JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. H.S. Paonam, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dijeshwar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Senior G.A. assisted by Mr. H. Debendra, learned G.A. for the State respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case common to these two petitions, as may be relevant may be stated as follows: There was an advertisement issued by the Social Welfare Department for recruitment to 75 posts of Supervisors (ICDS) from fresh candidates and from Anganwadi Workers, in terms of the official letter dated 18.06.2009. As per the aforesaid advertisement, 56 Supervisors were to be appointed from amongst the fresh candidates and 19 from Anganwadi workers. The petitioners being eligible had applied for the said posts. In the aforesaid advertisement, the pay scale of Supervisors (ICDS) was shown to be Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/- p.m. as fixed by the ROP of 1999. 3. On the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee held from 20.11.2010 to 01.12.2010, 84 persons were appointed as Supervisors vide order dated 2.08.2011 in the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/- p.m. (as per the ROP of 1999). The appointments of 84 candidates were made by orders dated 2nd August, 2011. Though the aforesaid appointments were made subsequent to the enforcement of the ROP of 2010, the newly appointed Supervisors were given the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/- p.m. in terms of ROP 1999. 4. It has been stated that even though initially only 75 posts of Supervisors were advertised, in course of the recruitment process, some more vacancies to the post of Supervisors arose, for which the Government took the conscious decision to fill up these new vacancies from amongst the candidates recommended by the aforesaid DPC constituted in terms of the advertisement mentioned above rather than resorting to a fresh recruitment process. Even though the Government took the decision to fill up these posts which subsequently arose, because of certain litigation concerning reservation of posts for sports persons, there were some delay in making any appointment. Later, on conclusion of the judicial proceedings, the Government ultimately started making appointments to the said vacancies to posts of Supervisors on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee. Accordingly, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Supervisor(ICDS) vide order dated 26.4.2012. However, she was given the pay scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs. Accordingly, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as a Supervisor(ICDS) vide order dated 26.4.2012. However, she was given the pay scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs. 2800/- p.m. on the basis of the ROP of 2010 which was amended in 2011. Similarly, the remaining petitioners, namely, petitioners No. 2, 3, 4 5, and 6 were also given appointment as Supervisors (ICDS) by subsequent orders dated 14.05.2012, in the pay scale of Rs. 5,200-20,200/- with grade pay of Rs. 2800/- p.m. on the basis of the ROP of 2010. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners were recommended for appointment to the posts of Supervisors (ICDS) along with 84 persons who were appointed vide orders dated 2.08.2011 on the basis of the same Selection Committee which held the meeting from 20.11.2010 to 01.12.2010 in terms of the same advertisement. Accordingly, it has been submitted that since the aforesaid 84 Supervisors were given the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/- p.m. under the ROP of 1999, the petitioners are also entitled to be given the same pay scale and not the revised pay scale under ROP of 2010. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the recommendation of the said DPC proceeding on the basis of which the 84 candidates as well as the present petitioners were given appointments was approved by the State Government on 8.07.2011. 6. It has been stated that the present petitioners and the aforesaid 84 Supervisors were given different pay scales as mentioned above on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated 2.11.2011. For better appreciation, the aforesaid Office Memorandum is reproduced herein below:- "OFFICE MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 2nd November, 2011 Subject :- Clarification on the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) 2nd Amendment) Rules, 2011 No. 1/4/2008-FD(PIC)(C)(Pt.I): The undersigned is directed to refer to the Manipur Service (Revised Pay) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2011, notified vide this Department’s Office Memorandum No. 1/4/2008- FD(PIC)(C), dated 20/09/2011 wherein the revised Pay Band and Revised Grade Pay under Col. (4) and (5) for the post of Supervisor (ICDS) under the Social Welfare Department were shown as 5200- 20200 and 2800 respectively and to clarify for further information of all concerned that the downgraded Pay Band and Grade Pay shall be applicable to the new recruits/ promotes appointed to the post after 20/09/2011, i.e. the date of issue of the said order. The Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800 + GP 4200 and GP 4300 [after 15 yrs of regular service in the grade] shall be personal to those employees who were appointed/promoted on or before 20/09/2011 till they cease to hold the post [on account of promotion, expiry or otherwise] or till the next revision of pay scales takes place, whichever is earlier. 2. Further, it is clarified that with the post of Supervisor, (ICDS) shall be classified as Group-C post for all purposes. Sd/- (Anna Arambam) Under Secretary (PIC-II), Government of Manipur.” 7. It has been contended by the petitioners that the aforesaid Office Memorandum will not be applicable to the petitioners in as much as the petitioners were recommended along with the aforesaid 84 persons who were given the pay scale of Rs. 5,000-150-8,000/- p.m. as per ROP 1999. It has been contended that since the petitioners were recommended earlier by the DPC held in 2010 whose recommendation was approved by the Government authorities on 8.7.2011, prior to the issuance of the Office Memorandum dated 2.11.2011, the said Office Memorandum will not be applicable to the petitioners. It has been further submitted that they are discharging same duties and functions as the aforesaid 84 Supervisors appointed on 02.08.2011 and are governed by the service rules and same service conditions. 8. The stand of the State respondents is that the differential pay scale in respect of the present petitioners and 84 others who were earlier appointed as Supervisors and given the pay scale under the ROP 1999 vide orders dated 2nd August, 2011, was because of the order passed by the High Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 57, 58, 59 and 60 of 2012. The petitioners in the said writ petitions including the 84 Supervisors had challenged the downgradation of the status of the post of Supervisors from Group B (Gazetted) to Group C (non-gazetted) vide Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011. The Hon’ble High Court in the said writ petitions by order dated 05.10.2012 observed that “the impugned paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 2.11.2011 in so far as it classifies the post of Supervisor (ICDS) held by the petitioners as Group-C post, is to that extent, is illegal and therefore, liable to be quashed” and accordingly it was quashed. The Hon’ble High Court in the said writ petitions by order dated 05.10.2012 observed that “the impugned paragraph 2 of the Office Memorandum dated 2.11.2011 in so far as it classifies the post of Supervisor (ICDS) held by the petitioners as Group-C post, is to that extent, is illegal and therefore, liable to be quashed” and accordingly it was quashed. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that to remove any doubt in this behalf, it is made clear that the post of Supervisors (ICDS) held by those who were appointed/promoted after 20.09.2011 shall be classified as Class-C posts. 9. It is thus the case of the State respondents that difference in pay scale of the present petitioners and the 84 Supervisors who were appointed prior to them is because of the aforesaid writ petitions filed by the said Supervisors and Memorandum dated 2.11.2011 which they had challenged, classifying the post of Supervisor as Group C post. It is stated that the Department had merely carried out the order passed by the High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions because of which the Supervisors who were appointed on 2nd August, 2011 before the petitioners were granted the aforesaid revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34,800/- which was a revised pay band of the earlier pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. The State respondents contend that when the appointment orders of the present petitioners were issued on 26th April, 2012 and 14th May, 2012, the pay scale of the post of Supervisor (ICDS) had been further revised to Rs. 5200-20,200/- vide Notification dated 20.09.2011. It has been further submitted that the High Court had earlier observed in the said writ petitions that the post of Supervisors (ICDS) appointed/promoted after 20.09.2011 shall be classified as Class C posts in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011. Accordingly, the present petitioners who were appointed after 20.09.2011 have been given the said revised pay scale of Rs. 5,200-20200/- in terms of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2011 notified on 20.09.2011. In other words, the pay scale of the present petitioners is in terms of the applicable ROP and hence, there is no illegality in the same. 10. These contentions, however, have been countered by the learned Sr. 5,200-20200/- in terms of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2011 notified on 20.09.2011. In other words, the pay scale of the present petitioners is in terms of the applicable ROP and hence, there is no illegality in the same. 10. These contentions, however, have been countered by the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners contending that there is virtually no difference between the petitioners and the earlier batch of 84 Supervisors who were appointed on 2nd August, 2011 as per the recruitment process is concerned except for the date of appointment. In fact, the first batch of 84 Supervisors appointed on 2nd August, 2011 were given appointment after coming into operation of the Revision of Pay (ROP) 2010. He contends that the matter would have been otherwise if those Supervisors had been appointed earlier to the revision of pay in 2010 in which event they would have been entitled to old ROP of 2009 but it is not so. The aforesaid 84 Supervisors were also appointed subsequently after the ROP 2010 came to be implemented. In that event, there is no reason as to why the present petitioners also should not be given the same benefit as those 84 Supervisors. 11. As evident from the above claims and refutations, what emerges is that the petitioners are aggrieved by the differential pay scale in respect of the post of Supervisors (ICDS) given to them vis-a-vis other Supervisors who were recommended along with them but were appointed earlier. 12. It is now well settled that fixation and grant of pay scale is purely an executive function which is normally done with the help of expert body. Such an exercise being a complex matter based on expert opinion, the Courts normally refrains from interfering as various factors are taken into consideration including financial capacity of the State, responsibility, educational qualifications, mode of appointment etc. Therefore, even while upholding the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, the Court has to be very circumspect. Having said that, the Court may intervene where the Court is satisfied that not only the nature of work is identical but in all other respects they belong to the same class and there is no apparent reason to treat equals as un-equals, by invoking the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” 13. Having said that, the Court may intervene where the Court is satisfied that not only the nature of work is identical but in all other respects they belong to the same class and there is no apparent reason to treat equals as un-equals, by invoking the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” 13. In the present case, the petitioners were appointed on 28.04.2012 and 14.05.2012 whereas, the other 84 Supervisors (ICDS) were appointed earlier on 02.08.2011, though they were recommended by the same DPC based on the same advertisement, because of which the petitioners are claiming same pay structure. The petitioners contend that apart from the delay in making their appointment, they are equal to these Supervisors appointed on 02.08.2011 in all respects. They claim that they possess the same qualifications, discharge the same duties and functions and are governed by the same service rules and conditions. These assertions made asserted by the petitioners have not been controverted by the Respondents. The only plea of the respondents in denying equal pay scale to the petitioners as given to those 84 Supervisors appointed on 02.08.2011 is that before the petitioners were appointed, there was a revision of pay in terms of ROP 2010, and the present petitioners were given the pay scale in terms of the revised pay scale as the petitioners came to be appointed after the ROP 2010 came to be implemented. Hence, the petitioners cannot have any grievance. This Court, however, finds it difficult to accept the contentions of the Respondent in denying the same pay scale as given to these Supervisors appointed prior to them on 02.08.2011 for the reasons discussed herein-below. 14. It is true that there was a revision of pay scale in 2010 after the advertisement for appointment of the Supervisors was issued on 18.06.2009. At the time of issuing the advertisement, the pay scale of the post of Supervisor was fixed on the basis of the ROP of 1999 viz., (i) Rs. 5000-8000 (ii) Rs. 5500-9000 (Sr.), after 15 years of regular service in the grade. The revision of pay in terms of ROP 2010 was issued by the State Government vide Notification dated 05.05.2010, by which the pay scale of the post of Supervisor was revised and fixed at Rs. 9300-34800. 5000-8000 (ii) Rs. 5500-9000 (Sr.), after 15 years of regular service in the grade. The revision of pay in terms of ROP 2010 was issued by the State Government vide Notification dated 05.05.2010, by which the pay scale of the post of Supervisor was revised and fixed at Rs. 9300-34800. It is to be noted that 84 Supervisors (ICDS) were appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the aforesaid DPC held from 20.11.2010 to 01.12.2010 vide orders dated 02.08.2011, after the Notification was issued for revision of pay under ROP of 2010 on 05.05.2010. However, while appointing these 84 Supervisors, they were given the old pay scale fixed under the ROP of 1999 i.e., Rs. 5000-8500/- as mentioned in the advertisement. Since, the said 84 Supervisors were given appointment after the ROP of 2010 was implemented vide Notification dated 05.05.2010, they ought to have been given the revised pay scale. Yet, the Department chose to give the old pay scale of Rs. 5000-8500/- as mentioned in the advertisement, as reflected in their appointment orders. It is also to be noted that appointments were given to the 84 Supervisors by keeping one post of Supervisor unfilled because of one pending case before the High Court, i.e., W.A. No. 66 of 2010 due to certain claim made for appointment under the Sports persons quota. 15. The aforesaid Notification dated 05.05.2010 implementing the ROP of 2010 was further revised by another Notification issued on 20.09.2011. By the aforesaid Notification dated 20.09.2011, the pay scale in respect of Supervisor was further revised by way of reduction from Rs. 9300-34800 to Rs. 5200-20200, with the remark that the existing Pay Band and Grade Pay shall be personal to the incumbents till they cease to hold posts. 16. It was in clarification of the aforesaid Notification dated 20.09.2011 that the State Government issued the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011 in which it was stated that a downgraded Pay Band and Grade Pay shall be applicable to the new recruits/promotes appointed to the posts of Supervisors (ICDS) after 20.09.2011, i.e., the date of issue of the order dated 20.09.2011 revising the pay scale to Rs. 5200-20200. However, the pay of Rs. 5200-20200. However, the pay of Rs. 9300-34800 + G.P. 4200 and G.P. 4300 after 15 years of regular service in the grade, shall be personal to those who were appointed on or before 20.09.2011 till they cease to hold the post or till the next revision of pay takes place whichever is earlier. Further, it was clarified that the Supervisor (ICDS) shall be classified as group C post of all purposes. It is this Office Memorandum that the aforesaid 84 Supervisors and others challenged in several writ petitions which were disposed of on 05.10.2012 as mentioned above. 17. It was after issuance of the Notifications dated 05.05.2010, 20.09.2011 and O.M. dated 02.11.2011 that the petitioners were appointed as Supervisors (ICDS) with the revised pay scale as per Notification dated 20.09.2011, which has been challenged in these petitions. In W.P. (C) No. 46 of 2013, the petitioners have sought for providing the pay scale in ROP 1999 which had been specifically mentioned in the advertisement and also for quashing the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011 as not applicable to the petitioners. In W.P. (C) No. 336 of 2013 the petitioners have sought for quashing and setting aside the condition incorporated in remark column 6 of the Notification dated 20.09.2011 as not applicable to them. 18. Normally, this Court would not have interfered in the matter of fixation of pay scale as it would be governed by the relevant Notifications fixing the pay scale and fixation of pay scale is within the exclusive domain of the Executive, decided on the basis of expert opinion. However, in the present case what has been noted as discussed above, is that the petitioners were appointed as Supervisors on recommendation of the a DPC held from 20.11.2010 to 01.12.2010 in terms of advertisement issued on 18.06.2009 wherein the pay scale of the posts of Supervisors was fixed at Rs. 5000-8000/-. The aforesaid recommendation of the DPC was approved by the Government on 08.07.2011 as reflected in the order dated 20.06.2012 appointing the petitioner No. 1. Though 85 posts were advertised, as mentioned in the advertisement dated 18.06.2009, only 84 Supervisors were given appointment leaving one post unfilled because of the litigation (W.A. No. 66 of 2010) as mentioned above. Had the litigation not been there, the petitioner No. 1 would have been appointed along with the aforesaid 84 Supervisors. Though 85 posts were advertised, as mentioned in the advertisement dated 18.06.2009, only 84 Supervisors were given appointment leaving one post unfilled because of the litigation (W.A. No. 66 of 2010) as mentioned above. Had the litigation not been there, the petitioner No. 1 would have been appointed along with the aforesaid 84 Supervisors. In that event, the petitioner No. 1 would have been entitled to similar benefits as regards pay scale as has been given to the aforesaid 84 Supervisors. Therefore, this Court is of the view that delay in issuing appointment order in respect of respondent No. 1 ought not come in the way of her claim for enjoying the same pay scale as enjoyed by the aforesaid 84 Supervisors. As regards the remaining petitioners, the situation does not seem to be too different as to provide different pay scale. Firstly, these remaining petitioners were also recommended by the same DPC held from 20.11.2010 to 11.12.2010 in terms of the same advertisement which had also recommended the aforesaid 84 Supervisors who were appointed on 02.08.2011. It has been submitted at the Bar by Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. G.A. that during the recruitment process these additional posts became available against which the present petitioners were given appointment to the post of Supervisors by acting upon the recommendation of the same DPC on which basis the 84 Supervisors were appointed earlier. 19. Normally, a person appointed would be given the pay scale as existing at the time of appointment. Therefore, under normal circumstances, the action of the State respondents in granting the revised pay scale in respect of the present petitioners could not have been faulted with. However, there are certain peculiar circumstances as discussed above, because of which the claim of the petitioners could not be brushed aside as unreasonable. The petitioners were not appointed in terms of a fresh recruitment process initiated after the revision of pay but it was on the basis of a recruitment process which was initiated before the revision of pay of 2010. It is also well settled law that though a candidate does not get any right to the post by merely making an application for the same but the right is created in his favour for being considered for the post in accordance with terms and conditions of the advertisement and the existing rules. It is also well settled law that though a candidate does not get any right to the post by merely making an application for the same but the right is created in his favour for being considered for the post in accordance with terms and conditions of the advertisement and the existing rules. Thus, if the candidate applies for a post in response to an advertisement in accordance with the recruitment rules, he acquires a right to be considered for selection in accordance with the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the existing recruitment rules and this right cannot be affected by amendment of any rules unless the amendment rule is retrospective in nature, as held by the Hon’ble Supreme in P. Mahendran Vs. State of Karnataka, (1990) 1 SCC 411 . The same law was reiterated in the case of N.T. Bevin Kath etc. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission, (1990) 3 SCC 157 . Therefore, when the petitioners had applied for the said posts of Supervisors in terms of the advertisement issued on 18.06.2009 wherein the pay scale of the post of Supervisors was fixed at Rs. 5000- 8000/-, the petitioners would be entitled to the said pay scale as they were recommended for appointment by the DPC held in terms of the aforesaid advertisement. Though there was no legal obligation on the part of the State respondents to appointment the present petitioners against the vacancies which arose after the advertisement was issued, the authorities still decided to fill up these vacancies on the basis of the DPC held on the basis of the earlier advertisement. These vacancies to which the petitioners were appointed arose subsequently to the issuance of the advertisement, yet the authorities decided to fill up these posts/vacancies on the basis of the recommendation of the DPC held pursuant to the earlier advertisement. This Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the aforesaid 84 persons were given appointment on 02.08.2011 after the revision of pay scale was effected on 05.05.2010, yet they were given appointment to Supervisors by orders dated 02.08.2011 in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000/- per month as per ROP of 1999 as mentioned in the advertisement dated 18.06.2009. Of course, vide subsequent Notification dated 20.09.2011 and O.M. dated 02.11.2011, the said 84 Supervisors were given the revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800/-. 5000-150-8000/- per month as per ROP of 1999 as mentioned in the advertisement dated 18.06.2009. Of course, vide subsequent Notification dated 20.09.2011 and O.M. dated 02.11.2011, the said 84 Supervisors were given the revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800/-. The claim of the present petitioners who were recommended by the same DPC on the basis of the same advertisement that they would be entitled to get the same pay scale as given to the aforesaid 84 persons, cannot be said to irrational, unreasonable and illegal. 20. Of course, the respondents have strongly opposed these two writ petitions by contending that the petitioners were appointed after the revision of pay scale was implemented vide Notification dated 20.09.2011 and they have to accept the revised pay scale affected by the Notification dated 20.09.2011. If the aforesaid plea is to be accepted this Court fails to understand why similar principle will not be applicable in respect of the aforesaid 84 Supervisors who were appointed after the revision of pay in 2010 but they were given the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 as per the ROP of 1999 initially, though they were subsequently given the revised pay scale in terms of the Notification dated 05.05.2010. 21. The respondents may still insist that there was another revision of pay issued under the Notification dated 20.09.2011 where there was further revision of pay, which was applied to the present petitioners. By the aforesaid subsequent revision of pay as per Notification dated 20.09.2011, the pay scale of Supervisors was further revised by way of reduction to Rs. 5200-20200/- from the first revision pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 on 05.05.2010, however, saving the earlier pay scale for those who have already appointed. It may be again stated that the authorities would have the discretion to revise the pay scale as has been done by issuing Notification dated 20.09.2011. However, such revision has to be examined at the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. As mentioned above, the present petitioners were not recruited on the basis of any fresh advertisement or recruitment process after the aforesaid revision of pay was notified on 20.09.2011. The petitioners were already recommended and their process for appointment was already being processed before the revision of pay scale notified on 20.09.2011. As mentioned above, the present petitioners were not recruited on the basis of any fresh advertisement or recruitment process after the aforesaid revision of pay was notified on 20.09.2011. The petitioners were already recommended and their process for appointment was already being processed before the revision of pay scale notified on 20.09.2011. However, because of delay in the appointment of the petitioner No. 1, due to certain litigation appointment of the remaining petitioners also could not be processed as mentioned above. Thus, had there been no litigation, arising out of W.A. No. 66 of 2010 which was disposed of only on 25.01.2012, the deck would have been clear for appointment of the petitioners. If the authorities had chosen to make fresh recruitment in respect of the vacancies which arose after the advertisement issued in 2009 and after the issue of the Notifications of the ROP 2010 as mentioned above, the question would have been entirely different. As discussed above, the present petitioners were already recommended for appointment, though may be placed in the waiting list, but under the same advertisement as in the case of 84 Supervisors. The delay in appointment of these petitioners were occasioned due to certain litigation and not for any reasons attributable to them as mentioned above, for which the petitioner can not be faulted. 22. The only reason for giving a lesser pay scale to the present petitioners is because of the delay in issuing of appointment orders in respect of the petitioners after 20.09.2011 when the Notification was issued under the ROP 2010. 23. What this Court has also noted is that apart from the difference in the date of appointment there is absolutely no other difference which has been brought to the notice of this Court between the present petitioners and the earlier 84 Supervisors appointed on 02.08.2011. As already discussed above, there could be difference in pay scale in the same post on the basis of difference in qualifications, responsibilities, length of service or such permissible criteria which is absent in the present case. Denial of same pay scale on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, otherwise would be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Denial of same pay scale on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, otherwise would be violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Apparently, nothing has been brought on record to show that the present petitioners have lesser qualifications or discharge lesser responsibilities and duties or that they were recruited under a different recruitment process so as to place in a different footing than the 84 Supervisors. The only difference is the date of entry in service which was occasioned due to certain pending case which could not be attributed to the petitioners. Therefore, in absence of any other intelligible differentia, providing different pay scale qua the 84 Supervisors would be discriminatory. 24. Therefore, this Court holds that the petitioners would be entitled to the same pay scale as given to 84 Supervisors who were appointed on 02.08.2011. To that extent, this Court holds that the Notifications dated 20.09.2011 issued by the Secretariat, Finance Department (PIC), Government of Manipur under No. 1/4/2008-FD(PIC)(C) and Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011 issued by the same department under No. 1/4/2008-FD (PIC)(C)(Pt.I) would not apply as far as the present petitioners are concerned. 25. Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Sr. G.A. submits that if the relief claimed by the petitioners are granted, it may not be a precedent in future for other recruits to the posts of Supervisors (ICDS). Since the present petitioners were appointed as Supervisors (ICDS) on the basis of a recruitment process initiated before the revision of pay in 2010, they would form a class in themselves from those who would be appointed after the Notification dated 20.09.2011 on the basis of a recruitment process initiated on the basis of the revised pay scale attached to the post of Supervisor. Accordingly, the aforesaid Notification dated 20.09.2011 as well as the Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011 are not interfered with but this Court would clarify that the said Notification/Office Memorandum will not be applicable as far as the present petitioners are concerned by reading down these Notifications and Office Memorandum. These Notifications dated 20.09.2011 and Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011 are to be read to be applicable to those Supervisors, who may be appointed after 20.09.2011 on the basis of advertisement and recruitment process initiated after 20.09.2011, but will not be applicable to those whose recruitment process was initiated on the basis of advertisement issued prior to 20.09.2011. 26. These Notifications dated 20.09.2011 and Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011 are to be read to be applicable to those Supervisors, who may be appointed after 20.09.2011 on the basis of advertisement and recruitment process initiated after 20.09.2011, but will not be applicable to those whose recruitment process was initiated on the basis of advertisement issued prior to 20.09.2011. 26. For the reasons discussed above, both the writ petitions, W.P. (C) No. 46 of 2013 and W.P. (C) No. 336 of 2013 are allowed and the impugned Notification dated 20.09.2011 and Office Memorandum dated 02.11.2011 are interfered with to the extent indicated above as not applicable to the present petitioners and the Respondent authorities are directed to grant similar pay scale to the petitioners as granted to the 84 Supervisors (ICDS) appointed on 02.08.2011, with similar service benefits.