JUDGMENT : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:- By these petitions, the petitioners, the retired employees of the Municipal Council, Gondia are seeking pay scale of Rs.500-900 for the posts of Tax and Octroi Superintendent in Bhole Wage Revision, and thereafter pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 for those posts at the time of 4th Wage Revision. The petitioners point out that earlier when they joined the service, post of internal auditor, post of Accountant, post of Octroi Superintendent and post of Shop Inspector, were all in same pay scale and in fact petitioner in Writ Petition No.2889/1992 has worked on all these posts. They contend. that during the subsequent wage revision, the pay scales of all there 4 posts have remained the same, but in 1982 when because of increase in population, Gondia Municipal Council was moved from category "B" to category "A" Municipal Council, the lower pay scale for the first time was given to these petitioners i.e. pay scale is Rs.1400-2600/-. It is therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they should have been given the pay scale of Rs.16402900. In Writ Petition No.2889/1992, the additional grievance about the pay scale of the post of Administrative Officer has also been added by amendment. It is contended, that the proposal for grant of approval to the promotion of said petitioner is pending with the Director of Municipal Administration, since last several years without any response. 2. In view of the nature of controversy, it is not necessary for us to go into the factual details, except to mention that petitioner Ramdayalsingh in Writ Petition No.2889/1992, worked from 03.07.1965 to 1968, as Shopping Inspector and thereafter from 1970 to 1982 he again worked on that post. At that time, the pay scale of all these post was Rs.80-150. The petitioner between 1968 to 1970 worked as Octroi Superintendent and again from 03.06.1982 to 19.9.1999 he worked as Octroi Superintendent. Thereafter till 03.06.1992 he worked as internal auditor and on 07.06.1992, he started working as Tax Superintendent. The pay scale as revised from 01.04.1976 for these posts was Rs.335-680; w.e.f. 01.04.1986 post of Octroi Superintendent was given pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, while the other posts were given scale of Rs.1640-2900. Thereafter till 03.06.1992 he worked as internal auditor and on 07.06.1992, he started working as Tax Superintendent. The pay scale as revised from 01.04.1976 for these posts was Rs.335-680; w.e.f. 01.04.1986 post of Octroi Superintendent was given pay scale of Rs.1400-2600, while the other posts were given scale of Rs.1640-2900. In both the petitions, this has been challenged as discriminatory by contending that when for over a period of 20 years, the posts were being recognized as equivalent to each other and transfers were being effected, sanctioning of a lower pay scale to the post of Octroi Superintendent w.e.f. 1.4.1986 is unwarranted and discriminatory. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 2008 AIR SCW 4279 (State of Kerala Vs. B. Renjith Kumar and others). 3. In addition to this, it is further stated that sanction of this pay scale to Octroi Superintendent working in Gondia Municipal Council is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, because Octroi Superintendent similarly placed, but working with Yeotmal Municipal Council, Ulhasnagar Municipal Council were given pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. It is pointed out that, Gondia Municipal Council and these two Municipal Councils are of "A" class category, and on 1.4.1986 were in same class. The respective learned counsel for both the petitioners point out that because of this position the Standing Committee of Municipal Council on 12.09.1997 has passed a resolution and sanctioned pay scale ofRs.500-900 to the post of Octroi Superintendent and Tax Superintendent with it. The Standing Committee resolved that necessary approval should be obtained from the office of the Director of Municipal Administration. The respective learned counsel points out that on 12.09.1988 the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission were not applicable to the Municipal Councils, and those recommendations were applied some time thereafter and therefore the pay scale of Rs.500-900 is mentioned in the resolution is from Bhole Pay Revision and for said pay scale the existing pay scale in 4th Pay Commission is Rs.1640-2900. It is pointed out that the said resolution was recommended by the Collector, Bhandara, who found that considering the work load and responsibilities, the pay scale of Rs.395-800 was not proper, and they should have been given the pay scale of Rs.500-900. It is pointed out that the said resolution was recommended by the Collector, Bhandara, who found that considering the work load and responsibilities, the pay scale of Rs.395-800 was not proper, and they should have been given the pay scale of Rs.500-900. The Office of the Regional Director of Municipal Administration on 17.02.1992 recommended the said pay scale and sought approval from the Director of Municipal Administration for sanction of pay scale of Rs.500-900 to the posts of Tax Superintendent and Octroi Superintendent. In the petitions filed before the Courts, it is stated that the Director has not rejected the proposal. On 19.04.1993 i.e. after filing of the present petition, the office of the Director of Municipal Administration has rejected the said proposal. It is the contention of the petitioners that pay scale of 500-900 has been rejected, by non-speaking and cryptic order. It is thus the contention that, similar officers in the employment with other "A" class Municipal Council, were permitted higher scale and the very same pay ought to have been sanctioned to both the petitioners. 4. Shri. Mundra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner Ramdayalsingh, during the pendency of the petition vide resolution no.29, dated 29.05.1999 was promoted as Administrative Officer, retrospectively from 06.10.1997 and on 03.06.1999 the proposal for granting approval to the said promotion was forwarded to the Director of Municipal Administration, as some eligibility condition needs to be relaxed. It is stated that, no decision has been taken till date on the said representation. The learned Counsel has pointed out that as per the resolution, the Municipal Council held that the qualification of LGS or LSGD was not read as relevant qualification, as petitioner was holding Law Degree. It is the contention of the petitioner, that the Law Degree is found to be sufficient even for higher post of Chief Officer, and therefore, when the petitioner was holding that qualification, the requirement of holding the qualification of LSJD or LGS, could have been relaxed. Shri. Mundra, learned counsel therefore, contends that a direction to grant of pay scale or then to consider the proposal already pending with it needs to be issued in the present matter. 5. Shri. Mundra, learned counsel therefore, contends that a direction to grant of pay scale or then to consider the proposal already pending with it needs to be issued in the present matter. 5. Shri. Shelat, learned Counsel appearing for Municipal Council in Writ Petition No.2889/1992 has contended that, in so far as the claim for the post of Administrative Officer is concerned, it is not concerned with the subject matter and hence no resolution was passed by the Municipal Council, initially. According to him, the petitioner, thereafter appears to have moved some other application and obtained favourable orders in it. He states that as the petitioner was not holding the necessary qualification, he was not eligible to hold the post of Administrative Officer and hence the Municipal Council is opposing the prayers made by the petitioner Ramdayalsingh only to that extent. He further states that in so far as the claim for revision of pay scale are concerned, the pay scale of Rs.500-900 as per Bhole Wage Revision and thereafter corresponding pay scale of Rs.1640- 2900 from 1.4.1986 deserves to be granted to the petitioners. 6. Shri. Motghare, learned Counsel for respondent Municipal Council in Writ Petition No.4141/2005 has adopted the arguments of Shri. Shelat, learned Counsel and has contended that after taking into account the work load and the responsibilities, the .resolution was passed by the Municipal Council and it could not have been rejected without assigning any reason by the office of the Director. 7. Learned A.G.P. states that both petitions are mis-conceived and without any basis to support discrimination or arbitrariness. It is stated that creation of two grades in same cadre is not challenged and the Municipal Council has not demanded creation of posts in higher grade. 8. In so far as the claim of Ramdayalsingh for the post of Administrative Officer is concerned, the fact that he was in fact promoted on that post vide order dated 26.02.1999 in pursuance of resolution dated 25.02.1999 retrospectively w.e.f. 6.10.1997 is not in dispute. Thus after 6.10.1997, in view' of this orders and resolution for the present, it can be presumed that, he worked as Administrative Officer. Shri. Shelat, learned Counsel for Municipal Council has fairly stated that the Municipal Council is not disputing that petitioner worked as Administrative Officer. Thus after 6.10.1997, in view' of this orders and resolution for the present, it can be presumed that, he worked as Administrative Officer. Shri. Shelat, learned Counsel for Municipal Council has fairly stated that the Municipal Council is not disputing that petitioner worked as Administrative Officer. Perusal of the resolution of the Standing Committee dated 25.02.1999 shows that, the Standing Committee was then aware that the petitioner was not holding the qualification of LSGD or LSG, but, then found that he was Law Graduate. It therefore found that the relaxation of qualification in his case is necessary and therefore, it accordingly recommended the relaxation and sought approval for promotion from the Director of Municipal Administration. The Regional Director of Municipal Administration has vide communication dated 03.06.1999 forwarded the proposal to the Director of Municipal Administration and though there is specific amendment bringing all these facts on record and also prayer for grant of necessary relief is added the response from the State Government to these facts is not on record. However, Advocate Shri. Shelat, was right in contending that on 7.11.2000 while passing orders on Civil Application No.3384/2000, the said amendment application was directed to be heard and considered at the stage of final hearing. It appears that on 11.11.2008, when this court passed orders on Civil Application No.7439/2008 and allowed the amendment, the matter was already at the stage of final hearing. Shri. Mundra, learned Counsel has stated that, in fact matter was argued before the earlier Division Bench and at that time amendment application was moved. The learned Counsel for the respondent no.3 Municipal Council was very much present on that date. In the circumstances, the contention and objection being raised on behalf of the Municipal Council cannot be entertained at this stage. 9. We therefore, direct the respondent no.2 Director to consider the proposal forwarded by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration, Nagpur to him on 03.06.1999 (at Annexure-17 with Writ Petition No.2889/1992) and to communicate the decision thereupon to the petitioner, as early as possible and in any case by 31.01.2010. 10. The facts disclosed above, clearly show that Municipal Council, Gondia was "B" class Municipal Council till 1982. It shows that till then the post of Tax Superintendent and Octroi Superintendent in said Municipal Council was having the pay scale equal to the scale of internal auditor or than accountant or then shop inspector. 10. The facts disclosed above, clearly show that Municipal Council, Gondia was "B" class Municipal Council till 1982. It shows that till then the post of Tax Superintendent and Octroi Superintendent in said Municipal Council was having the pay scale equal to the scale of internal auditor or than accountant or then shop inspector. However, after it became "A" class Municipal Council on establishment schedule two types of post of Tax Superintendent or Octroi Superintendent became available. One was in the pay scale of Rs.335-680, while the other was in the pay scale of Rs.500-900. Thus the Tax Superintendent or Octroi Superintendent, (Lower grade) were having lesser pay scale and those in higher grade were having the pay scale ofRs.500-900. The Standing Committee of the Municipal Council, passed resolution on 12.09.1997 to give pay scale of Rs.500-900 to Octroi Superintendent or Tax Superintendent working with it, instead of Rs.335-680. Recommendation of Collector or the Regional Director of Municipal Administration is on same lines. The corresponding pay scale after wage revision became effective from 1.4.1986 are Rs.1400-2600 and 1640-2900 respectively. As the petitioners were in the pay scale of Rs.335-680 they got place in corresponding pay scale of Rs.1400-2600. Had they been in the pay sale ofRs.500-900, the corresponding pay scale for them would have been Rs.1640-2900. 11. Reliance upon the judgment of Hon 'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Kerala (supra), needs to be appreciated in this background. There the order impugned before the Honble Apex Court directed that petitioners before the High Court to be treated as par with the District Judges. The grievance of those petitioners was that prior to 1998 State of Kerala has granted them pay scale or pay at par with the District Judge. It is to be noted that the petitioners were working as Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunal, Judicial Officers were then granted benefit of revision of pay retrospectively from March, 1986. But then similar benefit was denied to the Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal. The Hon'ble Apex Court has noticed in this background that mere fact that Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal were not appointed on recommendations of High Court or then they were at the relevant time not under the control of High Court, could not be a good reason or a adequate ground for treating them differently after a period of about 30 years. The further consideration in paragraph no.9 is about this parity and its removal. In paragraph no. 11 the Hon'ble Apex Court has also considered the nature of duties and functions of petitioners and respondents, and then in paragraph no.13, the principle of equal pay for equal work has been applied. Thus, before the Hon'ble Apex Court there were no two groups in same cadre, as is the position before this Court in the present matter. The reliance upon the said judgment in the present matter is therefore, mis-onceived. 12. These two groups in cadres came into existence in 1982 when Gondia Municipal Council became "A" Class Municipal Council. The creation of two grades in category of Tax Superintendent or Octroi Superintendent was never challenged as discriminatory by the petitioners and that is not the argument even before this Court. The resolution by the Standing Committee of the Municipal Council in favour of the petitioners also does not in any way condemn the creation of such two grades in the cadre. It only states that Tax Superintendent or Octroi Superintendent working with it need to be placed in higher grade of Rs.500-900. Before us, in addition to this resolution of the Standing Committee, the fact that Yavatmal and Ulhasnagar both "A" Class Municipal Councils have got Octroi Superintendent or Tax Superintendent, getting more salary because their grades are higher is being pressed into service to urge discrimination. When the Law or establishment schedule itself contemplates two grades in same cadre, mere fact that Octroi Superintendent or Tax Superintendent of Yavatmal Municipal Councilor Ulhasnagar Municipal Council were receiving more salaries i.e. pay scale of Rs.1640-2900, cannot be of any help to demonstrate that there has been any discrimination against the petitioners in the matter. The petitioners have not pointed out that in any other "A" class Municipal Council in State of Maharashtra, there is no Tax Superintendent or Octroi Superintendent, drawing salary in lower grade. This could not have been done here, because they have not challenged creation or establishment of two grades in same cadre. 13. Apart from this, the material produced before us does not enable us to apply our mind to find out, whether there is any arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, or not. This could not have been done here, because they have not challenged creation or establishment of two grades in same cadre. 13. Apart from this, the material produced before us does not enable us to apply our mind to find out, whether there is any arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, or not. It is not pointed out to us that large number of "A" Class Municipal Council are having higher grade Octroi Superintendent or Tax Superintendent. Their annual budget income or other similar details including expenditure on establishment and administration is also not produced, before us. We are, therefore, not in a position to appreciate the arguments based upon quality, being raised before us. The creation of two grades in same cadre is with some design which cannot be interfered with in the present petitions. 14. The order passed by the Director of Municipal Administration no doubt does not assign any reason for rejecting the proposal forwarded to it by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration. However, it is not a judicial or quasi judicial order. It is a decision taken by the administrative authority. The petitioners have challenged that decision and hence it was incumbent for them to bring before this Court necessary material which should have been considered by that Authority or then which has been ignored by that Authority, so as to result into discrimination. No such material is pressed into service. Mere recommendation by Collector or the Regional Director of Municipal Administration in their favour again does not constitute such material because the basis on which the said recommendation is made is missing and has not been produced before us. In the circumstances, we are not in a position to grant that pay sale to both the petitioners. 15. With the result, Writ Petition No.4141/2005 is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 16. Writ Petition No.2889/1992, is partly allowed only to the extent of directing the respondent no.2 the Director of Municipal Administration to consider the proposal by the Regional Director of Municipal Administration on 03.06.1999 (at Annexure17 with the Writ Petition No.2889/1992). All this exercise shall be completed by the said Authority by 31.01.2010. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. Ordered accordingly.