ORDER Navin Sinha & OK Singh, JJ.-Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents in both the appeals. 2. In both the appeals, the writ petitions have been allowed and the appellants have been directed to grant scale of pay as recommended by the Fitment Appellate Committee. 3. The anomalies in fixation of pay scales and the consequent agitation strike by Government employees led to an agreement dated 7.5.1999. This agreement was signed by the Chief Secretary, the Finance Commissioner, the Chief Minister and the Finance Minister on behalf of the State authorities, and the representatives of the employees-Union alongwith other officers on 7.9.1999. It was resolved that for removal of anomalies, a committee shall be constituted of a sitting High Court Judge and whose recommendations shall be implemented notionally with effect from 1.1.1996 but effectively from 1.4.1997. The recommendations of this Committee shall then be implemented by the State Government within a maximum period of six months. The recommendations of the Committee shall be final and binding upon both sides. 4. It was on this agreement that the strike of the employees was called off. Then followed a resolution dated 15.1 .2000 of the State Government in the Department of Finance by which a sitting Hon'ble Judge of this Court, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam (as His Lordship then was) was constituted as the Appellate Fitment Committee. 5. The very opening paragraph of the Appellate Fitment Committee's report notices from the Government resolution constituting the Committee and the agreement between the State Government and its employees that the recommendations of this Committee would be final and binding. 6. Once, the State Government made a particular representation to its employees and on which recommendation they called off their strike subsequently reduced to a written agreement in which the State Government promised to act in a particular manner, this Court shall bind the Government those standards. An assurance given by the State Government, to its employees carries sanctity and cannot be wished away lightly especially when the employees were persuaded to alter their stand on that basis. There was no compulsion on the State Government to refer the matter to the Appellate Fitment Committee for fixation of pay scales which was otherwise the exclusive prerogative of the State. There was no compulsion on the State Government to refer the matter to the Appellate Fitment Committee for fixation of pay scales which was otherwise the exclusive prerogative of the State. Once it took a conscious decision to part with its powers and agreed to accept the recommendations of that body the State Government cannot blow hot and cold. 7. The reasoning given by the writ court in C.W.J.C. No. 4522 of 2004 is fully endorsed by this court. 8. The State Government could have reserved its rights while making the reference to the Committee or imposed limitations. It consciously chose not to do so. If it was of the opinion that any particular recommendation was not appropriate its remedy lay in approaching the Committee itself for review or reconsideration. Its unilateral decision not to accept a recommendation, is now beyond its purview and jurisdiction barred by estoppel by conduct. 9. This Court is not satisfied that the impugned orders call for any interference. Judicial man hours may be an additional aspect. 10. The appeals are dismissed.