Order Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in this writ application is against the refusal of the Respondents to treat the petitioners in the general cadre of Assistants and to extend the consequential benefits thereof in the matter of granting equal pay-scales pursuant to the pay Revision and pursuant to the fixation of the pay-scale after the grant of the A.C.P. benefits. 3. It appears that in response to a common advertisement dated 23.4.1981, issued by the Labour, Employment & Training Department in the district of Dhanbad, applications were invited from the eligible candidates in the General category for filling up 30 vacant posts of Assistants. In response, the petitioners had applied. After completing the selection process, a common select list was prepared in which the names of the petitioners and those of the private Respondents being the selected candidates, were published. The advertisement, against which the applications were invited had declared that the pay-scale as stipulated in the advertisement, would be applicable to the candidates. On their selection, a common appointment letter dated 19th August, 1981 was issued, and the selected candidates were thereafter posted in the several Departments, some in the District Collectorate and some candidates like the petitioners in the Welfare Department and some in the District Social Security Department of the Districts and some in other Departments in the same district. It appears that after the appointment made, a distinction was sought to be drawn between the appointed candidates in as much as, by carving out the different cadres for some of them, the scales stipulated in the advertisement was offered to them while to the others, a lower pay-scale was offered. It further appears that under similar situations, some of the selected candidates who were selected and appointed in the Giridih Collectorate, had filed a writ application vide C.W.J.C. No. 169 of 1991 (R). The said writ application was disposed of declaring that in view of the fact that the same selection process was adopted and under the same panel, the writ petitioners and the other appointed candidates were appointed and since the advertisement had declared that the pay-scales against which the candidates had applied, would be applicable to them on their selection, the Respondents-authorities cannot make any discrimination between the appointees, by paying a lower pay-scale to some of the candidates and higher pay-scales to the others. Consequent upon the order passed in the aforesaid writ application, the concerned authorities of the State Government in the concerned District, had regularized the pay-scales of all the appointed candidates. It further appears that while the issues were finally resolved, a fresh controversy arose at the time of extending the benefits of the first A:C.P. to the candidates who had acquired the eligibility for the same, on the plea that the Finance Department has fixed the lower pay-scales for the Accounts Clerk working in the Social Security Department and a higher pay-scales for the Assistants working in the District Collectorate. The revised pay-scales upon grant of A.C.P. benefits has been fixed for the petitioners working in the Social Security Department, at a lower scale, whereas for those working in the District Collectorate, the higher scale. From perusal of the counter affidavit of the Respondents, it appears that while taking the aforesaid stand regarding the Finance Department's Resolution, fixing the different pay-scales of the appointees, a further ground has been taken that such Resolution having been issued by the Finance Department of the State Government in the year 2002 and was never challenged by any of the aggrieved petitioners. 4. As per the admitted facts, the petitioners and the private Respondents, herein were appointed pursuant to the common Advertisement, in which only one post, comprising of only one Grade was declared and no distinction was drawn between the Assistants and the Accounts Clerks. As has been declared by this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 169 of 1991 (R), the Respondents-authorities cannot possibly make any arbitrary distinction between those appointees, who pursuant to their selection were appointed in the Social Security Department and those working in the District Collectorate. Admittedly, all the candidates including the present petitioners and the private Respondents were originally appointed as Assistants. No reason has been assigned by the. Respondent-State, as to on what basis, has the State Finance Department made a distinction between those working in the Social Security Department and those who were working in the various District Collectorates. 5. I am satisfied from the above facts and circumstances that the claim of the petitioners for equal pay-scales pursuant to the fixation of the scales upon the grant of the first A.C.P. is reasonable, genuine and legitimate. 5. I am satisfied from the above facts and circumstances that the claim of the petitioners for equal pay-scales pursuant to the fixation of the scales upon the grant of the first A.C.P. is reasonable, genuine and legitimate. The fixation of the lower pay-scale for the petitioners is apparently arbitrary and discriminatory and it could not be sustained in law. 6. In the light of the above discussions, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is allowed. The Respondents-authorities are directed to treat the petitioners in equal footing as the private Respondents herein and to give the benefits of the same pay-scales to the petitioners, equal to the scale given to the private Respondents and appropriate corresponding order in the light of the above directions, should be issued by the concerned authorities, so as to enable the petitioners herein to avail the benefits of the equal pay-scales, within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 7. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the Respondents.