JUDGMENT Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. (respondent 2) to pay him dearness allowance arrear at the enhanced rate based on the last pay drawn by him along with the outstanding terminal benefits including Rs.87,210/- with interest. The case of the petitioner is that he is presently serving as Private Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor of the Gauhati University, Jalukbari. Earlier, he had been working as Private Secretary to the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 for over 18 years. In the year 1998, the respondent No. 2 introduced AIDC Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1992 "VRS") and as per this scheme issued in a circular, interested employees, who were eligible for the voluntary retirement, were given the option to avail of the VRS by applying it to the Managing Director of the respondent No. 2 ("MD" for short) through their respective Departmental heads on or before 31-7-1998. At this stage, it may be noted that the Deputy Secretary to the government of Assam, Department of Industries and Commerce vide his letter dated 14-7-2000 had requested the MD to rectify the anomalies in fixing the pay of the petitioner at his end. The MD vide the Memorandum dated 16-9-2000 stated that considering the representation of the petitioner dated 22-3-99 and 29-8-99, his basic pay i.e. Private Secretary to the MD was fixed at Rs.7,350/- p.m. with effect from 1-4-97 in the pay scale of Rs.7,725-11,825/- by stepping up of his pay resulting from fixation of higher pay for his junior, namely, Shri T.K. Sharma, Stenographer Grade-1 and that his annual increment would fall due from 1st April of the following years. 2. In the meantime, the petitioner submitted his application dated 16-7-2002 to the MD for accepting his option for the voluntary retirement with immediate effect. On or about the same time, the petitioner submitted an application for the post of Private Secretary to the Vice Chancellor of Gauhati University through proper channel. The Registrar, Gauhati University vide his letter dated 17-7-2002 informed him that he had been appointed as the Private Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor in the pay scale of Rs.8,100-13,025/- p.m. plus the usual admissible allowances. The Registrar, Gauhati University vide his letter dated 17-7-2002 informed him that he had been appointed as the Private Secretary to the Vice-Chancellor in the pay scale of Rs.8,100-13,025/- p.m. plus the usual admissible allowances. The petitioner, however, sought for and was allowed extension of time for joining his new post for 40-50 days as he was being released from the respondent No. 2 on voluntary retirement. Finally, the Deputy General Manager (P & A) of the respondent No. 2 by his letter dated 10-9-2002 informed the petitioner that the competent authority had accepted his application for voluntary retirement on the terms and conditions stipulated in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 therein. The petitioner thereafter accepted the offer, and was released from AIDC on voluntary retirement with effect from 11-9-2002 with intimation to the Registrar of the University. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the letter dated 25-2-2003 addressed to the MD by him, he reminded the MD that his voluntary retirement benefits were not calculated on the basis of the existing pay scale applicable to him on the ground that the recommendation of the said Pay Anomaly Committee including his case was pending before the Management for final decision; that a solemn assurance was given to him to settle the matter within three months from the date of his release; that since his pay was equalised with one Mr. Tapas Kumar Sarma, Stenographer Grade-I based on the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Management of respondent 2 as per the direction of Government of Assam, his case should be excluded from the purview of the Pay Anomaly Committee and that he be allowed to draw the VR benefits in the existing pay scale i.e. as in September, 2002. Tapas Kumar Sarma, Stenographer Grade-I based on the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the Management of respondent 2 as per the direction of Government of Assam, his case should be excluded from the purview of the Pay Anomaly Committee and that he be allowed to draw the VR benefits in the existing pay scale i.e. as in September, 2002. The respondent No. 2 in their reply communicated to him on 5-3-2003 (Annexure-Q) informed the petitioner that the matter was under examination by the management and as soon as the matter was settled, the same would be communicated to him; that as stated earlier, if the case was settled in his favour, the withheld amount would be paid to him along with simple Bank interest for the delayed period as stated in their letter dated 10-9-02 and that since his pay fixation was a "major case of pay anomaly report", it would not be possible to take his case out of the Pay Anomaly Committee and settle separately at that stage. 4. It would appear that several correspondences were thereafter exchanged between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 but without any tangible result for him. Ultimately, the Manager (Personnel) of respondent 2 informed him that no payment could be made to him after 6-9-2003 due to the recent policy of the Government on VRS for the employees of State Level Public enterprise of Assam formulated in the Government Notification dated 6-9-2003. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said notification dated 6-9-2003 was issued long after his voluntary retirement, which had taken place with effect from 11-9-2002 under the VRS published on 5-10-1988 and, therefore, could have no application to his case. It is the contention of the petitioner that the said T.K. Sarmah, who was Junior to him while he was working in AIDC, had been paid higher salary than him. He along with Mrs. Kamala Baishya applied for corresponding enhancement of their salaries and as per the report of the Committee that was set up upon the direction of the Government of Assam in the Department of Industries and Commerce to the respondent No. 2 vide the letter dated 14-7-2000. He along with Mrs. Kamala Baishya applied for corresponding enhancement of their salaries and as per the report of the Committee that was set up upon the direction of the Government of Assam in the Department of Industries and Commerce to the respondent No. 2 vide the letter dated 14-7-2000. It is the contention of the petitioner that in terms of the said report, both the petitioner and the said Kamala Baishya had been granted enhanced salary vide the letter dated 16-9-2000 of the MD, which cannot be denied to him now. This is how the writ petition has been filed. 5. After perusing the writ petition and the subsequent development pointed out by Mr. G. Choudhury, the learned standing counsel for the AIDCL, I am of the view that no case is made out by the petitioner for the interference of this Court. It may be noted that the said T.K. Sarmah had been inducted to the service of AIDCL as Stenographer Grade-I from elsewhere with pay protection, which was higher than the pay enjoyed by the petitioner even though they belonged to the same grade. It would appear that in due course, the basic pay of both the petitioner and the said Kamala Baishya, who was also Stenographer-I like him, were fixed at Rs.7,350/- pm w.e.f. 1-4-1997 in the pay scale of Rs.5,725-11,825/- thereby making their pay on par with that of the said T.K. Sarma, Stenographer Grade-I. This prompted 19 persons holding different posts but in the same grade of the petitioners complained of pay anomaly between seniors and juniors. This resulted in constituting Pay Anomaly Committee by the respondent authorities. The Committee in its report had observed that the type of equalisation done to the petitioner and Kamala Baishya by the Corporation cited as a precedent was very irregular and recommended that the pay equalisation benefit be allowed to the Office Assistants, who were senior to P. Devi on the date of her appointment i.e. 1-4-90 in the same line as was allowed to the petitioner and the said Kamala Baishya Stenographers by the Corporation, though that should not be taken as precedent in future or, in the alternative, the fixation case of the petitioner and his colleague be re-examined and the undue equalisation of pay benefit already allowed to them might be recovered from them. The Corporation subsequently accepted the alternative recommendation, namely, the undue equalisation of the pay benefits given to the petitioner and the said Kamala Baishya be recovered (sic) and accordingly withdrew the benefit up of stepping up of pay provided to them. (Italics mine) 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Corporation, the nineteen persons filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 8319 of 2004 before this Court, which by the judgment dated 6-1-2009 dismissed the writ petition. The following observations of this Court may be reproduced as the same are on all fours with the present case: 9. In the case of G. Sreenivasa Rao (Supra), the Apex Court dealing with the principle relating to "equal pay for equal work" in the context of accompaniment of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India observed that the said abstract doctrine cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. It was observed that the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be read into Article 14 of the Constitution. Reasonable classification, based on reasonable intelligible criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved is permissible. In Para-15 of the judgment, it has been observed thus: 15. Equal pay for equal work does not mean that all the members of a cadre must receive the same pay irrespective of their seniority, source of recruitment, educational qualifications and various other incidents of service. When a single running pay scale is provided in a cadre the constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal work is satisfied. Ordinarily grant of higher pay to a junior would ex facie be arbitrary but if there are justifiable ground in doing so the senior cannot invoke the quality doctrine. To illustrate, when pay fixation is done under valid statutory rules/executive instructions, when persons recruited from different sources are given pay protection, when promotee from lower cadre or a transferee from another cadre is given pay protection, when a senior is stopped at efficiency bar, when advance increments are given for experience/passing a test/acquiring higher qualifications or incentive foe efficiency: are some of the eventualities when a junior may be drawing higher pay than his seniors without violating the mandate of equal pay for equal work. The differentia on these grounds would be based on intelligible criteria which has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The differentia on these grounds would be based on intelligible criteria which has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. We do not therefore find any good ground to sustain the judgment of the High Court/Tribunal. (Emphasis added) 10. In the above quoted observation, the particular illustration which finds a mention, squarely covers this case. As in the said illustration, in the instant case also, the Respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 came into the services of the respondent-Corporation with pay protection of their services from elsewhere because of which from their very induction, they received higher salaries than the petitioners although in service seniority, they are juniors to the petitioners. 11. In Nandeshwar Kalita (supra), similar relief was prayed for by some of the Stenographers of this Court under similar circumstances. Learned Single Judge having noticed that the junior Stenographers came to be appointed in the High Court with pay protection of their services elsewhere, held that although the junior received higher salary than the seniors, that was not a case of pay anomaly. The learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench. 12. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that since there is recommendation favourable to the petitioners, they should be provided with the stepping up of pay at par with their juniors. I have gone through the recommendation made by the Pay Anomaly Committee, about which mention has been made. The suggestion of the Pay Anomaly Committee was two-fold-either to step up of the pay of the petitioners or to withdraw the benefits of such stepping up of pay provided to the Respondent No. 9 in reference to the Respondent No. 8. The Corporation has accepted the second recommendation, which cannot be said to be contrary to judicially evolved principle relating to stepping up of pay, about which there is no clear mention in the case of G. Sreenivasa Rao and Nandeshwar Kalita (supra). 13. In view of the above, no mandamus can be issued to the respondent-Corporation to step up the pay of the petitioners at par with their juniors as it is not a case of anomaly as is understood in common parlance. 14. Writ petition is dismissed. 7. 13. In view of the above, no mandamus can be issued to the respondent-Corporation to step up the pay of the petitioners at par with their juniors as it is not a case of anomaly as is understood in common parlance. 14. Writ petition is dismissed. 7. Incidentally, the respondent 9 in the above writ petition is none other than Smt. Kamala Baishya, who along with the instant petitioner was granted the benefit of stepping up of pay on par with the said T.K. Sarmah. In para 6 of the quoted judgment, this Court had recorded a clear finding that "The respondent-Corporation has accepted the alternative recommendation and has withdrawn the benefit of stepping up of pay provided to the Respondent No. 9." It may be noted that the petitioner does not challenge the legality of the decision of the respondent-Corporation withdrawing the benefit of stepping up of pay on par with the said T.K. Sarmah. In any case, there is no reason to take a view different from that of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which, with due respect, reflects the correct legal position. As for the other contention regarding the applicability or otherwise of the Circular dated 6-9-2003, in my considered view, the issue has no relevance now in view of my finding that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit stepping up of pay extended to the said T.K. Sarmah, who stands on a different footing and is a class apart: unequals cannot be treated equally. The result of the foregoing discussion is that this writ petition is bereft of merit and is liable to be dismissed, which I hereby do. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Petition dismissed.