JUDGMENT : P.K. Saikia, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.12.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2007/2004 allowing the petition. 2. It may be stated that WP(C) No. 2007/2004 was initiated seeking the following reliefs:- "In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case, issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued directing the respondents to pay appropriate corresponding revised pay scales of Rs. 5000-150-8000 instead of pay scales of Rs. 4,500-125-7000 w.e.f 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits including arrear as recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission indicated in Part B of First Schedule of CCS, Revised Pay Rules, 1997". 3. We have heard Mr. M.Chanda, learned A.S.G.I and Mr. S.K.Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The facts, projected by the petitioners in WP(C) No.2007/2004, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that the respondents herein (who would be referred to as petitioners) are diploma holders in Civil Engineering. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Supervisors (Civil) in the pay Scale of Rs. 1400 to 2300/ by the Inland Waterways Authority of India (for short "IWAI') on 16.02.1993 vide appointment order dated 03.02.1993 whereas the petitioner No.2 was appointed as such on 13.05.1996 vide letter dated 16.04.1996. 5. It has been stated that though the petitioners were designated as Supervisors but their functions and status are very similar to the Junior Engineers of CPWD and other Central Govt. Organisations. More importantly, the qualifications, necessary for being appointed as Supervisor in IWAI and the qualification necessary for appointment of Junior Engineer in CPWD and other Central Govt. Organisations are also same. 6. It has been stated that the 5th Pay Commission, in short, ("5th CPC") on consideration of recruitment qualifications of diploma holder Engineers, working in Subordinate Engineering cadres, in the Pay Scales of Rs. 1400-2300/-, had recommended that the pay scale of diploma holder Engineers, working in Subordinate Engineering cadres, be revised to the Pay Scales of Rs. 5000 to 8000/- vide paragraphs Nos. 50.23 and 50.24 of the report. 7. Equally importantly, the Govt. 1400-2300/-, had recommended that the pay scale of diploma holder Engineers, working in Subordinate Engineering cadres, be revised to the Pay Scales of Rs. 5000 to 8000/- vide paragraphs Nos. 50.23 and 50.24 of the report. 7. Equally importantly, the Govt. of India had accepted such recommendations, and according to the petitioners, same would be evident " from the First Schedule, Part II of CCS Revised Pay scale for certain common categories of staff in page No. 29 of Swami's Compilation of Central Civil Services, revised pay rules 1997 which would be further evident from 50.20 of Gazette of India Part II Sec. (1) Serial No. X"(See Para-10 of the petition of the petitioners). 8. The petitioners categorically submitted that in all Central Govt. Organisations including CPWD, the pay scale, attached to the post of Junior Engineer having diploma in Civil Engineering was revised to the pay scale of Rs. 5000 to 8000/- in place of Pre-revised Pay scale of Rs. 1400 to 2300/- following acceptance at the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission. 9. Vide letter dated 20.10.97 the Section Officer of IWAI, Ministry of surface (now Ministry of Shipping) Govt. of India, informed all Directors, Deputy Directors of IWAI, by that pay scales, recommended by 5th CPC, has been accepted by the Govt. of India through CCS (revised pay Rules 1997) and same had been adopted for its employees by the authority in 5th meeting held on 09.10.97. By the said letter, concerned officers were further directed that fixation of pay of the employees may be done accordingly. 10. It may be stated that the Deputy Director vide its letter dated 13.11.97 requested the Chief Accounts Officer, IWAI, Noida that the proposal for pay fixation of the staff may be sent at an early date. Accordingly, such a proposal for fixation of pay in respect of the staff of Guwahati Office, IWAI as on 01.09.96, following acceptance of 5th CPC, was sent. 11. However, under such proposal, the relevant corresponding revised pay scale of the petitioners were wrongly shown as Rs. 4500 to 7000/- although in terms of the recommendation of the 5th CPC, the petitioners were entitled to get salary in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000 to 8000/- against the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1400 to 2300/- as is evident from Sl. 4500 to 7000/- although in terms of the recommendation of the 5th CPC, the petitioners were entitled to get salary in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000 to 8000/- against the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1400 to 2300/- as is evident from Sl. IX (subordinate Engineering cadres) of the Part B of First Schedule, more particularly, Sl.IX (a) (50.23). 12. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had preferred several representations before the concerned authority but the authority aforesaid refused to pay heed to their representations for which they had approached this Court by way of WP(C) No.2007/2004 seeking reliefs aforementioned. 13. The State respondents entered appearance and having filed the counter affidavit resisted the claims of the petitioners. It is the case of the official respondents that the conditions of service of the officers and staff of IWAI are governed by 1997 Recruitment Rules. Their further case was that respondent authorities have formulated the IWAI Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion, Regulations, 1992 and same was done in conformity to GFR 49 (4) (iv) which makes IWAI Recruitment Rules comparable to the Recruitment Rules of Central Government and under such Rules, the pre-revised scales of Supervisors were fixed at Rs. 1400 to 2300/-. 14. According to the respondents in WP(C) No. 2007/2004, the Recruitment Rules of the IWAI provides a pay scale of Rs. 1400/- to 2300/- to the Supervisor as per the recommendation of 4th Pay Commission which occupied the field when R.R. of the IWAI came into force. While accepting the recommendation of 5th pay commission, the IWAI had adopted the pay scale of Rs. 4500 to 7000/- (revised ) for Supervisors which are as per Part -A of the First Schedule of Central Civil Services(Revised Pay Rules), 1997. 15. It has further been stated that the pay scales in Part B of First Schedule, more particularly, in Sl.No. IX (a) (50.23) under the caption "subordinate Engineering Services" cannot be granted to the petitioners since for application of scales in Part B of First Schedule, some more conditions had to be fulfilled by officer praying for scale in Part B of the First Schedule which are, however, not fulfilled by the petitioners herein. The relevant part of the counter affidavit is reproduced below:- "In order to adopt the pay scales, which are mentioned in Pay 'B' of the first schedule, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled. The relevant part of the counter affidavit is reproduced below:- "In order to adopt the pay scales, which are mentioned in Pay 'B' of the first schedule, the following conditions are required to be fulfilled. Note in the part 'B' of the first schedule is reproduced below :- The revised scales of Pay mentioned in Column 4 of this part of the notification for the posts mentioned in Column 2 have been approved by the Govt. However, it may be noted that in certain cases of the scales of pay mentioned in Column 4, the recommendation of the Pay Commission are subject to fulfilment of specific conditions. These conditions relater inter alia to changes in recruitment rules, restructuring of cadres, redistribution of posts into higher grade etc. Therefore, in those cases where conditions such as changes in recruitment rules etc. which are brought out by the Pay Commission as the rationale for the grant of these upgraded scale, it will be necessary for the Ministries to decide upon such issues and again to the changes suggested by the Pay Commission before applying these scales to these posts with effect from 1.1.1996. In certain other cases where those are conditions are prescribed by the Pay Commission as prerequisite for grant of these scale to certain posts such as cadre restructuring, redistribution of posts etc. It will be necessary for the Ministries/Department concerned to not only accept these preconditions but also to implement them before the scales are applied to those posts. It would, therefore, be seen that it is implied in the recommendations of the Pay Commission that such scales necessarily have to take prospective effect and the concerned posts will be governed by the normal replacement scales until then. Your deponent begs to submit that IWAI has not fulfilled the prerequisite condition for adoption of pay scale as mentioned in Part-B, of first schedule which is only recommended for certain specific categories of central Govt. Employees/organisations. Inland Waterways Authority of India in its 52nd Board Meeting has adopted the 5th Pay Commission pay scale. However, the pay scale adopted are that to Part 'A' of the first schedule. Employees/organisations. Inland Waterways Authority of India in its 52nd Board Meeting has adopted the 5th Pay Commission pay scale. However, the pay scale adopted are that to Part 'A' of the first schedule. The pay scale mentioned in Part 'B' were not adopted for the Inland Waterways Authority of India employees since as already mentioned in the aforesaid column the prerequisite for adoption to the pay scale mentioned in Part 'B' has not been fulfilled by the Authority. Therefore, instead of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 as demanded by the petitioners, the Inland Waterways Authority of India has rightly adopted the pay scale of Rs. 4500-125 for the Supervisors of the Authority. Your deponent begs to submit that earlier some requests were forwarded to the Ministry of Shipping, Govt. of India which is administrative Ministry of IWAI for revision of the pay scale of the certain categories of the staff working in IWAI, at par with employees working in other Central Govt. organisations and also that upgraded pay scales approved by the Govt. in Part 'B' are specific to the posts in particular Govt. organisations and cannot be extended to similarly designated posts elsewhere. In view of the above directions received from the Govt. in respect of certain categories of the posts, it is established that supervisors of Inland Waterways Authority of India can not be given the pay scale which is mentioned in the part 'B' of first schedule of CCS (Revised Pay) Rules 1997 in the 5th Pay Commission Report since these pay scales are not only for certain specific categories of staff and not for all Govt. organisations. Hence, the Authority has rightly adopted the pay scale of Rs. 4500/125/7000 (pre-revised Rs. 1400-2300) instead of pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 for supervisors." 16. The petitioners having filed reply affidavit and additional affidavit in reply reiterated what they have already stated in their petition. For ready reference, the relevant parts of the affidavit in reply and additional affidavit in reply are reproduced below:- "3.4.7. Fifth CPC had recommended that all posts carrying minimum qualifications of diploma in engineering, should be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. While this recommendation was accepted, its implementation has not been uniform because the recommendation was interpreted differently in different departments and organisations" 7.39.22. Fifth CPC had recommended that all posts carrying minimum qualifications of diploma in engineering, should be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. While this recommendation was accepted, its implementation has not been uniform because the recommendation was interpreted differently in different departments and organisations" 7.39.22. Higher pay scale has been demanded for the post of Overseer (Civil) in Border Roads Organization on the ground that the minimum qualification for the post is Diploma in Engineering. The post carries minimum direct recruitment qualifications of Diploma in Engineering. These minimum qualifications had been prescribed in 1996. Fifth CPC, in their Report submitted in 1997, had recommended the scale of Rs. 5000 - 8000/- for all posts carrying minimum direct recruitment qualifications of Diploma in Engineering. This recommendation was accepted. The post should consequently have been extended the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. This was, however, not done." 50.23 our recommendations - we have carefully considered the demands of the Federation and the views of the Administrative Ministries/Departments in the light of our general approach on the pay scales of different professional/technical and non-technical categories. We have, as a general rule, decided to improve the initial recruitment pay scale of diploma engineers in Government. We accordingly, recommend the following pay structure for engineering subordinate cadres. Pay Scale Existing Proposed (in present terms) 1400-2300 1600-2660 1600-2660 1640-2900 1640-2900 1640-2900 2000-3200 2000-3500 2000-3500 2000-3500 2375-3500 2375-3750 2375-3750 2500-4000 50.24 These pay scales will apply mutatis mutandis for diploma engineers in different cadres depending upon the availability of specific existing pay scales. We have also recommended specific pay structure for different engineering cadres." 17. The learned counsel for the parties advanced their arguments in the light of their respective case in their pleadings. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the same. 18. Being aggrieved, the respondents in W.P (C) No. 2007/2004 as appellants herein have approached this Court alleging that the judgment under challenge is unsustainable. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have found that they have repeated the arguments which they have already rendered before the learned Single Judge. 20. 18. Being aggrieved, the respondents in W.P (C) No. 2007/2004 as appellants herein have approached this Court alleging that the judgment under challenge is unsustainable. 19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have found that they have repeated the arguments which they have already rendered before the learned Single Judge. 20. A careful perusal of the pleadings of the parties reveals that the categorical stand of the petitioners is that since the functions, responsibilities and duties as well as recruitment qualifications for the Supervisors in IWAI are very similar with the functions, responsibilities and duties as well as recruitment qualification of the Junior Engineers in CPWD and other Central Govt. Organisations and since the pay scale of Junior Engineer in CPWD and in other Central Govt. Organisations were revised to Rs. 5,000/- to 8000/- as specified for the common category posts in Part-B of 1st Schedule, the pre-revised pay scale of the petitioners is to be revised to the pay scale of Rs. 5000/- to 8000/- . 21. The petitioners further contend that though the respondents have claimed that the respondent authorities had accepted recommendations, made by 5th Pay Commission only in respect of recommendations in Part-A of the report, yet such stand is not based on fact inasmuch as, as per agenda item no. 52.05, the entire CPC recommendations, and not a part thereof, was accepted which firmly demonstrates that the petitioners, like their counterparts in CPWD and other Central Govt. Organisations, are also entitled to salary in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000/- to 8000/-. 22. The petitioners have pointed out that in the proceeding in question, it was their stand that for common categories of posts in all Govt. offices, more particularly, in cases of Subordinate Engineering cadres, uniform corresponding pay scale for Diploma Engineers have been suggested by the 5th Pay Commission which is Rs. 5,000-8,000/- corresponding to pay scale of Rs. 1400-to 2,300/-. According to the petitioners, such claim of the petitioners has been admitted by the respondent in paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit. 23. On the perusal of the judgment under challenge, it is found that learned Single Judge had addressed all those contentions from the side of petitioners having regard to the pleaded case of the respondents in their counter affidavit. For ready reference, the relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced below:- 24. 23. On the perusal of the judgment under challenge, it is found that learned Single Judge had addressed all those contentions from the side of petitioners having regard to the pleaded case of the respondents in their counter affidavit. For ready reference, the relevant parts of the judgment are reproduced below:- 24. Before we proceed further, we find it necessary to have a look at the judgment under challenge. For ready reference the judgment under challenge is reproduced below:- "16. So far as pre-requisite/precondition highlighted in Part -B is concerned, it is the definite stand of the petitioners that in their case there is no such pre-requisite/pre-condition. It is in this context, the petitioners have referred to the aforesaid paragraphs 50.23 and 50.24. under part-B, the Subordinate Engineering Cadres with which the petitioners grade is claimed to be comparable, have been categorized as Diploma Engineers which the petitioners are, with the prescription of scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. In the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. Under column-5, there is specific reference to the aforesaid paragraphs 50.23 and 50.24. Although Mr. s. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent authority submits that the petitioners cannot be said to be in the Subordinate Engineering Cadres, but it is the specific averment of the petitioners in paragraph-10 of the writ petition that the 5th CPC in consideration of the recruitment qualification of the Diploma Engineers working in Subordinate Engineering Cadres in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/- recommended corresponding pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. The reply to this paragraph in the counter affidavit is -" that with regard to the statements made in paragraph -10 of the writ petition, the answering deponent begs to offer no comment as the same are matter of record". 17. The particular pay scale prescribed under the head Subordinate Engineering Cadres is meant for Diploma Engineers. The case of the petitioners is that they being Diploma Holders in Civil Engineering are at par with the Subordinate Engineering Cadres. Thus, from whatever angle the matter is looked into, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioners are at per with the Subordinate Engineering Cadres. It is on that basis they have claimed the revised scale of Rs. 5000 -8000/-. 18. Thus, from whatever angle the matter is looked into, there is no denial of the fact that the petitioners are at per with the Subordinate Engineering Cadres. It is on that basis they have claimed the revised scale of Rs. 5000 -8000/-. 18. On a total reading of the counter affidavit filed by the respondents what is transpired is that they have ignored regarding the recommendation made by the 5th CPC as reflected in Part B of the Schedule to CCS (RP) Rules, 1997. In paragraph - 8 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have referred to the recruitment rules and their simple stand is that since the corresponding revised pay scale is Rs. 4500-7000/- in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-, the petitioners have been extended with the said revised pay scale. In the same paragraph, the respondents have further stated that the scales of pay referred to in Part -A is for all Central Govt. employees in general and Part B is for certain common cadres of staff. Thus, the stand of the petitioners to that effect in paragraph - 13 of the writ petition is admitted. In the said paragraph, the categorical stand is that for the common categories of posts in all Govt. offices, more particularly in the cases of Subordinate Engineering Cadres, uniform corresponding pay scale for Diploma Engineers have been suggested by the 5th CPC which is Rs. 5000-8000/- in pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. It is the specific case of the petitioners that since their cadre is under common category of posts, they are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1400-2300/-. 19. In the same paragraph, the respondents have stated that the pay scale prescribed in Part- A only was accepted and not the pay scale prescribed in Part B. As per the said affidavit, the pay scales mentioned in Part -B were not adopted by the respondent authority. This stand in the affidavit cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per the aforesaid Agenda Item 52.05, the entire CPC recommendation was accepted by the respondent authority and not in part. If any further corroboration is required, we may refer to Annexure -6 dated 20.10.97 which was addressed to the authority of Inland Waterways Authority of India. This stand in the affidavit cannot be accepted for the simple reason that as per the aforesaid Agenda Item 52.05, the entire CPC recommendation was accepted by the respondent authority and not in part. If any further corroboration is required, we may refer to Annexure -6 dated 20.10.97 which was addressed to the authority of Inland Waterways Authority of India. For a ready reference, the letter is quoted below :- "No. S-IWAI/Estt.24/97 dated 20.10.97 To, 1) The Director, IWAI, Patna 2) The Director, IWAI, Cochin 3) The Dy. Director, IWAI, Guwahati 4) The Dy. Director, IWAI, Bhagalpur 5) The Dy. Director, IWAI, Calcutta Sub :- Fixation of pay as per 5th Pay Commission -reg. Sir, The pay scales recommended by 5th Pay Commission as accepted by the Government through CCS (Revised Pay), Rules, 1997 have been adopted for its employees by the Authority in its 52th meeting held on 09.10.97. It is requested that the fixation of pay of the employees working under your control may be done at your end. Prior to making payment as per revised scales and the arrears of pay the details of fixation of pay in respect of all the employees may be forwarded to the Head Office for approval of the competent Authority. Yours faithfully (M.K. Sinha) Section Officer (Estt.) 20. Apart from above, Annexure- 13 letter dated 24.06.2003 by which the claim of the petitioners was rejected is cryptic one and non-speaking. In the said letter, the only statement made is that the pay scale of the Supervisor had been fixed at Rs. 4500 - 7000/- as per the recruitment Rules of IWAI based on 5th CPC. However, there is no reference as to how the case of the petitioners was dealt with which according to the petitioners should have been dealt with under Part-B of the First Schedule to the CCS(RP) Rules, 1997. 21. Mr. M. Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (2008) 9 SCC 169 (Kunnashada Muthukoya v. Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Another). In paragraph - 15 of the judgment, the Apex Court has referred the petition that emerged from the combined reading of the provisions of the revised pay rules. Paragraph 15 is quoted below : "15. In paragraph - 15 of the judgment, the Apex Court has referred the petition that emerged from the combined reading of the provisions of the revised pay rules. Paragraph 15 is quoted below : "15. The position that emerged from a combined reading of the provisions of the Revised Pay Rules in the context of the question raised by the appellant was as follows : (i) As from 01.01.1986, the scale of pay of every post specified in column (2) of the First Schedule was as specified against it in Column (4) of the First Schedule. (ii) Part-A of the First Schedule did not individually name the several posts for which the revised pay scales were prescribed. It grouped the posts, with reference to the existing (pre-revision) pay scale. Therefore, in regard to posts covered by Part-A (that is posts excluding those specified in Part- B) the entitlement of a Government servant to the revised scale of pay was with reference to the existing scale of pay (that is pre-revised) scale applicable to him as on 01.01.1986 when the revised scales of pay came into effect). All posts carrying a particular pay scale before the revision were given the corresponding revised pay scale shown in the First Schedule. The pay revision was thus with reference to the existing pay scale drawn by the Government servant an not with reference to the "posts" held by him. (iii) Part- B of the First Schedule, on the other hand, specifically described certain posts, as for example, Junior Engineer, Technical Supervisor, etc. while prescribing the revised pay scales. In regard to posts described in Part- B, both the "posts" and the existing scale of pay became relevant for finding out the corresponding revised scale of pay. (iv) The Revised Pay Rules did not change the classification of posts. The fact that the First Schedule classified the pay scales for convenience under the headings "Group D" and "Groups C and B" did not mean that a Government servant working in Group C but whose existing scale of pay was shown under the heading "Group D", could ignore his existing scale and claim the benefit of a revised scale corresponding to some other higher pre-revised scale of pay. (v)The object and intent of Rule 5 was to bring all Government servants covered by the Revised Pay Rules to the revised scales except those who elected to continue to draw pay in the existing scales." (Emphasis supplied) 22. From the above, what has transpired is that the respondent authority has not considered the case of the petitioners in its true prospective which is abundantly clear from their stand in the counter affidavit discussed above. They have even gone to the extent of stating that Part-B of the First Schedule has not been accepted, which on the face of it is not sustainable. It is in this context, the petitioners have contended that it is a case of wrong interpretation of the provision of revised pay rules which has given rise to the present anomalous situation." 25. We have considered the judgment under challenge in the light of submissions, advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on making such an exercise, we have found that the decisions, arrived at by the learned Single Judge while allowing the aforesaid proceeding are found to be proper and justified and as such, the judgment under challenge invites no interference. 26. It is worth noting that referring to the office memorandum dated 2nd December, 1997, issued by Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Govt. of India had clarified that the revised scales of pay as incorporated in Part-A of Schedule 1 to the Rules ibid alone can be accepted. 27. However, our foregoing discussions, now, reveal that such a memorandum in view of stands taken by the parties before this Court through their pleadings cannot make any dent to the claim of petitioners in WP(C) No.2007/2004. 28. Resultantly, the present appeal, being found devoid of merit, is dismissed.