JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.C. Prusty assisted by Mr. Joel, J. Denga and Mr. Rualkhuma Hmar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The petitioner herein is an Association of Mizoram College Teachers, a registered society having its office at Mac Donald Hill, Aizawl and such association is represented by its President, Shri Ramhmangaiha Ralte, S/o Thangruma (L) a resident of Dinthar Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram. The petitioner filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved with the notification dated 15.3.2009 (Annexure 14) whereby and whereunder the scale of pay granted to them has been withdrawn except 5 Nos. of Lecturers (Selection Grade) indicated at Sl. No. 26, 27, 28, 29 and 44 of notification No. G. 12018/1/2000-EDC dated 6.6.2008. At this stage, it would be applicable to state that there are 142 Nos. of teachers effected by this impugned notification. They filed this writ petition through its President seeking setting aside and quashing of the notification as indicated above. 3. The case of the writ petitioner, briefly, may be reproduced as under: The Govt. of Mizoram adopted the University Grants Commission (for short UGC) norms relating to revision of pay scale and other measures for the maintenance of standards for College Teachers. Over and above the Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), Government of India by its letters No. F. 1-22/97- U.I. dated 6.11.1998 and dated 24.3.1999 agreed stepping up of pay to a stage of Rs. 14,940/- of the Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have completed 5 years in the Grade and accordingly the Govt. of Mizoram decided revision of pay in favour of those as indicated herein before in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000 to Rs. 18,300/-. Accordingly, the Govt. of Mizoram by notification dated 17.4.2008 (Annexure 6), notification dated 2.5.2008 (Annexure 7), notification dated 6.6.2008 (Annexure 8) and notification date 3.7.2008 (Annexure 9) extended such benefit to the lecturers of the petitioner association in view of their completion of 5 (five) years in the Grade (Selection Grade) from the dates shown against their names as indicated in the Annexures referred to above. 4. 4. Consequent upon the aforesaid notifications as indicated above, the lecturers (Selection Grade) whose pay has been re-fixed at Rs. 14,940/- in the Scale of pay of Rs. 12,000/- to 18,300/- started to draw their pay. But the respondent No. 6, herein, the Under Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Higher and Technical Education Department issued an addendum dated 19th May, 2008 to the earlier notification dated 3.3.2008 to insert the words. "This issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide I.D. No. FIN (PRU) 37/2007 dated 28.2.2008" and thereafter respondent No. 5, the Joint Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Higher and Technical Education by a notification No. F. 12011/1/2004-EDN dated 30.1.2009 in supersession of the Department's notification dated 3.3.2008 decided to step up of pay of Rs. 14,940/- to the Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) who were in the scale of pay of Rs. 12,000/- to 18,300/- on completion of 5 years. But the State Government by issuing notification dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 14) excluded all those Lecturers/Readers who came into the Grade (Selection Grade) and completed 5 years after 1.1.1996 and accordingly decided to refix the scale already enjoyed by them before stepping up of the pay to Rs. 14,940/- and to take refund of excess payment in lumpsum or to adjust the same from salary. Being aggrieved thereby, the affected Lecturers whose names appear in the Annexures 6 to 9 have approached this Court for setting aside and quashing of the impugned notification through their association represented by its President. 5. The petitioner has contended that benefits of stepping up of pay has been provided to the lecturers in the grade per recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission effective and from 1.1.1996. It is contented by the petitioner that the Readers/Lecturers in the grade (Selection Grade) who have completed five(5) years as on 1.1.1996 would certainly be entitled to have the pay at Rs. 14,940/- per recommendation. The lecturers whose names appear in the Annexures indicated above as on 1.1.1996 however, did not acquire the status and complete five(5) years in that grade per requirement but subsequently acquired the status from the dates shown against their names. The petitioner further contended that the Lecturers having had the requisite qualification to have such benefit, withdrawal of such benefit by the impugned notification on the part of the State respondents is not justified and legally acceptable. The petitioner further contended that the Lecturers having had the requisite qualification to have such benefit, withdrawal of such benefit by the impugned notification on the part of the State respondents is not justified and legally acceptable. It is submitted by the petitioner that since the benefit of 5th Pay Commission is to be provided on and from 1.1.1996 to all concerned employees of all categories, the petitioners are entitled to such benefits as provided in the ROP and withdrawal of such benefit and attempt to take back the excess payment per notification dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 14) cannot stand in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed inasmuch as such action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional and it was never envisaged by the UGC. 6. The State respondents filed counter-affidavit resisting the claim of the petitioner and contended that the Lecturers are not entitled to such benefit though they have been provided with by notifications (Annexures 6 to 9). Stepping up of pay of Rs. 14,940/- could not be extended after 1.1.1996 inasmuch as the lecturers were not in the grade and completed 5 years in the grade as on 1,1.1996. Such stepping up of pay is only applicable to those Lecturers/Readers who were in the grade and completed 5 years in the grade as on 1.1.1996. In the counter filed by the State respondent, in para 8, it is contended without any ambiguity that such benefit would not be available to any other category of employee and the lecturers (Selection Grade) who were appointed after 1.1.1996. In the counter-affidavit, it is also contended that since the lecturers, whose names appear in the Annexures 6, 7, 8 and 9 do not fulfil the qualification/criteria as on 1.1.1996 for the purpose of stepping up of pay to Rs. 14,940 even if they acquired such status after 1.1.1996 would not be entitled to have such benefit. The State respondents, therefore, validly issued the notification dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 14) withdrawing the benefit from the lecturers since they did not acquire the status required for the purpose as on 1.1.1996. It is contended by the State respondents that benefit of the scheme as claimed by the lecturers is unjust as they have not fulfilled the criteria as intended. The State respondents, therefore, validly issued the notification dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 14) withdrawing the benefit from the lecturers since they did not acquire the status required for the purpose as on 1.1.1996. It is contended by the State respondents that benefit of the scheme as claimed by the lecturers is unjust as they have not fulfilled the criteria as intended. Respondents, therefore, have urged this Court to dismiss this writ petition in view of the facts as averred in their counter-affidavit. 7. Mr. P.C. Prusty learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner strenuously argues that the stand taken by the State respondents cannot sustain in law since the benefit of 5th Pay Commission is intended to be provided to all categories of employees. The benefit of the 5th Pay Commission was to be provided to the employees on and from 1.1.1996 and there can be no distinction between the employees of the same category/grade in providing the benefit a intended by the Pay Commission accepted by the Government. It is submitted by Mr. PC. Prusty, that the lecturers whose names appear in Annexures 6 to 9 have been provided with the scale of Rs. 14,940/- on the ground of their appointment in the grade and completion of 5 years in the grade from the dates indicated against their names. Therefore, the lecturers are entitled to have the benefit without any distinction. Mr. PC. Prusty in support of his contention relies in a decision of the Kerala High Court in W.A. No. 1394 of 2008 dated 21.1.2009 (unreported) University Grants Commission v. E.J. Vincent, Muttikkal House, Sakthi Nagar, Irinjalakuda and Ors. and submits that there cannot be a class within a class and such class of employees should be treated equally without any distinction and all benefits provided to that class of employees by the Pay Commission are required to be provided to each of them without discrimination. Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned Counsel for the petitioners argues that Lecturers/Readers of selection grade who have completed 5 years in the grade (Selection Grade) as on 1.1.1996 when would be entitled to have the stepping up of pay to Rs. 14,940/- such benefit should also be available to those Readers/Lecturers (selection grade) who have completed 5 years in the grade after 1.1.1996,. It is further submitted by Mr. 14,940/- such benefit should also be available to those Readers/Lecturers (selection grade) who have completed 5 years in the grade after 1.1.1996,. It is further submitted by Mr. P.C. Prusty, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision of the Kerala High Court rendered in W.A. No. 1394 of 2008 delivered on 21.1.2009. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court refused to deny such benefit to the Readers/Lecturers (Selection Grade) who have acquitted such status after 1.1.1996. 8. It is submitted by him (Mr. P.C. Prusty) that the decision of the State respondents withdrawing such benefit already provided to the lecturers is unjust, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further Mr. P.C. Prusty, relied in the decision in the case between : Purshottam Lal and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in AIR 1973 SC 1088 , wherein their Lordships in paragraphs 15 and 17 held as under: (15) Mr. Dhebar contends that it was 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. We are unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has made reference in respect of all Government employees on it has not. But if it has made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepts the recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned. (17) In the result the petition is allowed and it is directed that the revised pay scales of the petitioners will have effect from July 1, 1959 in accordance with the recommendations of the Pay Commission. We further direct that the petitioners should be paid the amount payable to them as a consequence of the revision of the pay scales with effect from July, 1959. The petitioners will have the costs of this petition." Taking the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case (supra) it is submitted by Mr. We further direct that the petitioners should be paid the amount payable to them as a consequence of the revision of the pay scales with effect from July, 1959. The petitioners will have the costs of this petition." Taking the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case (supra) it is submitted by Mr. P.C. Prusty that the benefits of Pay Commission should be extended to all categories of employees and there should not be any distinction in between them. It is not permissible to extend the benefit to certain class and denying the same in respect of another section of the same class. 9. Mr. N. Sailo, learned Addl. A.G. per contra to the submission advanced by Mr. P.C. Prusty, however, lays stress that the benefit which has been provided to the Readers/Lecturers in the grade (selection grade) who have completed 5 years in the grade as on 1.1.1996 such benefit is not available to the Readers/Lecturers in the grade who have completed 5 years in the grade after 1.1.1996. According to Mr. N. Sailo such benefit is not provided in the Pay Commission Report and therefore the State respondents, rather the State Govt. rightly refused to provide such benefit to the lecturers of the petitioner association. It is further submitted of by him that 1.1.1996 is the cut off date for providing such benefit to the Readers/Lecturers of the selection grade. Those who fulfilled the criteria as on 1.1.1996 would be only entitled to have the benefit. It is argued by him that though the lecturers whose names appear in Annexures 5 to 9 have been provided the benefit of stepping up of pay to Rs. 14,940/- it was rather wrongly provided since the provision of 5th Pay Commission provides a clear cut off date for providing such benefit i.e. 1.1.1996. 10. Argument advanced by Mr. N. Sailo, learned Additional Advocate General perhaps cannot hold good in view of the contents of the Annexure III to the writ petition wherein under the head "pay scale" it has been provided as under: (i) The revision of scales mentioned in Annexure 1 of our letter dated 27.7.1998 shall be effective from 1.1.1996. Accordingly, the Annexure II enclosed with the letter referred to may be treated as withdrawn. Accordingly, the Annexure II enclosed with the letter referred to may be treated as withdrawn. This clearly indicates that the revised scale would be effective from 1.1.1996 it has never indicated that it would only be applicable to a section of the employees covered by it. To my humble opinion, the benefits recommended by the 5th Pay Commission should be extended to all classes of employees covered by it without any distinction. The Lecturers are very much affected by the notification dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 14). They attained the selection grade status on the dates shown against their names and completed 5 years in the grade on the date shown against their names also. Though the lecturers whose names find place in Annexures 6 to 9 did not attain the status as on 1.1.1996, benefit of the Pay Commission in other words stepping up of pay to Rs. 14,940/- cannot be withdrawn on the ground that they did not attain the status as on 1.1.1996. The ratio laid down by the cases (supra) is squarely applicable to this case. Benefit offered to a certain class of employee cannot be distinguished between the same-class. Further, the decision of the Kerala High Court in the case (supra) makes it clear that such benefit would be available to those lecturers/readers who had attained the status and completed the period as indicated after 1.1.1996. 11. The benefit of stepping up of pay to the lecturers was provided by notification dated 17.4.2008, 2.5.2008, 6.6.2008 and 3.7.2008 Annexures 6 to 9 respectively. Having found them eligible for such benefit which by notification impugned herein has been curtailed and desired refund of the excess amount paid to them contending inter alia that such benefit cannot be provided after 1.1.1996. This curtailment was made by the State respondents without issuing any show-cause notice to the lecturers who have been provided with such benefits. Such curtailment made without issuing notice by the State respondents by notification dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 14) is a clear violation of principle of natural justice. No opportunity was given to the affected lecturers to project their case before adopting such a measure by the State respondents. Action taken by the State respondents without affording any opportunity to the respective lecturers cannot be allowed to stand in the eye of law. 12. It is argued by Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Govt. Action taken by the State respondents without affording any opportunity to the respective lecturers cannot be allowed to stand in the eye of law. 12. It is argued by Mr. P.C. Prusty, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Govt. of Mizoram by notification dated 3.3.2008 (Annexure 2) adopted the UGC norms relating to pay of scale and thereby offered the benefit to those readers and lecturers of selection grade at a minimum of Rs. 14,940 in the revised scale of pay of Rs. 12,000-18,300/- on completion of 5 years in the grade. This notification, according to Mr. P.C. Prusty, is still in force and the effect of the notification cannot be rendered invalid by issuing notification dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 14) unless the same (Annexure 2) is superseded. According to Mr. PC. Prusty, leaned counsel for the petitioner, the decision of the State Government for withdrawal of the benefit given to the college lecturers who did not acquire the status and completed 5 years in the grade as on 1.1.1996 is illegal in view of the application of the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission which are to be effective on and from 1.1.1996. According to Mr. P.C. Prusty contention of the respondents has no leg to stand in view of the facts involved in the case and benefits provided by 5th Pay Commission. Having taken care of the facts and circumstances involved in this case together with the annexures in support of the petition and the counter- affidavit as well this Court is of a humble view, that the State respondents cannot withdraw the benefit provided to college lecturers whose names appear in Annexures 6 to 9. Action on the part of the State respondents appears to be violative of equality clauses enshrined in the Constitution of India. It is arbitrary, discriminatory and illegal too. 13. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed. Impugned Notification dated 5.3.2009 (Annexure 14) is hereby set aside and quashed.