Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—By these writ petitions, a challenge is made to the orders whereby a claim for grant of particular pay scale on completion of 18 and 27 years of service has been declined. 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that as per circular dated 25.01.1992, an employee completing 9, 18 and 27 years of service is entitled to the selection scale if first, second and third promotions are not given. The petitioners had completed 18 and 27 years of service and were allowed benefit of selection scale but pay scale given therein is in violation of circular. They are entitled to the pay scale of 5500-9000, whereas pay scale of 3050-4590 was allowed to them. The similarly placed employee has been given pay scale of 5500-9000 in view of the judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2135/2005, Satya Narayan Sen vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 05.11.2008 and as upheld by the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.710/2010, decided on 9th February, 2011. The SLP to the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed in limine. In view of the above, petitioners are also entitled to the pay scale of 5500-9000. 3. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioners and perused the record. 4. It is not in dispute that petitioners are entitled to the benefit of second and third selection scale on completion of 18 and 27 years of service but the real dispute is regarding pay scale. They have been awarded pay scale of 3050-4590 on completion of 27 years of service keeping in mind Paras 4 and 5 of the circular dated 25.01.1992, which are quoted hereunder for ready reference: 4. (i) The first Selection Grade, wherever admissible in terms of this order shall be the pay scale of the next promotion post in the same service / cadre i.e. Class – IV/ Ministerial / Subordinate Service; provided that in case there is no next promotion post in the same service/ cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the first Selection Grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale as specified in paragraph 5. (ii) The second Selection Grade, wherever admissible, in terms of this order, shall be the pay scale of the second promotion post available to that employee in the same service / cadre; provided that in case the second promotion post available in the same service/ cadre carries a pay scale higher than the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 (16) or there is no second promotion post in the same service/ cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the second Selection Grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale of the post held or the selection grade), as specified in paragraph 5. (iii) The third Selection Grade, wherever admissible in terms of this order, shall be the pay scale of the third promotion post available to that employee in the same service / cadre; provided that in case the third promotion post available in the same service/ cadre carries a pay scale higher than the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 (16) or there is no third promotion post in the same service/ cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the third Selection Grade shall be the pay scale corresponding to his existing pay scale (pay scale of the post held or the selection grade), as specified in paragraph 5. 5. 5. In case there is no post for first, second or third promotion, as the case may be, in the same service/ cadre or the employee does not possess academic qualifications prescribed for promotion and in respect of the isolated posts, the Selection Grades shall be as specified below: - S.No. Existing Pay Scale Selection Grade 1 750-940 (1) 775-1025 (2) 2 775-1025 (2) 800-1250 (3) 3 800-1250 (3) 825-1350 (4) 4 825-1350 (4) 950-1680 (6) 5 910-1520 (5) 975-1720 (7) 6 950-1680 (6) 1200-2050 (9) 7 975-1720 (7) 1200-2050 (9) 8 1025-1800 (8) 1400-2300 (10) 9 1200-2050 (9) 1400-2600 (12) 10 11 12 1400-2300 (10) 1400-2360 (11) 1400-2600 (12) (i) in those cases where next promotion post is in a State service – 2000-3200 (14) (ii) in other cases – 1640-2900 (13) 13 1640-2900 (13) 2000-3200 (14) 14 2000-3200 (14) 2000-3500 (15) 15 2000-3500 (15) 2200-4000 (16) Note - If an incumbent of the isolated post or a person not possessing academic qualifications prescribed for promotion has been granted Selection grade before issue of this order and such selection grade is higher than that indicated in this paragraph, he will continue to draw pay in such selection grade as personal to him but the second or third selection grades shall be determined with reference to the first or second selection grade which would have been admissible in term of this paragraph. Exception - The second Selection Grade of the post of Junior Engineer of all departments shall be 2200-4000(16). 5. Perusal of paras quoted above reveals that if a post does not have avenue of promotion or one is not in possession of qualification, then pay scale would be admissible as provided in Para 5. In other cases, pay scale of the promotional post would be given on selection scale. 6. In the instant case, the petitioners were awarded selection scale taking note of the qualification required for promotional post. The petitioners were not in possession of required qualification as is coming out from the impugned orders. What are required qualifications for different posts have also been mentioned. The petitioners are not in possession of any of the qualification provided therein inasmuch as the contents of impugned orders have not been denied by showing qualification of the petitioners. The petitioners were not in possession of required qualification as is coming out from the impugned orders. What are required qualifications for different posts have also been mentioned. The petitioners are not in possession of any of the qualification provided therein inasmuch as the contents of impugned orders have not been denied by showing qualification of the petitioners. The petitioners are totally silent of the issue despite the fact that they were not given the pay scale of the promotional post for want of required qualification. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respon-dents to allow pay scale of 3050-4590 on completion of 27 years of service. 7. The petitioners have made reference of judgment of this court in the case of Satya Narayan Sen (supra). In the aforesaid case, the issue was decided in reference to the amendment in the Service Rules vide Notification dated 23.09.1998. Therein, the petitioners became entitled to the third selection scale prior to the amendment in the Rules and the State Govt. failed to place on record any Notification to show that petitioners were ineligible for promotion before the amendment. A direction was accordingly issued for granting benefit of particular pay scale and consequential fixation thereupon. In appeal before the Division Bench, the issue was taken up in detail. Therein, again reference of Notification amending the Rules on 23.09.1998 was given. By the aforesaid Notification, Rajasthan Animal Husbandary Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 (in short “Rules of 1977”) were amended in regard to eligibility to the post of Assistant Fisheries Development Officer. The petitioners therein were not in possession of the qualification as amended thus denied pay scale of the promotional post. The Division Bench took notice that Satya Narayan Sen was promoted to the post of Fieldman on 20.04.1979 thus became entitled to the benefit of second and third selection scale on completion of 18 and 27 years of service before the amendment in the rules, this should be applied. The reply was filed by the respondents in reference to amendment in the Rules of 1977 vide Notification dated 23.09.1998. The petitioner was eligible for promotion as per unamended rules or not, was not clarified by the State in their reply. The reply was filed by the respondents in reference to amendment in the Rules of 1977 vide Notification dated 23.09.1998. The petitioner was eligible for promotion as per unamended rules or not, was not clarified by the State in their reply. The writ petition was thus decided in the light of reply given by the respondents without specifying as to whether the petitioner therein was entitled to the promotion based on the qualification provided under the Rules of 1977 prior to amendment dated 23.09.1998 and as similarly placed employees were given higher pay scale. 8. In the instant case, the respondents have passed a detail order giving out as to why the petitioners are not entitled to a particular pay scale. The petitioners are not in possession of required qualification of promotional post thus entitled to the pay scale given in Para 5 of the circular dated 25.01.1992. For ready reference, the relevant part of Rule pre and post amendment dated 23.09.1998 is reproduced hereunder: PRE-AMENDMENT S. No. Name of Posts Method of recruitment with percentage Minimum qualification and experience for direct recruitment Post from which promotion is to be made Minimum qualification and experience for promotion Remarks 1 (i) Assistant Fisheries Development Officer (ii) Fisheries Research Assistant (iii) Lecturer, Fisheries Training School (iv) Fisheries Extension Assistant 25% by promotion and 75% by direct recruitment. M. Sc. (Zoology) with Fisheries as a special paper or B.Sc. with Biology from a recognised University & 9 months' training in Inland fisheries. Fisheries Inspector + “Senior Higher Secondary or/Higher Secondary” with Science or its equivalent with 5 years' experience as Fisheries Inspector. Pay Scale 550-1010 admissible to person with B.Sc. Biology & 9 months' training in Inland Fisheries. For the rest pay scale of 470-830 will be admissible. POST-AMENDMENT S. No. Name of Posts Method of recruitment with percentage Minimum qualification and experience for direct recruitment Post from which promotion is to be made Minimum qualification and experience for promotion Remarks 1 (i) Assistant Fisheries Development Officer (ii) Lecturer, Fisheries Training School (iii) Fisheries Research Assistant (iv) Fisheries Extension Assistant 25% by promotion & 75% by direct recruitment. M.Sc. (Zoology) with Fisheries as a special paper or B.Sc. with Biology of a University established by Law in India and Post Graduate Certificate Course in Inland Fisheries Development and Administration from Inland Fisheries Training Centre Barrackpore of Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Bombay. M.Sc. (Zoology) with Fisheries as a special paper or B.Sc. with Biology of a University established by Law in India and Post Graduate Certificate Course in Inland Fisheries Development and Administration from Inland Fisheries Training Centre Barrackpore of Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Bombay. Fisheries Inspector 5 years experience on the post mentioned in Column No.5 with atleast Secondary of a recognized Board or equivalent qualification. 9. The Rule quoted above reveals that petitioners were not in possession of required qualification even as was existing prior to amendment vide Notification dated 23.09.1998. If a candidate is not in possession of required qualification provided for promotional post, then they are entitled to the selection scale in the pay scale provided in Para 5 of the circular dated 25.01.1992. The qualification existing prior to 23.09.1998 is Senior Higher Secondary or Higher Secondary with Science or its equivalent with five years experience as a Fisherman Inspector. After amendment, it is five years experience with qualification of Secondary recognized by the Board. The petitioners herein have not indicated that they were in possession of required qualification as was existing in the year 1997. In absence of it, they have rightly been denied pay scale of 5500-9000. The respondents compared the case of present petitioners with Satya Narayan Sen but he was granted pay scale of 5500-9000 in the light of the judgment of this court and not otherwise. The difference between two cases are that while deciding the case of Satya Narayan Sen, the Division Bench took notice of the reply submitted by the respondents which did not indicate as to whether petitioners therein were in possession of required qualification as was existing prior to the amendment. The relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted for ready reference: “From the stand as taken in response to the representation and so also the averments as taken in the reply to writ petition, it appears that the case of the appellants had always been that the writ petitioner was not entitled to the claimed scale because of the amendment brought about by the notification dated 23.09.1998 and not that irrespective of such amendment, he was not entitled to promotion at all. Thus, the suggestions as sought to be made in this appeal that the writ petitioner was not at all entitled to promotion cannot be accepted for having not been made earlier; whether in response to the representation or before the learned Single Judge. So far the implication and effect of the amendment by way of the notification dated 23.09.1998 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has found such amendment inapplicable to the present case and not prejudicial to the rights of the petitioner that had come into existence on 19.04.1997 with completion of his 27 years of service. We do not find any error in such finding by the learned Single Judge. Thus, the order as passed by the learned Single Judge holding the petitioner entitled to third selection grade with effect from 19.04.1997 and for consequential reliefs does not appear calling for any interference.” 10. Perusal of para quoted above give reasons as to why judgment of learned Single Judge was upheld. In the instant case, the respondents have taken care to submit as to whether petitioners were entitled to the promotion or not i.e. as per unamended Regulation. As per amended and even unamended rules, the petitioners were not entitled to the promotion as lacking in the qualification and that could not be disputed by the learned counsel keeping in mind the qualification possessed by the petitioners. 11. In the background aforesaid, petitioners have been rightly allowed pay scale as per Para 4 & 5 of the circular dated 25.01.1992. The effort of the court should always be to take care of statutory provision so as the circular for its implementation in letter and spirit. 12. The judgment of this court is binding if facts are similar so as the legal issue. In the instant case, facts are different inasmuch as the respondents made scrutiny of the case and finding petitioners to be ineligible for promotion, applied in Paras 4 and 5 of the Circular dated 25.01.1992. In the cases referred by learned counsel for petitioners, issue of ineligibility for promotion was not mentioned by the respondents while filing reply. In absence of the material to that effect, the court decided the petition and the reason for grant of relief has also been specified. 13. In the cases referred by learned counsel for petitioners, issue of ineligibility for promotion was not mentioned by the respondents while filing reply. In absence of the material to that effect, the court decided the petition and the reason for grant of relief has also been specified. 13. In the instant case, this court has referred amended as well as unamended rules to find out as to whether petitioners are in possession of qualification for promotion. On scrutiny, when they are not found in possession of qualification for promotion, this detailed judgment has been given. It should not be construed to be contrary to the view taken by the Division Bench in view of facts clarified above. It is further noted that if an employee has been given benefits contrary to the rules, then this court should not perpetuate the illegality, rather to make scrutiny about rights of the petitioners. Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by those who are having right but denied arbitrarily and in discrimination. The issue of arbitrariness and discrimination cannot be decided in favour of an employee not entitled to the benefits under the law. 14. In view of the discussion made above, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.