ORDER : Rajendra Menon, J. As the question of law involved in both these appeals and facts are identical in nature, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order, for the sake of convenience, the documents and material available in the record of W.A.No.344/2010 are being referred to in this order. 2. In W.A.No.344/2010, the order in question, impugned is Annexure-A1 which has been passed by the learned Writ Court on 5.2.2010 in W.P.No.14290/2008(s) [P.N.Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of MP & Ors.] and following the said judgment, as W.P.No.4030/2010(s) has also been disposed of on identical terms by the Writ Court on 26.4.2010, Writ Appeal No.580/2010 has been filed by the appellants/Bank. 3. The respondents/employees were working in the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bank Maryadit, Bhopal. All of them retired on attaining the age of superannuation between 1.1.2001 to 31.3.2005. The Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahkari Bank Employees's (Terms of Employment and Working Conditions) Rules, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1976 were amended by the Registrar Co- operative Society on 10th of September, 2007 in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 55(1) of the M.P. State Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. By the aforesaid amendment, a revised pay scale was brought into force and even though the revision of pay scale was ordered on 10.9.2007, the revision was made retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.2001, it was stipulated in the amended provision that the pay of the employees as per the revised pay scale shall be notionally fixed w.e.f. 1.1.2001 but actual arrears of pay as a result of such revised pay fixation shall be payable only w.e.f. 1.4.2005. 4. It is the case of each of the employees that as on 1.1.2001, when the revision of pay scale took place, they were all in employment, their pay was also revised and they have been granted the benefit of pay revision and all other consequential benefits but in the matter of granting them gratuity, the calculation of monitory benefit for payment of gratuity is undertaken not on the basis of revised pay scale notionally fixed but on the basis of the pay actually drawn by them on the date of their retirement i.e. on the basis of the last monthly substantive pay drawn by the employees. It was the case of the petitioners/employees in each of the original writ petition that for the purpose of payment of gratuity also, the revision of pay scale notionally effected from 1.1.2001 should be taken into consideration and the difference and arrears of gratuity should be granted to them. It was said that once the revision of pay scale was effected from 1.1.2001, the employees are entitled to revision of their gratuity, which was paid to them after their retirement. The petitions having been allowed by the Writ Court, the Bank has filed these writ appeals. 5. Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel invites our attention to Annexure-P2 dated 10.9.2007 passed by the Registrar Co-operative Society in the matter of revision of pay scale and submits that under Note No.1 to this order, it is clearly stipulated that the pay of the Bank employees shall be fixed notionally on 1.1.2001 and the actual arrears on such fixation will be paid from 1.4.2005. Further taking us through the provisions contemplated under the Rules for payment of gratuity Annexure-P3 and Note No.1 thereto, Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel argues that the amount of gratuity payable is to be calculated on the basis of the last monthly substantive pay drawn by an employee. It is said that after the revision of pay scale took place on 1.1.2001, even though the notional pay fixation was ordered in case of each of the employees but the actual last monthly substantive pay drawn by them at the time of retirement was something different from the notional pay, therefore, it is argued that the employees would be entitled to difference in the gratuity not on the basis of the said notional pay fixation. It is submitted that the employees would be entitled to payment of gratuity based on the substantive actual pay drawn by them at the time of retirement and as the substantive pay drawn by them at the time of retirement did not include the revised components of pay (as only notional pay was granted), there is no irregularity or illegality in the decision of the Bank and in interfering with the said decision, learned Writ Court has committed an error. 6. In support of his contention, Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel invites our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. and State of A.P. and Another Vs. 6. In support of his contention, Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel invites our attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. and State of A.P. and Another Vs. A.P. Pensioners Association and Others, (2005) 13 SCC 161 , to say that in this case also before the Supreme Court, Revision of Pay Scale was ordered retrospectively and the condition of revision contemplated, similar provisions for pay fixation notionally from a particular date and, thereafter, payment of actual pay from a future date and when the question of payment of gratuity on such pay fixation arose, the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case answered the question in favour of the employer. The contentions advanced by Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel, accordingly, is based on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 7. Accordingly, he submits that the learned Writ Court has committed error in directing for payment of gratuity in accordance with revised pay scale, even though actual benefit of revision of pay scale is not paid to the employees prior to 1.4.2005 i.e. at the time of their retirement. 8. Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents/employees refuted the aforesaid and argued that prior to amendment of the rules for payment of revised pay scale as contained in Annexure-P2 dated 10.9.2007, earlier also, such revision of pay scale was ordered on similar lines on 8.11.1996 vide Annexure-P4 and at that point of time also, similar notes and instructions as are contained under Note No.1 to Annexure-P2 was issued, wherein notional pay fixation was granted from 1.1.1993 and actual benefit was given to the employees from 1.1.1996. At that point of time also with regard to the employees working in the same Bank and in other departments of the Government also, a question arose with regard to the basis for calculation of gratuity in the case of employees, who have retired between 1.1.1993 to 1.1.1996 and at that point of time, the State Government clarified the same by a communication made to all the departments and the Registrar Co-operative Society vide Annexure-P5 on 11.12.1998, based on the decision of the State Government, issued the following instructions : (Emphasis Supplied) 9. It is said that based on the aforesaid on all earlier occasions, the benefit was granted not only to employees of the cooperative department but even to the employees of the State Government and payment of gratuity was ordered in accordance with the aforesaid stipulation. It is said that in the State Government, this system is still prevalent. 10. Shri Manoj Sharma further invites our attention to the averments in this regard made by the respondents in their reply in Paragraph-5 and contends that in the case of persons, who had retired after 1.1.1993 and before 1.1.1996, they were granted arrears of gratuity by recalculating the gratuity on the basis of the revised pay scale. It is further submitted by him that even though, the State Government Employees, in whose cases, similar revision is taken place, gratuity has been calculated and paid on the said basis. 11. Shri Manoj Sharma points out that when the question was considered by the Writ Court, the State Government did not object to the same and did not file any return and when to the Bank, a quarry in this regard was put by the Court, it was only informed on behalf of the Bank, who was Respondent No.3 in the writ petition that because the Registrar had objected, the Bank took action. Accordingly, Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel argues that the Writ Court has not committed any error in the matter. 12. As far as the judgment in the case of A.P. Pensioners' Association (supra) is concerned, Shri Manoj Sharma argues that in the said case, specific office memorandums were issued by the Government and even the statutory rules on the said lines were framed, wherein a clear stipulation was indicated by the Government to say that no difference in retirement gratuity and commutation shall be allowed on gratuity on the pay notionally fixed by virtue of the revision of pay scale. He argues that apart from the fact that the rules and circulars in A.P. Pensioners' Association case (supra) were entirely different, in the present case, as the circular issued by the State Government vide Annexure-P5 dated 11.12.1998 for the previous year, a very specific provision in this regard is provided for and the benefit is granted, the action taken by the Bank now is discriminatory in nature and, therefore, in these circumstances, the judgment in the case of A.P. Pensioners' Association (supra) will not be applicable. 13. Having considered the rival contentions made, as far as the factual assertions are concerned, we see no dispute in the same. The learned Writ Court has granted the benefit to the employees mainly in consequence to the factual aspects of the matter, which are available on record. The statutory rule for payment of gratuity in the present case contemplates a provision, which shows that the amount of gratuity payable shall be calculated on the basis of the last monthly substantive pay drawn by an employee, however the question as to what should be the substantive pay on revision of pay retrospectively is clarified in the circular dated 11.12.1998. In fact in the year 1998 when a dispute arose as to what should the meaning of the aforesaid term i.e. substantive pay has drawn in the matter of calculation of gratuity, when the revision of pay scale taken place retrospectively as was ordered vide Annexure-P4 on 8.11.1996 and when a similar dispute arose, the Registrar Co-operative Society based on instructions from the State Government issued a circular Annexure-P5 dated 11.12.1998 and clarified the matter in the manner as is reproduced herein above. The Registrar in the clarification issued on 11.12.1998 has clearly directed that in accordance with the decision of the State Government, arrears of gratuity has to be paid after re-calculating it on the basis of the revised notional pay fixation in cases of employees, who have retired between 1.1.1993 to 1.1.1996 or died during the aforesaid period after the retirement. It was stipulated that the substantive pay shall be the notional pay as fixed on revision. 14. There is a clear and specific direction in this circular to say that the arrears have to be calculated and paid to these category of employees. It was stipulated that the substantive pay shall be the notional pay as fixed on revision. 14. There is a clear and specific direction in this circular to say that the arrears have to be calculated and paid to these category of employees. When the revision of pay scale took place vide Annexure- P4 on 8.11.1996 and when the clarification circular dated 11.12.1998 was issued at that point of time in the matter of calculation of the gratuity, it is not known as to how and on what ground, now a different formula is being evolved for payment of gratuity. Neither the State Government, nor the Registrar Co-operative Society, who were parties in the writ petition as Respondent Nos.1 & 2 have filed any return in the writ petition and do not clarify the position as indicated herein above i.e. with regard to different formula being adopted for the period 1.1.1993 to 1.1.1996 and now. On the contrary, it was only Respondent No.3 in the original writ petition i.e. the appellants/Bank, which filed the reply and have tried to justify their action by saying that they are doing so in view of the instructions issued by the Registrar. 15. The question, therefore, now which requires consideration is as to whether the assertion made by Shri R.N.Singh, learned Senior Counsel based on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P. Pensioners' Association (supra) should be given effect to or the manner in which the Bank and the State Government have granted benefit on the previous occasion should be followed in the subsequent occasion also i.e. for the pay revision that took place vide Annexure- P2 w.e.f. 10.9.2007. 16. 16. Apart from the fact that the statutory rules in the A.P. Pensioners' Association case (supra) and this case are differently worded and there are different instructions of the Governments in both the cases, a very peculiar fact in the present case is that when similar question arose after revision of pay scale as was ordered vide Annexure-P4 on 8.11.1996, the State Government and the Registrar clarified the position vide Annexure-P5 on 11.12.1998 as is indicated herein above and now when the respondents/employees are claiming the same benefit, the State Government and the Registrar Co- operative Society are unable to justify their action in the matter of deferential treatment to two sets of similarly situated employees, who are retired employees or legal heirs of the deceased retired employees, in whose cases, the payment of gratuity is to be made. It was after taking note of all these factors that the learned Writ Court directed for payment of the benefit. 17. It's a well settled principle of law and the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution mandates that every action of the State should withstand the test of equality, fair play, reasonableness etc. In this case, for one category of employees, who have retired between the period on 1.1.1993 to 1.1.1996 based on the same rules for payment of gratuity i.e. Annexure-P3, calculation of gratuity is done by including the revision of pay scale and now for another set of retired employees working in the same organization and under the same authority for a period from 1.1.2001 to 1.4.2005 based on the same rules of gratuity, a different criteria is being followed inspite of the fact that there is no change in the rule position, no circular or instructions have been issued changing the statutory provision by the Government. 18. That being so, we are of the considered view that the appellants are not at all justified in adopting different formulas for treating persons similarly situated in the matter of payment of gratuity after their retirement. All the retired employees, who have retired between 1.1.1993 to 1.1.1996 or after that period i.e. between 1.1.2001 to 1.4.2005 form a homogeneous class and in the matter of payment of gratuity to them in the absence of there being any amendment or difference in statutory rules, different methods and formulas for payment of gratuity cannot be applied. 19. All the retired employees, who have retired between 1.1.1993 to 1.1.1996 or after that period i.e. between 1.1.2001 to 1.4.2005 form a homogeneous class and in the matter of payment of gratuity to them in the absence of there being any amendment or difference in statutory rules, different methods and formulas for payment of gratuity cannot be applied. 19. That apart, in the case of the A.P. Pensioners' Association (supra), the Supreme Court had decided the matter not only based on the rule position as was existing in the State of Andhra Pradesh but also based on the fact that if two categories of persons are governed by two different sets of rules, then the differentiation may be permissible but the present case, if the revision of pay rules, as is applicable to the present set of employees namely Annexure-P2 dated 10.9.2007 and the earlier pay revision rules Annexure-P7 8.11.1996 are taken note of, it would be seen that the provisions for pay fixation notionally and fixing a particular date for payment of arrears as is contained in Note No.1 to the current rules and the special instructions 1 & 2 to the Rules of 1996 Annexure-P4 are identical in nature and there is no difference in the same. Both the rules are similar and in the matter of implementing the Rules of 1996, the circular Annexure-P5 dated 11.12.1998 is issued. There is no other circular issued for the present and when the same rule is being interpreted by the State Government and the Registrar Co-operative Society in two different ways, in the absence of any justification and reasonableness for the said action, we cannot approve the same. All similarly situated categories of retired employees, governed by the same set of rules and regulations, are to be treated alike and if they are not done so, it amounts to discrimination and is in violation to the rights available to them under Article 14 of the Constitution. 20. All similarly situated categories of retired employees, governed by the same set of rules and regulations, are to be treated alike and if they are not done so, it amounts to discrimination and is in violation to the rights available to them under Article 14 of the Constitution. 20. In the return filed by Respondent No.3, vide Annexure-A3 in the original writ petition, except for contending in Paragraph-6 that in the present case, no such instructions were received from the Registrar Co-operative Society, therefore, the Bank has proceeded in the matter, nothing is brought to our notice as to why the same system and same formula, which was adopted in the year 1996 vide Annexure-P5 dated 11.12.1998 cannot be applied now or is not being applied in the present case after revision of pay. 21. That being so, in the absence of any reasonable justification and cogent explanation coming forth from the Bank in the matter of discriminating treatment between two sets of retired employees, we see no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court warranting interference. 22. The appeal, therefore being devoid of substance, is dismissed.