised to Rs. 4500-7000/-. Therefore, according to us, when the writ petition was filed by the petitioner, at that time, there was no pay anomaly in between two posts of Health Educator, Department of Community Medicine, Rims, Imphal. We are also further opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- (pre-revised) and Rs. 5500-9000/- (revised) with effect from the date of his joining in service as Health Educator as the same would be contrary to the terms and conditions of his appointment. If any benefit was provided to the earlier recruitee Rajen Singh by way of certain reasons in excess of his entitlement, that cannot be perpetuated on the ground of equality, as it is settled by this time that Article 14 is for the purpose of positive equality, but not for negative equality. 21. We also noticed that while implementing the 5th Central Pay Commission's recommendation in respect of employees of the respondents-RIMS subject to terms and conditions and other minor modification, two different scale was provided for the post of Health Educator- one is Rs. 4500-7000/- which is the revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- and the other is Rs. 5500-9000/- which is the revised scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-, which would be evident from Annexure-13 of the writ petition and the said annexure is not under challenge in the writ petition. 22. 4500-7000/- which is the revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- and the other is Rs. 5500-9000/- which is the revised scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-, which would be evident from Annexure-13 of the writ petition and the said annexure is not under challenge in the writ petition. 22. On going through the aforesaid Annexure-A 13, we have no hesitation to hold that the respondents had taken conscious policy decision for two different groups of employees for the post of Health Educator-one is prior to the decision of 47th meeting held on 23.2.1994 and other is after the said decision, meaning thereby a cut-off date has been fixed at the time of fixation of pay scale for the post of Health Educator and fixation of such cut of date protecting the enjoyed pay scale is permissible, as by this time it is settled law that choice of date as a basis for clarification cannot always be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is forth-coming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical in the circumstances and when it is seen that a line or a point there must be and there is no mathematical or logical way of fixing it precisely, the decision of the legislative or its delegate must be accepted unless it can be said that it is very wide off the reasonable mark [See Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works, (1975) 1 SCC 305 ; Dr. (Mrs.) Sushma Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 1985 (Supp) SCC 45 and University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chowdhury and Ors., (1996) 10 SCC 536 ]. 23. If the employer considering the change circumstances change its policy or prescription of pay, the said policy cannot be interfered with by a Court of law unless the same is contrary to the provisions of Constitution or a Statute or Rules. In the instant case, the policy decision was taken by the authority keeping in mind that the benefit of higher pay scale which was already provided to one of the Health Educator that should not be disturbed, meaning thereby, the said higher pay scale is deemed to be as a personal pay of the holder of the post, but at the same time, for future recruitment to the said post, a lower scale has been prescribed, according to us, which is permissible. 24. 24. From the records, it also appears that the appellant petitioner knowing fully well entered into the service as Health Educator with lower pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. Therefore, he cannot raise question of discrimination of pay scale between two posts of Health Educator after accepting the same. 25. It is noted that the case of the appellant petitioner is also not a case of equal pay for equal work, rather he tried to make out a case of equal pay for equal post. It is also settled position that for similar and same post also, the authority can prescribe two different pay scales like graded pay scales either considering the year of services rendered by the employee or different date of entry into service, as the fixation of pay scale is within the domain of the employer. 26. For the foregoing reasons and discussion, the impugned judgment does not call for interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed