Judgment :- 1. The petitioners, who are employees of the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras have filed the present Writ Petition seeking for a direction to give the revised pay scale at par with 34 security personnel as per the orders of the respondent dated 28.7.1999 and 3.4.2006. 2. The Writ Petition was admitted on 11.10.2007. Pending the Writ Petition, in the application for interim direction only Notice was ordered. On notice from this Court, the respondent IIT, Madras filed a counter affidavit dated 27.8.2009. The petitioners had filed a reply affidavit dated 8.3.2012. 3. The case of the petitioners was as follows: The Security Guards employed by the Indian Institute of University, Madras entered into a out of court settlement pursuant to the award passed by the Labour Court in favour of Security Guards for grant of extra wages for half a day per week and for the period from 1.1.1986 to 31.3.1996 on the basis that 21 days per year wages will be paid during the year. The Security Guards who are in the pay scale of Rs.900-15-1010 will be paid extra wages on the basis of 21 days per year till they become eligible for first review on completion of 8 years of service as per RCDS. On 13.8.1997, the respondent IIT, Madras granted relief to the workmen. Subsequently, the respondent IIT permitted 34 Security Guards to the scale of pay of Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4950 with effect from 1998. under Career Promotion Scheme, 34 Security Guards were given fixation in the scale of pay of Rs.3200-85-4900. On 22.2.2006, modified Recruitment and career progression scheme for non-teaching Group B, C & D of all IITs was introduced giving retrospective effect from 1.5.1998. On 3.4.2006, 34 Security Guards were designated as Security Inspectors. On 29.5.2006, the petitioners were granted I Review Promotion and fixation in the scale of pay of Rs.3050-75-3950 with effect from 2004 after a period of 12 years under the RCPS. In the mean while, 34 Security Guards were given II Review Promotion and fixation was made in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 with effect from 2006. It is stated that the petitioners are not different from the 34 Security Inspectors, who were given higher scale of pay and the workmen were also given the similar scale of pay. 4. In the mean while, 34 Security Guards were given II Review Promotion and fixation was made in the scale of pay of Rs.4500-125-7000 with effect from 2006. It is stated that the petitioners are not different from the 34 Security Inspectors, who were given higher scale of pay and the workmen were also given the similar scale of pay. 4. In the counter affidavit, it is the stand of the respondent IIT that under the Recruitment Career Development Scheme (RCDS), no scales/hierarchy were provided for security Staff (Group 'D'). Under this scheme, it has been mandatory to grant review promotion on completion of 12 years of service. RCDS also do not mention any ladder of promotion for Security Guards only because of progressive revision of scale of pay. There were also no norms for promotion from the post of Security Guards. The senior staff among senior Security Inspector of each section is retained to perform as duty officer in the respective shift in the absence of Deputy Security Officer/Assistant Security Officer. In general the duties and responsibilities of the entire security force irrespective of various ranks are towards maintaining the security of the campus, its occupants, staff, their residence and other institute property including installations. There is not much difference in the nature of duties performed by the various grades of Security Personnel. The order dated 28.7.1999 revising the pay scale of 32 Security Guards was pursuant to the negotiations the Institute had with the Security Guards' association and it was not a unilateral decision by the Institute. It is pursuant to the same, 3rd respondent Security Personnel were redesignated as Security Inspectors on 3.4.2006 as per the norms laid down in RCPS. It was done by Recruitment Career Progression Scheme and not by others. In paragraphs 20 and 21, it was averred as follows: "20. .. As regards the revision of pay scales granted to the said 34 security guards is concerned, the same were extended as per the provisions of the promotion schemes in force at the relevant point in time. 21. In paragraphs 20 and 21, it was averred as follows: "20. .. As regards the revision of pay scales granted to the said 34 security guards is concerned, the same were extended as per the provisions of the promotion schemes in force at the relevant point in time. 21. It is submitted that 40 Security Guards in the scale of Rs.800/- 1150/-were given first review promotion under RCDS on completion of 8 years of service to the pay scale of Rs.950/- 1400/- and were subsequently brought over to the pay scale of Rs.975/- 1540/- with one additional increment on 13.5.1998 in lieu of their working for six days per week as per negotiations held with the Security Guard's Association. Upon the implementation of the 5th Pay Commission's recommendations, they were brought over to the corresponding pay scale of Rs.3,200/- - 4900/-. Subsequently on 3.4.2006, they have been redesignated (not promoted) as Security Inspectors matching the pay scale of Rs.3200/- 4900/-. It is also stated that it is the policy decision taken by IIT and there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in such circumstances. 5. In the reply affidavit, in paragraphs 14 and 15, it was averred as follows: "14. I further submit that the Government of India introduced a new Scheme by an order dated 22.2.2006 under the name of Modified Recruitment and Career Progression Scheme (RCPS) for non-teaching employees of Group B, C & D of all IITs. Though the said scheme was introduced on 22.2.2007 it was given retrospective effect from 1.5.1998. 15. I further submit that taking advantage of the said retrospective effect given in Modified Recruitment and Career Progression Scheme the respondent has denied the vested right of the petitioners, which has accrued or acquired by the petitioners. Any scheme which takes away the vested right is void. Hence the application of the modified Recruitment and Career Progression Scheme retrospectively is arbitrary, illegal, unjust and the same is violation of 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." 6. Mr. K.Shanmugakani, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and another vs. Raman Lalj Keshav Lal Soni and others reported in (1983) 2 SCC 33 for contending that retrospective operation of amended law should not affect the present status and rights of the affected persons. 7. Mr. K.Shanmugakani, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat and another vs. Raman Lalj Keshav Lal Soni and others reported in (1983) 2 SCC 33 for contending that retrospective operation of amended law should not affect the present status and rights of the affected persons. 7. He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and others v. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 541 (1) for contending that if there are unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification, then Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) will stand attracted. 8. He also referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ex.Capt. K.C.Arora and another vs. State of Haryana and others reported in AIR 1987 SC 1858 for contending that accrued right of a person cannot be taken away by making amendment to the Rules. 9. He further referred to another judgment of the Supreme Court in Prof. C.D. Tase v. University of Bombay and others reported in AIR 1989 SC 829 for contending that in case of failure of College to forward a name of the Lecturer to University though he was entitled to higher pay scale, denial by the University to offer higher pay scale to him was found to be discriminatory. 10. He thereafter referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Haribans Misra vs. Railway Board reported in AIR 1989 SC 696 for contending that the action of the respondents in wiping out not only promotions granted to employees but also length of service for about 9 years, was held to be arbitrary and violation of Article of the Constitution of India. 11. He further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Tushar Ranjan Mohnaty and others reported in (1994) 5 SCC 450 , wherein the Supreme Court held that when the legislature and the competent authority under Article 309 of the Constitution of India have the power to make laws with retrospective effect, they should not act arbitrarily, illegally and unconstitutionally. 12. 12. He further referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and others vs. Bijoy Lal Ghosh and others reported in AIR 1998 SC 1192 for contending that pay revision in respect of class of Teachers of entire territory of the country must be considered as equal. 13. He lastly referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ajay Jadhav vs. Government of Goa and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 451 for contending that once a person gets a scale of pay, all similarly situated persons with similar qualification must also get the same scale of pay. 14. However, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition on the grounds urged by the petitioner. First of all, in the present case, as rightly contended by the respondent, RCPS was brought on policy decision of the IIT, Madras and negotiations were also made between the Association of the Guards and the management and the length of service adopted cannot be said to be arbitrary merely because some of the guards were drawing scales already higher than the petitioners. Lastly, the RCPS is intended to bring uniformity as an assured career progression scheme and it cannot be said that anybody had vested right to get benefits contrary to the scheme. Further, it is the stand of the respondent IIT that the duties and responsibilities were same for all class of Security Guards. Therefore, there is no discrimination and the length of service is the only yardstick for giving benefit under RCPS. 15. The Supreme Court in S.C.Chandra vs. State of Jharkand reported in 2007 (8) SCC 279 , has held that grant of service condition by the State is either a legislative or an executive function and by judicial fiat, the Court cannot direct the Government to create an obligation involving finance. 16. In the light of the above, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.