Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1598 (BOM)

Sarjerao Rangnath Chauhan v. State of Maharashtra

2015-07-16

B.R.GAVAI, INDIRA K.JAIN

body2015
JUDGMENT : Indira K. Jain, J. By this petition, petitioners seek issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ (i) quashing and setting aside government resolution dated 17.5.2003 (ii) directing respondent no.1 to implement and continue the effect of government resolution dated 3rd August, 2001 and (iii) granting revise pay scale as per the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission. 2. It is pertinent to give a vivid background of the case before we advert to decide the issue at hand – Petitioners are working as drivers on the establishment of respondent nos. 2 to 4 Zilla Parishads. The post of driver falls under Class-III category and it is an isolated post as opportunity of promotion is not available in case of the employees working as drivers. The State of Maharashtra has come up from time to time with different schemes and programmes in respect of the working conditions and pay scales of its employees. Vide Government Resolution dated 8.6.1995 State government implemented a time bound promotion scheme for Class-III and Class-IV employees to whom the opportunities of promotion were not available. As per the scheme under the said Government Resolution an employee mentioned therein shall after 12 years of continuous service be eligible to get the higher pay scale. By the said resolution employees working as drivers were granted pay scale of Rs.950-1500 and after completion of 12 years of continuous service, they were entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. The scheme was given retrospective effect from 1st October, 1994. Thereafter, respondent no.1 after considering the recommendations of 5th pay commission passed a resolution on 11.1.1999 and revised the pay scales of Class-III and Class-IV employees of Zilla Parishads. By virtue of the said resolution, pay scale of Rs.950-1500 was revised and increased to Rs.3050 – 4590 and higher pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 was revised and increased to Rs.4000 – 6000. The Government Resolution dated 11.1.1999 was implemented with effect from 1.1.1996. As some of the employees were not satisfied with the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission and the Government Resolution dated 11.1.1999, grievances were put forth and representations were made to the State Government and Pay Committees set up by the State Government. On 20.7.2001 Government of Maharashtra discontinued the time bound promotion scheme and implemented Assured Career Progression Scheme. As some of the employees were not satisfied with the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission and the Government Resolution dated 11.1.1999, grievances were put forth and representations were made to the State Government and Pay Committees set up by the State Government. On 20.7.2001 Government of Maharashtra discontinued the time bound promotion scheme and implemented Assured Career Progression Scheme. This scheme was made available to the government employees drawing pay scales upto Rs.8000 13500. By the resolution dated 20.7.2001 higher pay scale granted to employees working as drivers was reduced to Rs.3200 – 4900 in place of Rs.4000 – 6000 granted by the Government Resolution dated 11.1.1999. Petitioners and other employees working as drivers were adversely affected by the resolution dated 20.7.2001. It is the contention of petitioners that on 3rd August 2001 government brought another resolution by virtue of which pay scales of the employees were revised and higher pay scale of driver was increased to Rs.4500-7000. On 17.5.2003 another resolution was issued by the State government. By this resolution drivers who were eligible for time bound promotion before 31st July, 2001 and drawing salaries in the pay scale of Rs.3050 – 4590 as per Government Resolution dated 11.1.1999 were granted pay scale of Rs.4000 – 6000. It was further resolved that drivers qualified for assured career progression scheme from 1.8.2001 shall be granted pay scale of Rs.3200 – 4900 as per resolution dated 20.7.2001. It is alleged that after the resolution dated 17.05.2003 was issued, attempts to recover the benefit enjoyed by the drivers prior to passing of the resolution were made. As the said resolution prescribed different pay scales for the employees working as drivers, petitioners and registered union of drivers brought the anomaly to the notice of respondent no.1 but no positive steps were taken to remove the anomaly. Being aggrieved petitioners have challenged the Government Resolution dated 17.5.2003 in the present petition. 3. Another contention raised on behalf of petitioners is that despite recommendations of 6th Pay Commission drivers have not been granted revised pay scale of Rs.4500 – 7000. It is submitted that State Government passed a resolution dated 5th July, 2010 which ought not to have been passed before resolving the grievance of drivers and providing them pay scales to which they are entitled. It is submitted that State Government passed a resolution dated 5th July, 2010 which ought not to have been passed before resolving the grievance of drivers and providing them pay scales to which they are entitled. In view of issuance of Government Resolution dated 5.7.2010 it is contended that drivers have been deprived from enjoying the benefits of upgraded pay scales/pay grades as recommended by the 6th Pay Commission and accepted by the State Government. Petitioners also seek a direction to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 5.7.2010 being unreasonable and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. We have extensively heard Shri Sunil Manohar, learned Senior Counsel for petitioners and Smt. Bharti Dangre, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.1. 5. The learned senior counsel for petitioners vehemently submitted that time bound promotion scheme introduced vide government resolution dated 8.6.1995 was discontinued vide government resolution dated 20.7.2001 and in place of time bound promotion scheme, assured career progression scheme was brought into force. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that by the government resolution dated 20.7.2001 higher pay scale of Rs.4000 –6000 granted as per government resolution dated 11.1.1999 was reduced and brought to lower scale of Rs.3200 – 4900. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that immediately thereafter within a span of 12 days another government resolution dated 3.8.2001 was passed and by virtue of the said resolution higher pay scales of the employees were revised. The learned senior counsel submits that resolution dated 3.8.2001 increased the pay scales of drivers to Rs.4000 – 6000. The learned Senior Counsel strenuously submitted that employees working as drivers had no grievance after the resolution dated 3.8.2001 was passed by the government till government brought resolution on 17.5.2003 creating anomaly in the higher pay scales of drivers. The learned Senior counsel referred to clauses 2.2 and 2.6 of the government resolution dated 17.5.2003 and pointed out that these clauses are in utter violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Senior counsel submitted that clauses 2.2 and 2.6 of the said government resolution are contrary to clause 2.5 of the same government resolution and also the government resolution dated 3.8.2001. 6. The learned Senior counsel submitted that clauses 2.2 and 2.6 of the said government resolution are contrary to clause 2.5 of the same government resolution and also the government resolution dated 3.8.2001. 6. Per contra, the learned Government pleader Smt. Bharti Dangre submitted that time bound promotion scheme was introduced by the government with effect from 1.10.1994 to remove the stagnation in the promotion and to grant financial benefits to the employees of Group C and D of the State government. She submitted that as per the recommendations of 5th Pay Commission assured career progression scheme substituted the time bound promotion scheme with effect from 1.8.2001. The benefit of this scheme was extended to all the government employees having pay scales upto Rs.8000 – 13,500/irrespective of the class of employees. The learned government pleader further submitted that the State Government has taken a policy decision to sanction immediate next higher pay scale to the isolated posts on the basis of guidelines of assured career progression scheme of central Government issued vide office memorandum dated 9.8.1999. She submitted that accordingly for the isolated posts in the pay scales of Rs.3050 – 4590 immediate next higher pay scale of Rs.3200 – 4900 was fixed and made admissible vide government resolution dated 20.7.2001. The learned Government Pleader pointed out that pay scales granted vide government resolution dated 3.8.2001 were the revised pay scales as per 5th Pay Commission and the employees who were working on the post of driver i.e. isolated post were entitled to higher pay scale of Rs.4000 – 6000 under the time bound promotion scheme and not under the assured career progression scheme. 7. In respect to the government resolution dated 17.5.2003 it is the contention of respondent no.1 that Clause 2.2 and 2.6 in the resolution cannot be said to be contrary to government resolution dated 3.8.2001 as those clauses have simply clarified the pay scales of the employees who were covered by time bound promotion scheme and assured career progression scheme. 8. Regarding the benefits and fixation of pay scales to the employees working as drivers as per the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission, the learned Government Pleader submitted that as per the pay structure recommended by the 6th Pay Commission and accepted by the State Government, pay scales have been revised and the grievance made by the petitioners no more survives. 9. 9. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length it is necessary now to look into the authorities referred by the learned Senior counsel for petitioners. In support of the submissions learned Senior counsel placed vehement reliance on - (i) Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others [(1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 618] and (ii) Chandrakant Jagannath Varadkar and others. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay [2005 (4) Mh. L.J. 1085 (Bombay)] 10. In the case of Randhir Singh (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the case of driver constable working with Delhi Police Force in comparison with that of the drivers in Railway Protection Force and drivers in nonsecretariat offices under Delhi Administration. The pay scale as fixed by the 3rd Pay Commission was under challenge before the court. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus - “We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same.” 11. The Division Bench of this Court at the Principal seat also had an occasion to consider principle of equal pay for equal work in the case of Chandrakant Varadkar (supra). In the said case petitioners were the employees of Municipal Corporation and appointed as firemen fitters. The grievance of petitioners was that persons who were junior to them and who were appointed subsequently were being given higher pay scale. Short question for consideration before the court was whether Municipal Corporation was entitled to fix different pay scales in respect of employees falling in the same cadre and who were promoted at different point of time. The grievance of petitioners was that persons who were junior to them and who were appointed subsequently were being given higher pay scale. Short question for consideration before the court was whether Municipal Corporation was entitled to fix different pay scales in respect of employees falling in the same cadre and who were promoted at different point of time. The Division Bench held that - “It is a settled position in law that if employees from the same department are carrying out same duties and functions, they are entitled to same pay and same pay scales on the principle of equal pay for equal work. It is not disputed by the Corporation that the nature of duties and responsibilities and the type of work which is being carried out by the petitioners is not in any way different than that of the persons who are given higher pay scales. It is also not disputed that the petitioners and the said employees do not fall in any other dissimilar category. The only justification which has been given by the Corporation is that the petitioners were appointed in the said post prior to 1.4.1971 and the persons who are given higher pay scale were appointed after the said date and pay scale was amended after 1.4.1971 as such subsequent promotees were entitled to get higher pay scale. In our view this distinction which is sought to be made on the basis of date of appointment, promotion of the petitioners and other employees cannot be accepted as it is clearly violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. It is not open for the Corporation to fix a cut off date in an arbitrary manner without assigning any justification or without stating the object which such cut off date seeks to achieve. In the present case the petitioners as well as the juniors who are getting higher pay scale, admittedly belong to the same category of employees. Under such circumstances, there is no justification in carving out on the arbitrary cut off date, particularly when the nature of functions and duties is admittedly same. In view of this, therefore, the impugned order of the respondent is quashed and set aside.” 12. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it would be useful to mention here the conditions necessary for application of the principle of equal pay for equal work. In view of this, therefore, the impugned order of the respondent is quashed and set aside.” 12. Before adverting to the facts of the present case it would be useful to mention here the conditions necessary for application of the principle of equal pay for equal work. If the two classes of persons do same work under the same employer with similar responsibility under similar working conditions, the doctrine of equal work equal pay would apply and it would not be open to the State to discriminate one class with the other in paying salary. Thus the conditions which emerge from the above are - (i) same work, (ii) same employer, (iii) similar responsibility, (iv) similar working conditions, and (v) employer is 'State' within the meaning of Article 12. 13. The proposition of equal pay for equal work appears to be simple. However, there are certain practical difficulties to its applicability as in the instant case. It is no where in dispute that time bound promotion scheme was introduced by the State Government vide Government Resolution dated 8.6.1995. The effect of the scheme was given from 1.10.1994. As per time bound promotion scheme higher pay scale of the employees working as drivers was 1200-30-1560., 40-2040. 14. The scheme of time bound promotion was then discontinued and scheme known as assured career progression scheme was brought into force vide government resolution dated 20.7.2001. The effect of this scheme was given from 1.8.2001. As per assured career progression scheme higher pay scale granted was 3200– 85 – 4900. 15. Thereafter just within 12 days of introducing assured career progression scheme another government resolution dated 3.8.2001 was introduced. Vide this resolution higher pay scale was raised to 4000 – 100 – 6000 from 1.1.1996. It appears that after issuance of government resolution dated 3.8.2001, the grievances of drivers were redressed as anomaly created vide government resolution dated 20.7.2001 was removed by the subsequent resolution dated 3.8.2001. 16. The crux of the dispute between the parties lies in the resolution issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 17.5.2003. It appears that representations from drivers union and some of the employees were made for clarification whether revised pay scale as per government resolution dated 3.8.2001 Schedule-II would be applicable to the employees to whom benefit of time bound promotion scheme was given prior to 1.1.1996. It appears that representations from drivers union and some of the employees were made for clarification whether revised pay scale as per government resolution dated 3.8.2001 Schedule-II would be applicable to the employees to whom benefit of time bound promotion scheme was given prior to 1.1.1996. In view of the said representations government issued resolution dated 17.5.2003 and clarified in the following terms. This government resolution is in Marathi and the relevant clauses are as under : 17. It is thus apparent from Clause 2.2 above that employees who received benefit of time bound promotion scheme during the period 1.10.1994 to 31.12.1995 were to get the revised higher pay scale as per Schedule-I of government resolution dated 3.8.2001 and not entitled to pay scale as per Schedule-II. From the perusal of Schedule I and Schedule-II of government resolution dated 3.8.2001 it can be seen that as per Schedule-I employees who received benefit of time bound promotion scheme from 1.10.1994 to 31.12.1995 were to get the higher pay scale Rs.3200 – 85 – 4900 whereas as per Schedule-II revised higher pay scale prescribed was Rs.4000 – 100 –6000. 18. If Clause 2.5(A) is looked into, it is clear that for the drivers revised higher pay scale fixed from 1.1.1996 was 4000 – 6000 as per Schedule-I and not 4500 – 7000 as per Schedule-II. 19. Clause 2.6 and the illustration therein has in fact created anomaly and unrest amongst the employees working as drivers. As per Clause 2.6 employees to whom assured career progression scheme was made applicable from 1.8.2001 were governed by the government resolution dated 20.7.2001 granting higher pay scale of Rs. 3200 – 85 - 4900. 20. Further illustration below clause 2.6 makes classification in two categories - (i) Those who were qualified for time bound promotion on 31.7.2001 would get pay scale of Rs.4000 – 6000 from 1.1.1996. (ii) Those who were eligible for assured career progression scheme on 1.8.2001 would get higher pay scale of Rs.3200 – 4900 as per government resolution dated 20.7.2001 21. In view of the above clauses 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 and illustration therein, question before us is whether clause 2.2 and 2.6 with illustration are in consonance with clause 2.5 of the same government resolution and the government resolution dated 3rd August 2001. 22. In view of the above clauses 2.2, 2.5, 2.6 and illustration therein, question before us is whether clause 2.2 and 2.6 with illustration are in consonance with clause 2.5 of the same government resolution and the government resolution dated 3rd August 2001. 22. It would not be out of place to mention here that, principle of equality does not absolutely prevent the State from making the differentiations between persons and things. The State has the power of what is known as “classification” on the basis of rational distinctions relevant to the particular subject dealt with. The whole object of classification is to minimize inequality. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work though finds place in Article 39 of the Constitution of India is an accompaniment of equality clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Right to equality not only means right not to be discriminated against but also protection against any arbitrary or irrational act of the State. Equality before law under Article 14 declares that every one is equal before law, that no one can claim special privileges and that all classes are equally subjected to ordinary law of the land. Equal protection of law postulates an equal protection of all alike in the same situation and under like circumstances. No discrimination can be made either in the privileges conferred or in the liabilities imposed. Means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that the likes should be treated alike. 23. In the present case keeping in view the principle of equal pay for equal work in Article 39 and equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution State action in issuance of government resolution dated 17.5.2003 is to be examined. 24. Needless to state that in order to pass the test of permissible/reasonable classification two conditions must be fulfilled - (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned government resolution. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object to the of the Resolution. 25. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object to the of the Resolution. 25. From the cursory perusal of clause 2.2, 2.5 and 2.6 with illustration in government resolution dated 17.5.2003 it is apparent that the State has not treated its employees working as drivers in the same way when there was sufficient reason not to treat them differently. The different higher pay scales granted to the employees who were qualified as per time bound promotion scheme and eligible vide assured career progression scheme as per clauses 2.2, 2.6 and illustration therein are clearly contrary to clause 2.5 of the very same government resolution and the previous government resolution dated 3.8.2001. 26. The government resolution dated 3.8.2001 is suggestive of the fact that all the employees working as drivers irrespective of they being qualified either under time bound promotion scheme or assured career progression scheme were brought on par for grant of higher pay scale and there was no reason to take away the equal treatment given to them, by the subsequent government resolution dated 17.5.2003. The discrimination in our view is conscious and involves an element of unreasonableness and in that sense clauses 2.2 and 2.6 with illustration therein are arbitrary and capricious. Petitioners have succeeded in demonstrating from the government resolution dated 3.8.2001 and clause 2.5 of the government resolution dated 17.5.2003 that the principle of identical equation exists but differential treatment has been meted out to the employees working as drivers resulting to discrimination being hit by equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution. 27. It is surprising that despite order dated 23.1.2014 passed by this court State Government has taken a very casual stand and did not bother to honour the order. The said order is self speaking. For ready reference relevant paras 1 to 6 of the order dated 23.1.2014 are reproduced here as under: From the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State by the Joint Director of Accounts and Treasuries, it could be seen that there was a noting by the Hon’ble Minister for Finance and Planning wherein it has stated that Hon’ble Chief Minister has principally agreed by discussing with the representatives of the employee Union to grant second benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme to the concerned employees after rendering of 24 years of service. It could also be seen from the affidavit in reply that it was further noted that as there was anomaly arisen due to difference in their pay as per time bound promotion and assured career progression scheme, the same needs approval of the Cabinet. It could be further seen that the said proposals were approved by the then Hon’ble Chief Minister. 2. It could further be seen that though the then Hon’ble Chief Minister had principally agreed in the year 2008 as stated hereinabove to place the proposal before the Cabinet for its approval, however, on perusal of the subsequent noting by the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) it was noted that the grievances of pay of driver would be taken up after Government takes decision regarding applicability of 6th Pay Commission recommendation. The said noting was approved by then Hon’ble Chief Minister on 3.11.2008. It could further be seen that thereafter the concerned file was closed on 16.11.2008. 3. Perusal of the affidavit in reply would create a doubt as to whether the Government is run by the representatives of the people, who first are elected as legislators and then become a part of the Cabinet or bureaucrats who undoubtedly are the employees of the State. 4. When the proposal made by the Hon’ble Minister for Finance has been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister finding that there is anomaly with regard to payment made to the drivers, it is unfortunate that thereafter the Additional Chief Secretary Finance would put his endorsement that the matter can be considered only after the decision regarding the applicability of the 6th Pay Commission would be taken and thereafter the file is in dust for a period of almost more than five years. 5. It is expected that the decisions pertaining to the employees of the State are taken by the Cabinet rather than bureaucrats. 6. We could have very well directed the Chief Secretary to place the aforesaid proposal before the Cabinet for considering as proposal sent by the Hon’ble Minister of Finance and Planning has been approved by the Hon’ble Chief Minister. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader assures us that she will speak to the Chief Secretary with that regard. Therefore, we are inclined to grant time to the learned Additional Government Pleader till next Friday i.e. 31.1.2014. 7. …........ 28. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader assures us that she will speak to the Chief Secretary with that regard. Therefore, we are inclined to grant time to the learned Additional Government Pleader till next Friday i.e. 31.1.2014. 7. …........ 28. We have perused copy of the said noting by the Hon'ble Minister for Finance and Planning in the year 2008. The Hon'ble Minister has noted that there was anomaly arisen due to difference in the pay as per time bound promotion scheme and assured career progression scheme and the same needs approval of the cabinet. The Hon'ble Chief Minister had principally agreed to the proposal to be placed before the cabinet for approval. It is obvious that despite clear noting by the Hon'ble Minister for Finance and Planning and the Hon'ble Chief Minister principally in agreement to place the proposal for approval before the cabinet it was not placed before the cabinet as the Additional Chief Secretary (Finance) put up the note that grievances of drivers would be taken up after the decision of the government on 6th Pay Commission. After thirteen days thereafter file was closed. We are pained that in 2014 this court in the aforesaid order made clear observations still the State government has chosen to continue with the same adamant attitude. 29. Be that as it may, from the overall scrutiny of the government resolution passed from time to time and self-conflicting clauses in government resolution dated 17.5.2003, we find that the classification between employees working as drivers covered by time bound promotion scheme and assured career progression scheme made by the State is not a just and reasonable classification and not based on real and substantial distinction. In our view, clauses 2.2 and 2.6 with illustration of the resolution in question are arbitrary, discriminatory and unconstitutional. In such a case Article 14 of the Constitution clearly applies as equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The said action strikes at the very root of concept of equal pay for equal work. Being perse discriminatory the above clauses in the resolution dated 17.5.2003 need to be quashed and set aside. 30. In such a case Article 14 of the Constitution clearly applies as equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The said action strikes at the very root of concept of equal pay for equal work. Being perse discriminatory the above clauses in the resolution dated 17.5.2003 need to be quashed and set aside. 30. In this view of the matter, we hold that clauses 2.2 and 2.6 of the impugned government resolution are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and all the employees working as drivers on establishment of State of Maharashtra are entitled to the higher pay scale as per government resolution dated 3.8.2001. 31. The next contention of petitioners is regarding denial of pay scale of Rs.4500 – 7000 while implementing the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission. In this connection it is submitted that State Government ought to have considered grievances of the petitioners and then would have issued government resolution dated 5.7.2010 regarding implementation of recommendations of 6th Pay Commission. According to the petitioners, without resolving the grievances of petitioners and without giving them the pay scale to which they were entitled, recommendations of 6th Pay Commission were made applicable. Petitioners thus seek direction to grant revised pay scale as per the recommendations of 6th Pay Commission in accordance with pay scale of Rs.4500 – 7000. We do not find substance in the contention of petitioners mainly for two reasons (i) State government need not necessarily accept the pay scale fixed by the Central government and (ii) it falls exclusively with the domain of the State government to take a policy decision. Petitioners could not show that the policy decision of the State government to that effect is in any way arbitrary, perverse, illegal or unjustified. In that view of the matter prayer to the effect regarding direction to grant revised pay scale deserves to be rejected. 32. In the light of the above we pass the following order. ORDER. 1. Petition is partly allowed. 2. The impugned Clause 2.2 and Clause 2.6 of the Government Resolution dated 17.5.2003 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Clause 2.5 of the said Govt. Resolution as well as earlier Government Resolution dated 3rd of August, 2001. 3. ORDER. 1. Petition is partly allowed. 2. The impugned Clause 2.2 and Clause 2.6 of the Government Resolution dated 17.5.2003 are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to Clause 2.5 of the said Govt. Resolution as well as earlier Government Resolution dated 3rd of August, 2001. 3. We hold that all the drivers working on the establishment of State of Maharashtra and those working on the autonomous bodies, to whom the pay scale of State government is made applicable are entitled to the higher Pay Scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 as provided in Clause 2 of the Government Resolution dated 3rd of August, 2001 read with Schedule-II of the said Govt. Resolution. 4. Needless to state that as a consequence of what has been held herein above, even while implementing the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission, the existing Pay Scale of the aforesaid drivers as on 1.1.2006 shall be determined by giving effect to the directions contained in para 3 above. 5. The prayer of the petitioners for grant of Pay Scale of Rs. 4500 – 7000 stands rejected. 6. We are aware that for giving effect to our aforesaid judgment and order, the issue of financial resources would also be involved and as such we find it appropriate to give a little longer time to the State Government to give effect to our aforesaid judgment and order. 7. We, therefore, direct the State Government to implement the aforesaid judgment and order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six months from today.