JUDGMENT & ORDER : These writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014 [Smt. Sutapa Majumder vs. The State of Tripura & Others], W.P.(C) No.452 of 2014 [Sri Nikhil Chandra Das & Others vs. The State of Tripura & Others] and W.P.(C) No.74 of 2015 [Sri Haradhan Das & Others vs. The State of Tripura & Others] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment inasmuch as the questions raised in these writ petitions hinge on the grant of the revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- for the post of Pharmacist [Diploma] w.e.f. 01.01.1986 or from the date when the petitioners were appointed as the Pharmacist [Diploma] under the Directorate of Health Services or whichever is later but there are differences as well in the circumstances such as release of pay in the scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- for which from the few petitioners, recovery of excess payment has been directed by the competent authority, however, without any prior notice. Hence, it would be appropriate for this Court to take note of such differences before addressing the common question whether the petitioners are entitled to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- in terms of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988, hereinafter referred to as the ROP Rules, 1988. W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2014 2. The petitioner in this writ petition namely, Smt. Sutapa Majumder was appointed as the Pharmacist by the order of appointment dated 03.03.1992 in the scale of pay of Rs. 1300-3220/-. Fundamentally, in terms of the order under No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88/222-224 dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-P/11 to the said writ petition, hereinafter would be referred to as the order dated 31.10.2013 the petitioner has claimed the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 560-1300/- with its corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- under the ROP Rules, 1988. 1300-3220/-. Fundamentally, in terms of the order under No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88/222-224 dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-P/11 to the said writ petition, hereinafter would be referred to as the order dated 31.10.2013 the petitioner has claimed the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 560-1300/- with its corresponding revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- under the ROP Rules, 1988. Since, in all these writ petitions as referred above, the said order has been relied, the entire text of the said order is reproduced hereunder: “GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA FINANCE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIPURA No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88/222-224 Dated, Agartala, 31st October, 2013 WHEREAS, Hon’ble Supreme Court in its proceeding dated 28.03.2011 dismissed the Special Leave Petition to Appeal (Civil) No.(S) 198/2011 filed by Shri Manoranjan Naha & others with a stipulation that the petitioner would like to make a representation to the authorities concerned; AND WHEREAS, as per the Judgement dated 28.03.2011 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the representation dated Nil of Shri Manoranjan Naha & others, thereon Shri Manoranjan Naha (Alone petitioner) was given hearing on 06.07.2011 by the State of Tripura in Finance Department vide letter No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88 dated 30.06.2011 and accordingly, Shri Manoranjan Naha and others along with their legal counsel Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, Advocate, Supreme Court of India presented them in the hearing on the day and submitted their grievances/contention/ argument in writing; AND WHEREAS, further High Court of Tripura, Agartala in its Judgment in connection with W.P.(C) No.342/2012 filed by Shri Manoranjan Naha has directed the Joint Secretary (Now Additional Secretary), Finance Department to hear the Petitioner again on his representation dated 07.09.2011 and pass a reasoned order in accordance with Law; AND WHEREAS, representation dated 07.09.2011 in pros and cons of the Petitioner (Shri Manoranjan Naha) has been heard on 31.10.2013 at the Chamber of the undersigned; NOW THEREFORE, the entire matter has been re-examined taking all aspects into account. The non-diploma Pharmacist (re-designated from formerly ‘Compounder/Clerk-cum-Compounder’ in receipt of pre-revised pay scale of Rs.430-850/-) was provided the revised pay scale of Rs.1300-3220/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The Pharmacists (with Diploma in Pharmacy) in receipt of the time pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- appointed prior to 01.01.1986 were placed in the Pharmacist Gr.II with revised pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/- under the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The Pharmacists (with Diploma in Pharmacy) in receipt of the time pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- appointed prior to 01.01.1986 were placed in the Pharmacist Gr.II with revised pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/- under the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The revised pay scale of Rs.1300-3220/- was provided to the Pharmacist Gr-III, as initial appointment, under the Hospital & Miscellaneous Services of the Health and Family Welfare Department w.e.f. 01.01.1986 under the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 read with its Tenth Amendment to TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 issued vide Notification No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88 dated 25.04.2009. As per principle of ‘scale to scale revision of pay’ as adopted by the State Government for revision of pay of the employees, the revised pay scale of Rs.1450-3710/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 is the one, which corresponds to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1982. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for the revised pay scale of Rs. -4410/- as erroneously shown in the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 in Sl. No.13 at Page-71 of the same rules is very much higher compared to revised pay scale corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/-. Accordingly, considering the representation made by Shri Manoranjan Naha both in person and writing on their merit, the claim of the Petitioner cannot be agreed to. However, as the pay scale of Rs.1300-3220/- meant for Pharmacist (with Diploma in Pharmacy) under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 had been revised to Rs.4200-8650/- under the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, which had been revised subsequently to PB-2(Rs.5310-24000/-) + G.P. Rs.2400/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 effective from 01.01.2006, the Pharmacists (with Diploma in Pharmacy) deserve separate pay scale than existing pay scale/structure allowed to them in view of their higher qualification to the non-diploma Pharmacists. Sd/ Illegible (A. Roy) Addl. Secretary to the Government of Tripura To Shri Manoranjan Naha, Village-North Maheshpur, P.O. Kathalia, Sonamura Dist-Sepahijala District, P.S. Jatrapur, Pin-799181” [The emphasis put above is supplied] 3. Since it has been observed in the order dated 31.10.2013 that the Pharmacists [with Diploma in Pharmacy] were in receipt of pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- prior to 01.01.1986 were placed in the Pharmacist Grade-II in the revised pay scale of Rs. Since it has been observed in the order dated 31.10.2013 that the Pharmacists [with Diploma in Pharmacy] were in receipt of pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- prior to 01.01.1986 were placed in the Pharmacist Grade-II in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- under the ROP Rules, 1988 following the scale to scale revision of pay, the petitioner has claimed to be entitled to the initial pay of Rs. 1450-3710/-, if not the revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-4410/-. According to the petitioner, by the said order dated 31.10.2013, the Government has conceded that the Pharmacist [Diploma in Pharmacy] deserves separate pay scale than the existing pay scale/structure allowed to them in view of their higher qualification, compared to the Non-Diploma Pharmacist. The petitioner has candidly admitted that the Chief Medical Officer, Dhalai, Ambassa by the memorandum dated 07.08.2009 ordered that the pharmacists are entitled to get the revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- w.e.f. their respective date of joining. In view of that, it has been declared that the pharmacists would be entitled to revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-10300/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and its notional benefits thereunder followed by the actual benefits w.e.f. 01.10.1998 and further benefits of career advancement (CAS) on completion of 10(ten) years of satisfactory service in the post of Pharmacist by movement to the next higher pay scale of Rs. 5500-10700/- and on further advancement after completion of 17(seventeen) years of continuous service in the said post. However, the career advancement is not the subject matter of this writ petition, inasmuch as if the initial pay is determined, its effects would be taken care of the relevant rules. The petitioner has further submitted that in terms of the said memorandum dated 01.08.2009, Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition, the arrears were paid in favour of some of the Pharmacists but by the memorandum dated 04.01.2010, the Director of Health Services, Government of Tripura had directed for recovery of the sum which was paid to some Pharmacists as arrear. By the said memorandum dated 04.01.2010, it has been informed that having joined to the post after introduction of the ROP Rules, 1988 the Pharmacist would be entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- and the corresponding further revised pay scale of Rs. 4200-8650/-. 4. By the said memorandum dated 04.01.2010, it has been informed that having joined to the post after introduction of the ROP Rules, 1988 the Pharmacist would be entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- and the corresponding further revised pay scale of Rs. 4200-8650/-. 4. The common grounds as taken in the writ petitions are not being referred under individual writ petitions but those, as relevant for all the writ petitions, are to be discussed in the latter part to avoid repetitions. In this context, the petitioners has prayed that the memorandum dated 04.01.2010, Annexure-P/10 to the said writ petition, shall be quashed and further she has urged before this Court to issue direction mandating the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- as her initial pay with gradation benefits in accordance with the ROP Rules, by movement to the relevant higher pay scale i.e. Rs. 1700-3980/- in terms of the ROP Rules, 1988. The petitioner has also urged for writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from acting in furtherance of the memorandum dated 04.01.2010. 5. In reply, the respondents have taken a common stand against the common grounds taken in the writ petitions and accordingly, those will be referred when the common grounds would be dwelled upon by this Court, but so far the relevance of the order dated 31.10.2013 is concerned, there is no response or any reference for placing the counter-points. Even there is no reply on the challenge thrown against the memorandum dated 04.01.2010. But the respondents have stated that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- as her initial pay scale. She was simply entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- as per ROP Rules, 1988. W.P.(C) No. 452 of 2014 6. In this writ petition, there are 8(eight) petitioners, who were appointed as the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] on diverse dates which are shown in the table below but those dates are not revealed from the writ petition. Those have been revealed by the respondents in the Annexure-R/1, enclosed to their reply filed on 04.02.2016. The writ petitioners have failed to provide the relevant materials in the writ petition. The writ petition is full of submission, without relevant particulars of the individual writ petitioner. Never this Court would appreciate such practice. Those have been revealed by the respondents in the Annexure-R/1, enclosed to their reply filed on 04.02.2016. The writ petitioners have failed to provide the relevant materials in the writ petition. The writ petition is full of submission, without relevant particulars of the individual writ petitioner. Never this Court would appreciate such practice. Taking a lenient view, the particulars given by the respondents have been relied by this Court. Sl. No. Name of the Pharmacist Date of appointment Pay Scale Date of effect 1. Shri Nikhil Ch. Das, Pharmacist (Allo) 04.01.1984 Rs.560-25-710-30-860-40-1300/- 04.01.1984 (i.e. date of appointment) Rs.1450-60-1930-65-2450-70-3710/- (Revised ROP, 88) 04.01.1987 Rs.5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300/- (Revised ROP, 99) 01.01.1996 Rs.5500-150-7750-175-9500-200-10700/- 01.01.1999 as CAS-2 PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- Grade Pay Rs.2600/- (Revised ROP, 2009) 01.01.2006 PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.3100/- 04.01.2009 (as ACP-3) to till date 2. Shri Kulabidhu Singha, Pharmacist (Allo) 19.11.1982 Rs.560-25-710-30-860-40-1300/- 19.11.1982 (i.e. date of appointment) Rs.1450-60-1930-65-2450-70-3710/- (Revised ROP, 88) 19.11.1987 Rs.5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300/- 01.11.1996 PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- Grade Pay Rs.2600/- (Revised ROP, 2009) 01.01.2006 PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.3100/- 19.11.2007 (as ACP-3) to till date 3. Shri Subhas Aditya, Pharmacist (Allo) 15.12.1997 Rs.1300-50-1700-55-2140-60-3220/- 15.12.1997 (i.e. date of appointment) Rs.5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300/- 15.12.2007 as CAS-I PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2600/- 15.12.2014 (As ACP-2) to till date 4. Shri Amal Majumder, Pharmacist (Allo) 13.12.1997 Rs.1300-50-1700-55-2140-60-3220/- 13.12.1997 (i.e. date of appointment) Rs.5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300/- 13.12.2007 as CAS-I PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2600/- 13.12.2014 (As ACP-2) to till date 5. Shri Uday Sankar Saha, Pharmacist (Allo) 13.12.1997 Rs.1300-50-1700-55-2140-60-3220/- 13.12.2007 (i.e. date of appointment) Rs.5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300/- 13.12.2007 as CAS-I ACP-2 entitled w.e.f. 13.12.2014 in the PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2600/- 6. Shri Shibudhan Chakraborty 22.11.85 Rs.560-25-710-30-860-40-1300/- 22.11.85 (i.e. date of appointment) Rs.5500-150-7750-175-9500-200-10700/- 01.01.99 as CAS-II PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.3100/- 22.11.2010 as ACP-III 7. Shri Sudhir Debbarma, Pharmacist (Allo) 15.12.1992 Rs.1300-50-1700-55-2140-60-3220/- 15.12.1992 (i.e. date of appointment) Rs. 4200-120-6000-130-7300-150-8650/- (Revised ROP, 99) 01.01.1996 Rs.5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300/- 15.12.2002 as CAS-I PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2600/- (Revised ROP, 2009) 01.01.2006 PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2600/- 15.12.2009 (as ACP-2) to till date 8. Shri Tapan Das, Pharmacist (Allo) 06.11.1992 Rs.1300-50-1700-55-2140-60-3220/- 06.11.1992 (i.e. date of appointment) Rs. 4200-120-6000-130-7300-150-8650/- (Revised ROP, 99) 01.01.1996 Rs.5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300/- 06.11.2002 as CAS-I PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2600/- (Revised ROP, 2009) 01.01.2006 PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2600/- 06.11.2009 (as ACP-2) to till date 7. Shri Tapan Das, Pharmacist (Allo) 06.11.1992 Rs.1300-50-1700-55-2140-60-3220/- 06.11.1992 (i.e. date of appointment) Rs. 4200-120-6000-130-7300-150-8650/- (Revised ROP, 99) 01.01.1996 Rs.5000-130-6690-150-8940-170-10300/- 06.11.2002 as CAS-I PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2600/- (Revised ROP, 2009) 01.01.2006 PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- with Grade Pay Rs.2600/- 06.11.2009 (as ACP-2) to till date 7. It is apparent from the above table that the writ petitioners namely, Nikhil Chandra Das, Kulabidhu Singha and Sibudhan Chakraborty were appointed prior to 01.01.1986 in the scale of pay of Rs. 560-1300/-, corresponding revised scale of pay, in terms of ROP Rules, 1988, is Rs. 1450-3710/-. The remaining other writ petitioners namely, Subhas Aditya, Amal Majumder, Udai Sankar Saha, Sudhir Debbarma and Tapan Das were appointed after the ROP Rules, 1988 was introduced and they were appointed in the scale of pay of Rs. 1300-3220/-. When the petitioners who were appointed prior to 01.01.1986, the date of effect of the ROP Rules, 1988 received the revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986 under ROP Rules, 1988 and Rs. 5000-10300/- under ROP Rules, 1999, the petitioners who were appointed after introduction of ROP Rules, 1988 got the said pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- from the date of their completion of 10 years of service as CAS-1 not as the revised pay scale. It is noteworthy that those petitioners who were appointed after introduction of ROP Rules, 1988 they received the revised pay scale of Rs. 4200-8650/-, not Rs. 5000-10300/- as was received by the petitioners who were appointed before 01.01.1986. Thus, there emerged two distinct classes in the same category and in the same post. These writ petitioners have however prayed the same reliefs, the other writ petitions of this batch i.e. to place their pay scale at Rs. 1450-3710/- and thereafter to grant them the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-10300/- and further to the revised scale of pay of Rs. 5310-24000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 2600/- [under ROP Rules, 2009]. The further prayer that has been made is for implementing the order under No.F.4 (6)-FIN (PC)-88/222-224 dated 31.10.2013 issued by the Addl. Secretary, Government of Tripura, Finance Department, Annexure-P/1 to their writ petition. W.P. (C) No. 74 of 2015 8. The petitioners in this writ petition namely, Haradhan Das, Joy Krishna Debbarma and Radha Charan Debbarma were appointed substantively in the post of Pharmacist respectively on 07.11.1990, 07.11.1992 and 03.12.1998. Secretary, Government of Tripura, Finance Department, Annexure-P/1 to their writ petition. W.P. (C) No. 74 of 2015 8. The petitioners in this writ petition namely, Haradhan Das, Joy Krishna Debbarma and Radha Charan Debbarma were appointed substantively in the post of Pharmacist respectively on 07.11.1990, 07.11.1992 and 03.12.1998. All the petitioners joined to the post of Pharmacist [Diploma] after introduction of ROP Rules, 1988. Even though they are entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 1300-3220/-. By issuing the memorandum under No.F.(6)-FIN(PC)/88(L) dated 28.04.1990, it had been clarified that in case of an appointment to a post with graded scale during the period from 01.01.1986 till the date of publication of ROP Rules, 1988, the employee who was given a revised pay scale which is lower than the scale of the grade in which the employee is placed, by virtue of holding a particular existing scale should not get a pay scale lower than the revised pay scale of the grade in which he falls, by virtue of holding a particular existing scale, with further stipulation that no new appointment should be made at any level other than the lowest grade or no new post should be created except in the lowest grade and the petitioners thus placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1300- 3220/-. By the ROP Rules, 1999 the said pre-revised scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- was revised to Rs. 4200-8650/- whereas pre revised scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- was revised to Rs. 5000-10300/- and the pre revised pay scale of Rs. 1700-3980/- was revised to Rs. 5000-10700/-. The petitioners herein have revealed that the anomaly committee in their report has observed that the revised scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- with next higher revised pay scale of Rs. 1700-3980/- be allowed to the post of Pharmacist. They have referred to the relevant part [page-42] of the report of the anomaly committee and that relevant part is reproduced hereunder: REPORTED ANOMALOUS POST PHARMACIST SCALE OF PAY Rs.1300-3220/- Submitted that the scale of pay of Rs.2000-4410/- was allowed to the post of Pharmacist initially in the ROP Rules of 1988. But later on the scale of pay was modified Government, thus creating anomaly. Proposed that the original position as had been incorporated in the ROP Rules, 1988 be restored. Examining the RR it appears that: (i) 100% of the posts are filled up by direct recruitment. But later on the scale of pay was modified Government, thus creating anomaly. Proposed that the original position as had been incorporated in the ROP Rules, 1988 be restored. Examining the RR it appears that: (i) 100% of the posts are filled up by direct recruitment. (ii) The minimum recruitment requirements HS (+2 stage) plus Diploma in Pharmacy. From the records it appears that the Finance Department, Government of Tripura vide corrigendum No.F.4(6)-FIN/PC/88 dated 24.09.88 had modified the scale of pay of Pharmacist to its present form. The Commission has looked into the ROP Rules, 1988 and observes that posts requiring Diploma after HS(+2 stage) have been allowed the initial scale of pay of Rs.1450-3710/- . The Commission feels that the same principle should be followed in the case of Pharmacist, too RECOMMENDATION The scale of pay or Rs.1450-3710/- with next higher scale of Rs.1700-3980 be allowed to the post of Pharmacist. [Emphasis added] Despite such recommendation of the anomaly committee, the Finance Department by their notification under No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88 dated 25.04.2009 deleted Sl. No.13 of page 71 of the ROP Rules, 1988 and the same provision was inserted at Sl. No.50 of Page-75 of the ROP Rules, 1988. By the said notification, the Pharmacist [Diploma in Pharmacy] has been inserted. The said deletion and insertion were given effect from 01.01.1986. The petitioners in these writ petitions have drawn a parallel to the post of Ophthalmic Assistant having almost similar eligibility criteria but they were given the pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- with modified scale of pay of Rs. 650-1595/- with their corresponding revised pay scale. But the Audiometric Technician were granted pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- in contrast to the pay scale of the Ophthalmic Assistant. But by virtue of a judicial intervention Audiometric Technician were given the pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- with its revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/-. The other grounds are common those will be referred in the latter part of the judgment. These writ petitioners like the other writ petitioners of this batch of writ petitions have urged for their reliefs, in the core of which lies the grant of pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- with corresponding scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/-. 1450-3710/-. The other grounds are common those will be referred in the latter part of the judgment. These writ petitioners like the other writ petitioners of this batch of writ petitions have urged for their reliefs, in the core of which lies the grant of pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- with corresponding scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/-. However, these writ petitioners have also prayed for quashing the memorandum dated 03.01.2011, the impugned orders dated 05.07.2013, 11.06.2014 and 02.01.2015 couched with prayer for restraining the responds recovering from the petitioners any sum in furtherance of the said impugned memorandum and orders. 9. The controversy raised in these writ petitions is rooted in ROP Rules, 1988. Notwithstanding two subsequent pay revisions by means of the ROP Rules, 1999 and the ROP Rules, 2009, according to the petitioners, the controversy has not been resolved for arbitrary approach of the respondents. The respondents even did not implement their own decision as reflected in the order under No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88/222-224 dated 31.10.2013 where the Government had occasion to observe that as the pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- meant for Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 had been revised to Rs. 4200- 8650/- under the ROP Rules, 1999, which has been further revised subsequently to PB-2, Rs. 5310-24000/- with G.P. Rs. 2400/- under ROP Rules, 2009 w.e.f. 01.01.2006, the Pharmacist [Diploma in Pharmacy] deserves separate pay scale better ‘than existing pay scale/structure allowed to them in view of their higher qualification’ compared to the non-diploma Pharmacist. While disposing the representation of one Manoranjan Naha who approached this Court earlier by filing a writ petition, the said observation has been made by the Finance Department and based on the said observation, the present batch of writ petitions has been structured to advance the said cause. From a study of the ROP Rules, 1963, ROP Rules, 1975, ROP Rules, 1982, it would be apparent that for the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] and for the Pharmacist [without Diploma in Pharmacy] by whatever nomenclature their post was known had been enjoying distinctly two separate pay scales. For purpose of reference, the relevant parts of those ROP Rules as supplied by the petitioners may be extracted. (I) In the ROP Rules, 1963, in the Schedule-I [Page-38] the following revised pay scales against their existing scale of pay were provided: Sl. For purpose of reference, the relevant parts of those ROP Rules as supplied by the petitioners may be extracted. (I) In the ROP Rules, 1963, in the Schedule-I [Page-38] the following revised pay scales against their existing scale of pay were provided: Sl. No. Name of the Post Existing scale of pay Revised scale of pay Remarks 11 Pharmacist Rs.100-4-180-5-200 Rs.150-5-195-EB-5-250 12 Pharmacist (Compounder) Rs.55-3-88-EB-3-118-4-130 Rs.125-3-140-4-156-EB-4-200 (II) In the ROP Rules, 1975, in the Schedule-I [Page-73], the following revised pay scales against their existing scale of pay were provided: Sl. No. Name of the Post/Service Present scale Revised scale Remarks 17 Pharmacist Rs.150-250/- Rs.260-10-390-15-495 (for D. Pharma) 18 Pharmacist Rs.55-3-88-EB-4-200 Rs.240-8-320-10-440 (for others) E.B. after 8th & 15th Stages After the ROP Rules, 1975, by a further notification, the revised pay scale of the Pharmacist [Diploma in Pharmacy] of Rs.260-10-390-15-495 was modified to Rs.325-15-445-20-565-25-665 [EB after 8th and 15th stages]. (III) In the ROP Rules, 1982, the revised pay scales were provided under Hospital Services of the Health and Family Welfare Department [Page-43]. The Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] was brought under Grade-II of that services and the other Pharmacist [without Diploma in Pharmacy] was brought under Hospital Services, Grade-III with the following revised scale: Sl. No. Name of the Post Present scale Revised scale Remarks 31 Hospital Services, Grade-II Rs.325-15-445-20-565-25-665 (EB after 8th and 15th stages) Rs.560-25-710-30-860-40-1300/- 32 Hospital Services, Grade-III Rs.240-8-320-10-440/- (EB after 8th and 15th stages) Rs.430-15-580-20-600-25-850/- It is apparent from the ROP Rules, 1982 that the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 325-665/- was revised to Rs. 560-1300/- and the said scale is higher than the scale of Pharmacist [Non-Diploma]. The difference in the scale of pay of two categories of Pharmacist was maintained in conformity to the preceding ROP Rules. By the ROP Rules, 1988 and its subsequent amendments, the present controversy has been generated. On 16.09.1988, the ROP Rules, 1988 was published giving its effect from 01.01.1986. In the original ROP Rules, 1988 the post of Pharmacist [Diploma in Pharmacy] was placed under Part-B of Schedule-I [Page-71] and provided with the following modified and the revised pay scale: Sl. No. Name of Post Present Scale Re-designation of the Post, if any Modified Present Scale, if any Revised Scale Remarks 13 Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] Rs.560-1300/- ---- Rs.800-1860/- Rs.2000-4410/- By the said ROP Rules, 1988 at Sl. No. Name of Post Present Scale Re-designation of the Post, if any Modified Present Scale, if any Revised Scale Remarks 13 Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] Rs.560-1300/- ---- Rs.800-1860/- Rs.2000-4410/- By the said ROP Rules, 1988 at Sl. No.50 [viii] of Part-B of Schedule-I it has been seen that the post of the Compounder has been re-designated as the Pharmacist. Similarly, in Sl. No.50 [ix], the post of Assistant Homeopath was re-designated to the post of Pharmacist (Homeo) and in the Sl. No.50 (x) the post of Assistant to Dentist was re-designated to the post of Pharmacist (Dental) whereas the post of Clerk-cum-Compounder under Sl. No.50(xiii) was re-designated to the post of Pharmacist. For purpose of reference, those entries under Sl. Nos.50 (viii), 50(ix), 50(x) and 50(xii) appearing under Part-B of the Schedule-I [page - 75 of the ROP Rules, 1988] are extracted hereunder: Sl. No. Name of Post Present Scale Re-designation of the Post, if any Modified Present Scale, if any Revised Scale Remarks (A) Hospital and Miscellaneous Services (a) Senior Grade 50 Grade-I Grade-II Grade-III Rs.600-1440/- Rs.560-1300/- Rs.430-850/- Rs.750-1750/- Rs.650-1595/- Rs.600-1440/- Rs.1700-3980/- Rs.1450-3710/- Rs. 1300-3220/- Duty Posts: ...viii) Compounder (ix) Assistant Homeopath (x) Assistant to Dentist ...(xii) Clerk-cum-Compounder Pharmacist Pharmacist (Homeo) Pharmacist (Dental) Pharmacist It can also be noticed from the Part-C of the ROP Rules that those Pharmacists who were appointed in the Departments other than the Health & Family Welfare Department and were enjoying the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- were provided with the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/-. The relevant part from the Part-C [Page-135] of ROP Rules, 1988 is reproduced hereunder: Sl. No. Name of Post Present Scale Re-designation of the Post, if any Modified Present Scale, if any Revised Scale Remarks 21 Pharmacist Compounder etc. Rs.560-1300/- Senior Pharmacist Rs.650-1595/- Rs.1450-3710 Similar other posts Rs.470-1025/- Pharmacist Rs.600-1440/- Rs.1300-3220/- (except those under Health & Family Welfare Department Rs.430-850/- Junior Pharmacist (similar for other posts) Rs.470-1025/- Rs.970-2400/- Immediately after introduction of the ROP Rules, 1988, the Finance Department issued a corrigendum under No.F.(6)-FIN(PC)/88 dated 24.09.1988 for deletion of the entry ‘Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy]’ in column 2 and its scale ‘Rs. 560-1300’ under column No.3 in serial No.13 of the ROP Rules, 1988 [Page-71]. Further, the entry ‘Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy]’ in column No.2 of Sl. 560-1300’ under column No.3 in serial No.13 of the ROP Rules, 1988 [Page-71]. Further, the entry ‘Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy]’ in column No.2 of Sl. No. 50 (XIII) was deleted by the said corrigendum dated 24.09.1988, Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014. The fact of the said correction unleashed the following structure relating to their pay scales: Sl. No. Name of Post Present Scale Re-designation of the Post, if any Modified Present Scale, if any Revised Scale Remarks (A) Hospital and Miscellaneous Services (a) Senior Grade 50 Grade-I Grade-II Grade-III Rs.600-1440/- Rs.560-1300/- Rs.430-850/- Rs.750-1750/- Rs.650-1595/- Rs.600-1440/- Rs.1700-3980/- Rs.1450-3710/- Rs.1300-3220/- Duty Posts: (viii) Compounder (ix) Assistant Homeopath (x) Assistant to Dentist (xii) Clerk-cum-Compounder (xiii) Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] 10. Thereafter, by another notification under No.F.4(6)/FIN(PC)/88 dated 26.11.1988, Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014, the amendment has been carried out in the ROP Rules, 1988. The said amendment called Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) 2nd Amendment Rules, 1988 was given effect from 01.01.1986. In the note below Clause (A) (2) below Rule 7 (1) [Page-15] the words ‘a post for a particular career as mentioned’ has been added after the words ‘the purpose of, appearing in the fourth line or in the Note below ‘A(2)-personal Pay’. Many more amendments have been carried out by the 2nd Amendment Rules but so far the Health & Family Welfare Department and the post of Pharmacist are concerned, the following amendment is relevant: “(x) Page-75 (Health & F.W. Department) Sl. No.50 At the bottom of the page the entry ‘xiv) Pharmacist’ shall be inserted in col.2 below the entry ‘xiii) Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy]’, as incorporated by Finance Department’s Corrigendum of even number dated 24.09.1988.” As a result of the amendment as carried out by the said notification dated 26.11.1988 [See Page-75 of the ROP Rules, 1988], the changes that occurred in the structure of the post vis-a-vis the pay scale are as under : Sl. No. Name of Post Present Scale Re-designation of the Post, if any Modified Present Scale, if any Revised Scale Remarks (A) Hospital and Miscellaneous Services (a) Senior Grade 50 Grade-I Grade-II Grade-III Rs.600-1440/- Rs.560-1300/- Rs.430-850/- Rs.750-1750/- Rs.650-1595/- Rs.600-1440/- Rs.1700-3980/- Rs.1450-3710/- Rs.1300-3220/- Duty Posts: …(viii) Compounder (ix) Assistant Homeopath (x) Assistant to Dentist …(xii) Clerk-cum-Compounder (xiii) Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] (xiv) Pharmacist Pharmacist Pharmacist (Homeo) Pharmacist (Dental) Pharmacist Most surprisingly after 20 years and more by the notification under No.F.4(6)/FIN(PC)/82 dated 25.04.2009, Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014, the following changes have been made in supersession of the corrigendum dated 24.09.1988 and Para-2(x) of 2nd Amendment of the ROP Rules, 1988 as was notified by the notification dated 26.11.1988: “2. In the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988: (a) Page-71 (Health & Family Welfare Department) Sl. No.13 The post ‘Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy]’ along with its pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- appearing in Col. 2 & 3 against Sl. No.13 at Page-71 shall be deleted. (b) Page-71 (Health & Family Welfare Department) Sl. No.50 At the bottom of the Page-75 the post ‘Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy]’ in receipt of pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- shall be inserted in Col. 2 & 3 as sub-serial (xiii) under Sl. No.50.” 11. The crux of the said 10th Amendment Rules is that the revised scale of pay Rs. 1450-3710/- shall only be available to the persons those are in receipt of the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 560-1300/- and those who were not in receipt of the said pay scale of the said pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- they would get the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1300-3220/-. The impact of such amendment can be had from the following structure vis-a-vis the pay scale: Sl. No. Name of Post Present Scale Re-designation of the Post, if any Modified Present Scale, if any Revised Scale Remarks (A) Hospital and Miscellaneous Services (a) Senior Grade 50 Grade-I Grade-II Grade-III Rs.600-1440/- Rs.560-1300/- Rs.430-850/- Rs.750-1750/- Rs.650-1595/- Rs.600-1440/- Rs.1700-3980/- Rs.1450-3710/- Rs.1300-3220/- Duty Posts: …(viii) Compounder (ix) Assistant Homeopath (x) Assistant to Dentist …(xii) Clerk-cum-Compounder (xiii) Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] Pharmacist Pharmacist (Homeo) Pharmacist (Dental) Pharmacist In receipt of pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- 12. The Finance Department had referred the matter to the Pay Anomaly Committee which was constituted for examining the anomalies that emerged from the ROP Rules, 1988. The reference was required and it was rightly so made. The Pay Anomaly Committee published their report and admittedly made the recommendation as reproduced in Para-8 above. The recommendation is unambiguous and categorical. The said recommendation is based on very sound principle that the post requiring Diploma after H.S.(+2 Stage) be allowed the initial scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/-. Thus, the Commission through the Pay Anomaly Committee recommended the State Government to provide the Pharmacist [Diploma] the scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- with next higher pay scale of Rs. 1700-3980/-. The petitioners have asserted that taking note of the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Committee, the Fourth Tripura Pay Commission in their report [Page-122] recommended the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/-. In the report of the Fourth Tripura Pay Commission [page-42] the recommendation of Fourth Tripura Pay Commission is available and is reproduced hereunder: Sl. No. Name of the Post Existing Scale Proposed Scale 16 Pharmacist Rs.1450-3710/- Rs.5000-9950/- 13. By the order dated 31.10.2013 under No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88/222-224, Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014, the Finance Department has placed their evaluation of the grievance of the Pharmacist when a representation was filed by the said writ petitioner in terms of the liberty granted to the writ petitioner by the apex court by the order dated 28.03.2011 delivered in SLP (Civil) No.198/2011. The said writ petitioner filed the representation to the Secretary to the Finance Department, Government of Tripura but since the said representation dated 07.09.2011 was not being disposed of, the writ petitioner namely, Manoranjan Naha by filing another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.342/2012 sought intervention in that respect. By the order dated 28.03.2011, the Finance Department was directed by the Gauhati High Court to dispose the said representation by a reasoned order. Accordingly, by the said order dated 31.10.2013 as reproduced in Para-2 above, it has been clearly observed that the pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- meant for Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] under ROP Rules, 1988 has been revised to Rs. 4200-8650/- under ROP Rules, 1999 and the said pay scale was further revised to the Pay Band-2 [Rs. 5310-24000/- with G.P. Rs. 2400/-] under the ROP Rules, 2009. 1300-3220/- meant for Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] under ROP Rules, 1988 has been revised to Rs. 4200-8650/- under ROP Rules, 1999 and the said pay scale was further revised to the Pay Band-2 [Rs. 5310-24000/- with G.P. Rs. 2400/-] under the ROP Rules, 2009. The Finance Department has categorically observed that the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] deserves separate pay scale then existing pay scale/structure allowed to them in view of their higher qualification compared to the non-Diploma Pharmacist. The Gauhati High Court in the judgment and order dated 23.09.2010 [Sri Manoranjan Naha vs. State of Tripura and others] in W.A. No.26 of 2010 after making evaluation of the pay scale of both the categories of Pharmacists had occasion to observe as under: “11. We have read and re-read the Revision of Pay Rules, 1988, as has been reproduced above and what we notice is that the Pharmacist, with Diploma in Pharmacy, was placed with pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.560-1300/- along with those, whose pay scales were Rs.750-1750/- and Rs.650-1595/-. The Pharmacist, with Diploma in Pharmacy, had never been equated with the officers grade nor could they have been placed with those, whose pre-revised pay scales were far higher than that of the Pharmacist. It is this error, as we notice, and has been correctly noted by the learned Single Judge, which came to be corrected by the impugned corrigendum by bringing the post of the Pharmacist, with Diploma in Pharmacy, under Grade II, where the Pharmacist, with Diploma in Pharmacy, stood placed under the Revised Pay Rules, 1982. We may, once again, point out that under the Revised Pay Rules, 1982, Pharmacist, with Diploma in Pharmacy, admittedly, stood placed at Grade II, with revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/-, Grade II, with pay scale of Rs.560-1300, stands, now, mentioned at serial No.50 under the heading ‘HOSPITAL & MISC. SERVICES’. The relevant portion reads as under : “(A) Hospital & MISC. SERVICES. (A) SENIOR GRADE 50. Grade-I 600-1440 750-1750 1700-3980 Grade-II 560-1300 650-1595 1450-3710 Grade-III 430-850 600-1440 1300-3220 DUTY POSTS : (i) Technician Laboratory Laboratory Technician (ii) Histopathology Technician --- (iii) Technician (Blood/Dental) Laboratory Technician (Blood/Dental) (iv) Radiographer --- (v) Cancer Radiographer --- (vi) ECG Technician --- (vii) X-Ray Technician Radiographer (viii) Compounder Pharmacist (ix) Assistant Homeopath Pharmacist (Homeo) (x) Assistant to Dentist Pharmacist (Dental) (xi) Ward Master and Jr. Ward Master --- (xii) Clerk-cum-Compounder Pharmacist (xiii) Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] Pharmacist 12. What emerges from the above discussions is that those, who were placed in Grade II, under the Revised Pay Rules, 1982, and enjoyed the pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- were placed, even under the Revision of Pay Rules, 1988, under Grade II, and they were given the pay scale of Rs.650-1595/- and Rs.1450-3710/-. Though the Pharmacists, with Diploma in Pharmacy, were in Grade II with pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/-, they were incorrectly placed with those, who were enjoying higher grade of pay scale and it is this error, which has been corrected by the impugned corrigendum. The grievance, therefore, of the appellant that he has been equated with the Compounder and Clerk-cum-Compounder inasmuch as the Pharmacist is in Grade II, whereas Clerk-cum-Compounder is under Grade III, is unfounded.” This analogy since did not satisfy the writ petitioner, he had approached the apex court by filing the said special leave petition (SLP) where the writ petitioner was granted the liberty to approach the state afresh in respect of his grievance. The outcome was the notification dated 31.10.2013. 14. Even though the petitioners have referred the judgment dated 23.09.2010, the controversy in this batch of writ petitions does not encompass the identical context. It would be apparent from the prayers made in these writ petitions that the basic prayer is to fix the pay of the petitioners in the scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- at the initial stage and to give them the grade movement after 10 years of service in the scale of pay of Rs. 1700-3910/- and after 18 years of service Rs. 2000-4410/- with the corresponding revised pay scale by virtue of the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) as the stagnation relief if no promotion is available for the period as provided under Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999 or under its succeeding provisions or provisions with modification. The petitioners have also urged this court to quash the memorandum dated 03.01.2011, Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.74 of 2015, the order dated 05.07.2013, Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.74 of 2015, the order dated 11.06.2014, Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.74 of 2015 and the order dated 02.01.2015, Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.74 of 2015. Ancillary thereto, a prohibitive order against recovery has been urged. Ancillary thereto, a prohibitive order against recovery has been urged. 15. Mr. Somik Deb and Mr. Samarjit Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have projected the same contentions in hearing. It has been submitted by the petitioners that the post of Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] has been lowered by the respondents to Grade-III from Grade-II in effect. There cannot be any amount of controversy that for the Pharmacist, the pre-revised pay scale was unfortunately at Rs. 560-1300/- corresponding revised scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- at the entry level, but by placing the Pharmacist at Rs. 1300-3220/- corresponding pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 430-850/-, the pay scale of Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] has been downgraded and such downgrading is against the recommendation of the Pay Commission as well as the decision of the Finance Department as reflected in the order dated 31.10.2013 as reproduced hereinabove. Even though, those Pharmacists [with Diploma in Pharmacy] who were appointed prior to 01.01.1986 were fitted in the pay scale for the Grade-II i.e. Rs. 1450-3710/- from their pre-revised scale of pay of Rs. 560-1300/-. That fitment was not by way of movement in the Grade-II. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel has in particular, emphatically submitted that clubbing of the post of Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] and the post of Pharmacist [Non Diploma] is unconscionable action of the respondents, inasmuch as the well-reasoned recommendation of the anomaly committee and the order dated 31.10.2013 were not taken care of at any point of time. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has further submitted that for the said impugned action of the respondents, the petitioners are suffering perennially. In this context, principle of laches cannot be applied against the petitioners. It has been submitted by Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that in effect, the said action of the respondents, two pay scales have been provided for the same post of Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy]. The Pharmacists [with Diploma in Pharmacy] who were appointed before 01.01.1986 and continued in the same post have been allowed to the scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- but those Pharmacists [with Diploma in Pharmacy] who entered in the service after the ROP Rules, 1988 was introduced, they are given the purported initial pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/-. The Pharmacists [with Diploma in Pharmacy] who were appointed before 01.01.1986 and continued in the same post have been allowed to the scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- but those Pharmacists [with Diploma in Pharmacy] who entered in the service after the ROP Rules, 1988 was introduced, they are given the purported initial pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/-. According to the petitioners, this is impermissible having regard to the principle for equal pay for equal work and this cannot stand the test of reasonableness. To buttress such contention, a reference has been made to D.S. Nakara and others vs. Union of India, reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 , where the apex court has observed as under: “9. Is this class of pensioners further divisible for the purpose of ‘entitlement’ and ‘payment’ of pension into those who retired by certain date and those who retired after that date? If date of retirement can be accepted as a valid criterion for classification, on retirement each individual government servant would form a class by himself because the date of retirement of each is correlated to his birth date and on attaining a certain age he had to retire. It is only after the recommendations of the Third Central Pay Commission were accepted by the Government of India that the retirement dates have been specified to be 12 in number being last day of each month in which the birth date of the individual government servant happens to fall. In other words, all government servants who retire correlated to birth date on attaining the age of superannuation in a given month shall not retire on that date but shall retire on the last day of the month. Now, if date of retirement is a valid criterion for classification, those who retire at the end of every month shall form a class by themselves. This is too microscopic a classification to be upheld for any valid purpose. Is it permissible or is it violative of Article 14? * * * * 42. If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational principle? * * * * 42. If it appears to be undisputable, as it does to us that the pensioners for the purpose of pension benefits form a class, would its upward revision permit a homogeneous class to be divided by arbitrarily fixing an eligibility criteria unrelated to purpose of revision, and would such classification be founded on some rational principle? The classification has to be based, as is well settled, on some rational principle and the rational principle must have nexus to the objects sought to be achieved. We have set out the objects underlying the payment of pension. If the State considered it necessary to liberalise the pension scheme, we find no rational principle behind it for granting these benefits only to those who retired subsequent to that date simultaneously denying the same to those who retired prior to that date. If the liberalisation was considered necessary for augmenting social security in old age to government servants then those who, retired earlier cannot be worst off than those who retire later. Therefore, this division which classified pensioners into two classes is not based on any rational principle and if the rational principle is the one of dividing pensioners with a view to giving something more to persons otherwise equally placed, it would be discriminatory. To illustrate, take two persons, one retired just a day prior and another a day just succeeding the specified date. Both were in the same pay bracket, the average emolument was the same and both had put in equal number of years of service. How does a fortuitous circumstance of retiring a day earlier or a day later will permit totally unequal treatment in the matter of pension? One retiring a day earlier will have to be subject to ceiling of Rs 8100 p.a. and average emolument to be worked out on 36 months’ salary while the other will have a ceiling of Rs 12,000 p.a. and average emolument will be computed on the basis of last 10 months’ average. The artificial division stares into face and is unrelated to any principle and whatever principle, if there be any, has absolutely no nexus to the objects sought to be achieved by liberalising the pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counterproductive and runs counter to the whole gamut of pension scheme. In fact this arbitrary division has not only no nexus to the liberalised pension scheme but it is counterproductive and runs counter to the whole gamut of pension scheme. The equal treatment guaranteed in Article 14 is wholly violated inasmuch as the pension rules being statutory in character, since the specified date, the rules accord differential and discriminatory treatment to equals in the matter of commutation of pension. A 48 hours’ difference in matter of retirement would have a traumatic effect. Division is thus both arbitrary and unprincipled. Therefore, the classification does not stand the test of Article 14. 43. Further the classification is wholly arbitrary because we do not find a single acceptable or persuasive reason for this division. This arbitrary action violated the guarantee of Article 14. The next question is what is the way out? 44. The learned Attorney-General contended that the scheme is to be taken as a whole or rejected as a whole and the date from which it came into force is an integral and inseparable part of the scheme. The two sub-limbs of the submissions were that, (i) the Court cannot make a scheme having financial implications retroactive, and (ii) this Court cannot grant any relief to the pensioners who retired prior to a specified date because if more persons divide the available cake, the residue falling to the share of each especially to those who are likely to be benefited by the scheme will be comparatively smaller and as they are not before the Court, no relief can be given to the pensioners. * * * * 50. There is nothing immutable about the choosing of an event as an eligibility criteria subsequent to a specified date. If the event is certain but its occurrence at a point of time is considered wholly irrelevant and arbitrarily selected having no rationale for selecting it and having an undesirable effect of dividing homogeneous class and of introducing the discrimination, the same can be easily severed and set aside. While examining the case under Article 14, the approach is not: ‘either take it or leave it’, the approach is removal of arbitrariness and if that can be brought about by severing the mischievous portion the court ought to remove the discriminatory part retaining the beneficial portion. The pensioners do not challenge the liberalised pension scheme. They seek the benefit of it. The pensioners do not challenge the liberalised pension scheme. They seek the benefit of it. Their grievance is of the denial to them of the same by arbitrary introduction of words of limitation and we find no difficulty in severing and quashing the same. This approach can be legitimised on the ground that every government servant retires. State grants upward revision of pension undoubtedly from a date. Event has occurred revision has been earned. Date is merely to avoid payment of arrears which may impose a heavy burden. If the date is wholly removed, revised pension will have to be paid from the actual date of retirement of each pensioner. That is impermissible. The State cannot be burdened with arrears commencing from the date of retirement of each pensioner. But effective from the specified date future pension of earlier retired government servants can be computed and paid on the analogy of fitments in revised pay scales becoming prospectively operative. That removes the nefarious unconstitutional part and retains the beneficial portion. It does not adversely affect future pensioners and their presence in these petitions becomes irrelevant. But before we do so, we must look into the reasons assigned for eligibility criteria, namely, ‘in service on the specified date and retiring after that date’. The only reason we could find in affidavit of Shri Mathur is the following statement in para 5: ‘The date of effect of the impugned orders has been selected on the basis of relevant and valid considerations.’ * * * * 56. In reaching this conclusion the Court relied on Louisville Gas Co. v. Alabama Power Co.17 This decision 16 is not an authority for the proposition that whenever a date is chosen, or an eligibility criteria which divides a class, the purpose of choice unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved must be accepted as valid. In fact it is made clear in the decision itself that even if no particular reason is forthcoming for the choice unless it is shown to be capricious or whimsical, the choice of the legislature may be accepted. Therefore, the choice of the date cannot be wholly divorced from the objects sought to be achieved by the impugned action. In other words, if the choice is shown to be thoroughly arbitrary and introduces discrimination violative of Article 14, the date can be struck down. Therefore, the choice of the date cannot be wholly divorced from the objects sought to be achieved by the impugned action. In other words, if the choice is shown to be thoroughly arbitrary and introduces discrimination violative of Article 14, the date can be struck down. What facts influenced the Court’s decision in that case for upholding the choice of the date are worth recalling. The Court held that the object of granting the concessional rate of duty was to protect the smaller units in the industry from the competition by the larger ones and that object would have been frustrated, if, by adopting the device of fragmentation, the larger units could become the ultimate beneficiaries of the bounty. This was the weighty consideration which prompted the court to uphold the date. * * * * 58. Now if the choice of date is arbitrary, eligibility criteria is unrelated to the object sought to be achieved and has the pernicious tendency of dividing an otherwise homogeneous class, the question is whether the liberalised pension scheme must wholly fail or that the pernicious part can be severed, cautioning itself that this Court does not legislate but merely interprets keeping in view the underlying intention and the object, the impugned measure seeks to subserve? Even though it is not possible to oversimplify the issue, let us read the impugned memoranda deleting the unconstitutional part. Omitting it, the memoranda will read like this: ‘At present, pension is calculated at the rate of 1/80th of average emoluments for each completed year of service and is subject to a maximum of 33/80 of average emoluments and is further restricted to a monetary limit of Rs 1000 per month. The President is, now, pleased to decide that with effect from March 31, 1979 the amount of pension shall be determined in accordance with the following slabs.’ If from the impugned memoranda the event of being in service and retiring subsequent to specified date is severed, all pensioners would be governed by the liberalised pension scheme. The pension will have to be recomputed in accordance with the provisions of the liberalised pension scheme as salaries were required to be recomputed in accordance with the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission but becoming operative from the specified date. The pension will have to be recomputed in accordance with the provisions of the liberalised pension scheme as salaries were required to be recomputed in accordance with the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission but becoming operative from the specified date. It does therefore appear that the reading down of impugned memoranda by severing the objectionable portion would not render the liberalised pension scheme vague, unenforceable or unworkable. 59. In reading down the memoranda, is this Court legislating? Of course ‘not’. When we delete basis of classification as violative of Article 14, we merely set at naught the unconstitutional portion retaining the constitutional portion. 60. We may now deal with the last submission of the learned Attorney-General on this point. Said the learned Attorney-General that principle of severability cannot be applied to augment the class and to adopt his words ‘severance always cuts down the scope, never enlarges it’. We are not sure whether there is any principle which inhibits the court from striking down an unconstitutional part of a legislative action which may have the tendency to enlarge the width and coverage of the measure. Whenever classification is held to be impermissible and the measure can be retained by removing the unconstitutional portion of classification, by striking down words of limitation, the resultant effect may be of enlarging the class. In such a situation, the court can strike down the words of limitation in an enactment. That is what is called reading down the measure. We know of no principle that ‘severance’ limits the scope of legislation and can never enlarge it. To refer to the Jaila Singh case: (1976) 1 SCC 602 , when for the benefit of allotment of land the artificial division between pre-1955 and post- 1955 tenant was struck down by this Court, the class of beneficiaries was enlarged and the cake in the form of available land was a fixed quantum and its distribution amongst the larger class would pro tanto reduce the quantum to each beneficiary included in the class. Similarly when this Court in Randhir Singh case : (1982) 1 SCC 618 held that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ may be properly applied to cases of unequal pay based on no classification or irrational classification it enlarged the class of beneficiaries. Similarly when this Court in Randhir Singh case : (1982) 1 SCC 618 held that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ may be properly applied to cases of unequal pay based on no classification or irrational classification it enlarged the class of beneficiaries. Therefore, the principle of ‘severance’ for taking out the unconstitutional provision from an otherwise constitutional measure has been well recognised. It would be just and proper that the provision in the memoranda while retaining the date for its implementation, but providing ‘that in respect of government servants who were in service on March 31, 1979 but retiring from service on or after that date’ can be legally and validly severed and must be struck down. The date is retained without qualification as the effective date for implementation of scheme, it being made abundantly clear that in respect of all pensioners governed by 1972 Rules, the pension of each may be recomputed as on April 1, 1979 and future payments be made in accordance with fresh computation under the liberalised pension scheme as enacted in the impugned memoranda. No arrears for the period prior to March 31, 1979 in accordance with revised computation need be paid.” [Emphasis supplied] 16. Further, reliance has been placed on U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630 , where the apex court had occasion to observe as under: “21. It is one thing to say that the State can fix a cut-off date unless and until the same is held to be arbitrary or discriminatory in nature, the same would be given effect for carrying out the purpose for which it was fixed. In this case, the cut-off date for all intent and purport had been fixed as 1-1-1996. It is, thus, not a case where cut-off date was fixed as 1-4-1998 as the State merely intended to confer only the same benefits. It is, thus, also not a case like Transmission Corpn., A.P. Ltd. v. P. Ramachandra Rao : (2006) 9 SCC 623 where a section of the employees were excluded from being given the benefit of revised pension as they had retired prior to the cut-off date. 22. It is, thus, also not a case like Transmission Corpn., A.P. Ltd. v. P. Ramachandra Rao : (2006) 9 SCC 623 where a section of the employees were excluded from being given the benefit of revised pension as they had retired prior to the cut-off date. 22. The State while implementing the new scheme for payment of grant of pensionary benefits to its employees, may deny the same to a class of retired employees who were governed by a different set of rules. The extension of the benefits can also be denied to a class of employees if the same is permissible in law. The case of the appellants, however, stands absolutely on a different footing. They had been enjoying the benefit of the revised scales of pay. Recommendations have been made by the Central Government as also the University Grant Commission to the State of Karnataka to extend the benefits of the Pay Revision Committee in their favour. The pay in their case had been revised in 1986 whereas the pay of the employees of the State of Karnataka was revised in 1993. The benefits of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee w.e.f. 1-1-1996, thus, could not have been denied to the appellants.” 17. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that by giving retrospective operation of the notification dated 25.04.2009, Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014, for purpose of lowering down the pay scale of Pharmacist [Diploma in Pharmacy] from Rs. 1450-3710/- to Rs. 1300-3220/- and making the pay scale equal to the unequal class of the Pharmacist [non-Diploma in Pharmacy] which post was borne in the pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- the respondents have embarked on arbitrary and unreasonable action by way of taking the benefits as vested. Having regard to this context, reliance has been placed on a series of the apex court decisions which are merely referred hereunder as the legal principle is well-crystallized. (i) Ex-Major N.C. Singhal vs. Director General, Armed Forces Medical Services New Delhi and another, reported in (1972) 4 SCC 765 . (ii) State of Gujarat and another vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others etc., reported in (1983) 2 SCC 33 . (iii) Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora and another vs. State of Haryana and others etc., reported in (1984) 3 SCC 281 . (ii) State of Gujarat and another vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others etc., reported in (1983) 2 SCC 33 . (iii) Ex-Capt. K.C. Arora and another vs. State of Haryana and others etc., reported in (1984) 3 SCC 281 . (iv) T.R. Kapur and others vs. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1986) Supp SCC 584. (v) P. Mahendran and others vs. State of Karnataka and others etc., reported (1990) 1 SCC 411 . (vi) Chairman, Railway Board and others vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah and others, reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623 . (vii) P. Tulsi Das and others vs. Govt. of A.P. and others, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 364 . (viii) Air India Employees Self-Contributory Superannuation Pension Scheme vs. Kuriakose vs. Cherian and others, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 404 . (ix) U.P. Raghavendra Acharya and others vs. State of Karnataka and others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 630 . (x) State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 . (xi) J.S. Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, reported in (2011) 6 SCC 570 . (xii) Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation vs. B. Narasimha Reddy and others, reported in (2011) 9 SCC 286 . (xiii) Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-I, New Delhi vs. Vatika Township Private Limited, reported in (2015) 1 SCC 1 . 18. Why the principle of laches will have no manner of application in these writ petitions, the petitioners have placed their reliance on M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 , where the apex court has held as under: “5. Having heard both sides, we are satisfied that the Tribunal has missed the real point and overlooked the crux of the matter. The appellant’s grievance that his pay fixation was not in accordance with the rules, was the assertion of a continuing wrong against him which gave rise to a recurring cause of action each time he was paid a salary which was not computed in accordance with the rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. So long as the appellant is in service, a fresh cause of action arises every month when he is paid his monthly salary on the basis of a wrong computation made contrary to rules. It is no doubt true that if the appellant’s claim is found correct on merits, he would be entitled to be paid according to the properly fixed pay scale in the future and the question of limitation would arise for recovery of the arrears for the past period. In other words, the appellant’s claim, if any, for recovery of arrears calculated on the basis of difference in the pay which has become time barred would not be recoverable, but he would be entitled to proper fixation of his pay in accordance with rules and to cessation of a continuing wrong if on merits his claim is justified. Similarly, any other consequential relief claimed by him, such as, promotion etc. would also be subject to the defence of laches etc. to disentitle him to those reliefs. The pay fixation can be made only on the basis of the situation existing on 1-8-1978 without taking into account any other consequential relief which may be barred by his laches and the bar of limitation. It is to this limited extent of proper pay fixation the application cannot be treated as time barred since it is based on a recurring cause of action. 6. The Tribunal misdirected itself when it treated the appellant’s claim as ‘one time action’ meaning thereby that it was not a continuing wrong based on a recurring cause of action. The claim to be paid the correct salary computed on the basis of proper pay fixation, is a right which subsists during the entire tenure of service and can be exercised at the time of each payment of the salary when the employee is entitled to salary computed correctly in accordance with the rules. This right of a government servant to be paid the correct salary throughout his tenure according to computation made in accordance with the rules, is akin to the right of redemption which is an incident of a subsisting mortgage and subsists so long as the mortgage itself subsists, unless the equity of redemption is extinguished. It is settled that the right of redemption is of this kind. (See Thota China Subba Rao v. Mattapalli Raju, AIR 1950 FC 1). 7. It is settled that the right of redemption is of this kind. (See Thota China Subba Rao v. Mattapalli Raju, AIR 1950 FC 1). 7. Learned counsel for the respondents placed strong reliance on the decision of this Court in S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., (1989) 4 SCC 582 That decision has no application in the present case. That was a case of termination of service and, therefore, a case of one time action, unlike the claim for payment of correct salary according to the rules throughout the service giving rise to a fresh cause of action each time the salary was incorrectly computed and paid. No further consideration of that decision is required to indicate its inapplicability in the present case. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal has to be allowed. We make it clear that the merits of the appellant’s claim have to be examined and the only point concluded by this decision is the one decided above. The question of limitation with regard to the consequential and other reliefs including the arrears, if any, has to be considered and decided in accordance with law in due course by the Tribunal. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration of the application and its decision afresh on merits in accordance with law. No costs.” 19. In Union of India and others vs Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , the apex court had occasion to restate the law having approvingly reproduced Para 5 from M.R. Gupta (supra): “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” [Emphasis supplied] 20. Further, reliance has been placed on State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Yogendra Shrivastava, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 538 , where the apex court has held as under: “9. In this background, on the contentions raised by the parties, the following three questions arise for our consideration: (i) Whether the rates of NPA specified in the letters of appointment and the orders of the Department, can prevail over the provisions relating to NPA in the Rules? (ii) Whether the retrospective amendment of the Rules by Notification dated 20-5-2003, can deny the benefit which had accrued under the unamended Rules? (iii) Even if the respondents are held to be entitled to higher NPA as contended by them and as found by the Tribunal and the High Court, whether the financial benefit could be extended to them beyond three years prior to filing of the original applications before the Tribunal? * * * * Re: Question (iii) 16. The Tribunal directed payment of the difference in NPA to the respondents from their respective dates of appointment. The respondents were appointed from 1982 onwards. * * * * Re: Question (iii) 16. The Tribunal directed payment of the difference in NPA to the respondents from their respective dates of appointment. The respondents were appointed from 1982 onwards. The respondents had approached the Tribunal long after their appointment, that is, in 1998 or thereafter. 17. The appellants contended that the claims were therefore barred by limitation. It was pointed out that the respondents were paid NPA at a fixed rate as stipulated in the appointment orders and NPA was increased only when it was revised by the government orders from time to time; that the respondents accepted such NPA without protest; and that therefore, they cannot, after periods varying from 5 to 15 years, challenge the fixation of NPA or contend that they are entitled to NPA at a higher rate, that is, 25% of their pay. 18. We cannot agree. Where the issue relates to payment or fixation of salary or any allowance, the challenge is not barred by limitation or the doctrine of laches, as the denial of benefit occurs every month when the salary is paid, thereby giving rise to a fresh cause of action, based on continuing wrong. Though the lesser payment may be a consequence of the error that was committed at the time of appointment, the claim for a higher allowance in accordance with the Rules (prospectively from the date of application) cannot be rejected merely because it arises from a wrong fixation made several years prior to the claim for correct payment. But in respect of grant of consequential relief of recovery of arrears for the past period, the principle relating to recurring and successive wrongs would apply. Therefore the consequential relief of payment of arrears will have to be restricted to a period of three years prior to the date of the original application. (See M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Union of India v. Tarsem Singh.)” 21. For giving retrospective operation or for fixation of the pay erroneously, the payment as made in excess cannot be recovered. Mr. Deb, learned counsel amid his submission has referred the decision of the apex court in P. Savita and others vs. Union of India, Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence Production), New Delhi and others, reported in (1985) Supp SCC 94, where the apex court has observed as under: “12. Mr. Deb, learned counsel amid his submission has referred the decision of the apex court in P. Savita and others vs. Union of India, Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence Production), New Delhi and others, reported in (1985) Supp SCC 94, where the apex court has observed as under: “12. The High Court did not have the advantage of a decision of this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 , to which one of us was a party, which evolved the equality doctrine embodied in Article 39(d) and read Article 14 into it; while considering the complaint of a driver who was originally in the Army but later employed as a driver constable in Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration and who was denied the same pay as was available to the other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authorities to pay the petitioners in that case, salary at least equal to the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. Disagreeing with the plea, put forward by the Union of India this Court observed as follows: ‘The counter-affidavit does not explain how the case of the drivers in the Police Force is different from that of the drivers in other departments and what special factors weighed in fixing a lower scale of pay for them. Apparently in the view of the respondents, the circumstance that persons belong to different departments of the Government is itself a sufficient circumstance to justify different scales of pay irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities. We cannot accept this view. If this view is to be stretched to its logical conclusion, the scales of pay of officers of the same rank in the Government of India may vary from department to department notwithstanding that their powers, duties and responsibilities are identical. 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.’ 14. With respect we agree with the conclusion arrived at in the above Judgment, that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently. 15. The case on hand is much stronger than the facts of the Randhir Singh case: (1982) 1 SCC 618 . In that case, the drivers belonged to two different departments. In this case, the Senior Draughtsmen, divided into two groups are in the same department doing identical and same work. It is not a case of different grades created on the ground of higher qualification either academic or otherwise or an entitlement by any other criteria laid down. The justification for this classification is by the mere accident of an earlier entry into service. This cannot be justified. 16. The above decision of this Court has enlarged the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, envisaged in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India and has exalted it to the position of a fundamental right by reading it along with Article 14. This exposition of law had given rise to some whispering dissent in that the doctrine had been extended beyond permissible limits. The observations that the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Article 14, in the Judgment in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 , rendered by a Constitution Bench of this Court it is contended, may perhaps run counter to the observations in the decision referred above. We do not think it necessary on the facts of this case to dwell at length upon the effect of this observation on a wider campus of service jurisprudence in the context of equal pay for equal work which will have to be attempted in an appropriate case.” [Emphasis supplied] 22. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has further placed reliance on U.P. Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Workmen, reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 424, where the apex court had occasion to observe as under: “2. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has further placed reliance on U.P. Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. vs. Workmen, reported in 1989 Supp (2) SCC 424, where the apex court had occasion to observe as under: “2. The Tribunal came to find on material placed before it: ‘...the fact remains that the junior 65 workmen promoted retrospectively did the same work as those promoted by way of personal promotion from 1971 to 1984 and if 65 junior workmen were given higher wage from 1971 to 1984, the decision of the Bank to give such higher wage to workmen promoted by way of personal promotion only from 1-6-1984 is arbitrary and unjust. The principle of equal pay for equal work must prevail and the inequity in wage from 1-4-1971 to 31-5-1984 cannot be allowed to stand.’ 3. The Tribunal’s finding that both the groups were doing the same type of work has rightly not been challenged by the employer Bank as it is a pure finding of fact. If irrespective of classification of junior and senior groups, the same work was done by both, the principle of equal pay for equal work is definitely attracted and on the finding of fact the Tribunal was justified in applying the principle to give the same benefit to those who had been left out. We see no justification in the stand of the employer-Bank and the challenge is without merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in this Court.” 23. Mr. Deb, learned counsel has contended that the State cannot discard the recommendations of the expert body such as the Fourth Tripura Pay Commission which directed the State Government to provide Pharmacists [with Diploma in Pharmacy] with the initial pay of Rs. 1450-3710/-. In this regard, a decision of the apex court has been relied on. In Purshottam Lal and Others vs Union of India and another, reported in (1973) 1 SCC 651 , the apex court has held as under: “14. Mr. Dhebar on behalf of the Government maintains the same position and he says that the Pay Commission Report did not deal with the case of the petitioners. We are unable to accept this contention. The terms of reference are wide, and if any category of government servants was excluded material should have been placed before this Court. Mr. Dhebar on behalf of the Government maintains the same position and he says that the Pay Commission Report did not deal with the case of the petitioners. We are unable to accept this contention. The terms of reference are wide, and if any category of government servants was excluded material should have been placed before this Court. The Pay Commission has clearly stated that for the purposes of their enquiry they had taken all persons in the Civil Services of the Central Government or holding civil posts under that Government and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India, to be Central Government employees. It is not denied by Mr Dhebar that the petitioners are paid out of the Consolidated Fund of India. 15. Mr. Dhebar contends that it was for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of reference. We are unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has made reference in respect of all government employees or it has not. But if it has made a reference in respect of all government employees and it accepts the recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned.” [Emphasis supplied] 24. That apart, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has relied on a decision of this Court in Pranabendu Bikash Chakraborty vs. State of Tripura [judgment and order dated 20.04.2015 delivered in W.P.(C) No.258 of 2010] where the following observation has been made: “15. In the case at hand, it is brought on record that the petitioner exerting his claim from the time 4th Tripura Pay Commission was constituted by the State respondents. After 15th Amendment of ROP Rules 1999, the petitioner made representation after representation and ultimately by Memo dated 18.08.2005 his claim of the pay scale of Rs.1700-3980/- was turned down without assigning any reason. Annexure-10 shows that thereafter also he continued his representation and Annexure-10 is a representation dated 04.10.2008. The petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2010 alleging continuous deprivation of legitimate pay scale due to him. Annexure-10 shows that thereafter also he continued his representation and Annexure-10 is a representation dated 04.10.2008. The petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2010 alleging continuous deprivation of legitimate pay scale due to him. To apply the doctrine of delay and laches, the respondent has to show that grant of the relief claimed by the plaintiff will cause prejudice to the respondent in any manner. Therefore, to my anxious consideration, the writ Court should not throughout the petition on the ground of delay and laches, but this Court must administer justice in accordance with law and principles of equity, justice and good conscience. It will be unjust to deprive the petitioner of the rights, which are accrued to him at the time when 4th Tripura Pay Commission was constituted and recommended a particular pay scale for the Audiometry Technician, the post, which the petitioner was holding.” [Emphasis added] 25. Based on the said observation, in Pranabendu Bikash Chakraborty vs. State of Tripura, it has been further directed as under: “18. In view of the discussion made above, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the post of Audiometry Technician and the post of Ophthalmic Assistant were similarly situated as recommended by 4th Tripura Pay Commission in its recommendation on the reported cases of anomalies and according to that recommendation the petitioner was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.1700-3980/-, but the claim of the petitioner that he should be given the said pay scale w.e.f. 06.08.1993 cannot be accepted since it was a recommendation of the Anomaly Committee and as per that recommendation he will be entitled to the corresponding pay scale as per ROP Rules 1999 and so, the petitioner will be entitled to the corresponding pay scale of Rs.5500-10700/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. To that extent, the Notification dated 17.11.2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) is interfered and Memo dated 18.08.2005 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) is set aside. The respondents are directed to give the benefit of pay scale of Rs.5500-10700/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the order should be complied within three months from today.” Mr. Deb, learned counsel has urged this court that the same principle may be applied in the present case. 26. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. The respondents are directed to give the benefit of pay scale of Rs.5500-10700/- to the petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.1996 and the order should be complied within three months from today.” Mr. Deb, learned counsel has urged this court that the same principle may be applied in the present case. 26. Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents has emphatically raised the quite expected jurisprudential objection as to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground of laches. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that one of the Pharmacists, namely Manoranjan Naha had even approached the apex court against the judgment and order dated 23.09.2010 delivered in W.A. No.26 of 2010 by filing a Special Leave Petition(Civil) being SLP (Civil) No.198 of 2011. The said SLP was withdrawn by the said Pharmacist. The apex court in their order dated 23.08.2011 as delivered in SLP (Civil) No.198 of 2011 had observed as under: “Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the petition, stating that the petitioner would like to make a representation to the authorities concerned. Accordingly, the special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed. Needless to add that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issues raised in the present petition. As and when the representation is filed, the same shall be considered on its own merits.” 27. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. has submitted that the judgment and order dated 23.09.2010, Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014, has reached its finality. In the said judgment, a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court has observed as under: “13. As the appellant has been given, with the help of the impugned corrigendum, the revised pay scale which is, otherwise, available to Grade II employees under the Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura, the appellant, who has entered into service in the year 1984, could not have raised any legally sustainable objection nor the action of the Government, in publishing the impugned corrigendum, could have been held to have been contrary to law. 14. Situated thus, we are clearly of the view that the writ petition had no merit and was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.” 28. However, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. 14. Situated thus, we are clearly of the view that the writ petition had no merit and was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.” 28. However, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Addl. G.A. did not dispute the fact that by the order dated 31.10.2013 as reproduced in the Paragraph-2 above, the Finance Department has observed that the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] deserved separate pay scale than existing pay scale/structure allowed to them in view of their higher qualification compared to the non-Diploma Pharmacist. The said observation has been made in respect of giving the pay scale of Rs.1300-3220/- to the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] and the Pharmacist [Non-Diploma]. Mr. Chakraborty learned Addl. G.A. has also not disputed that in view of the observation made in the order dated 28.03.2011 in the SLP(C) No.198 of 2011 the representation as filed was considered and disposed of by the order/notification dated 31.10.2013. Mr. Chakraborty learned Addl. G.A. has submitted further that in ROP Rules, 1988 which was published on 16.09.1988 erroneously the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] was given the revised pay scale of Rs.2000-4410/- against the corresponding pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560-1300/- which was much higher than the recommended revised pay scale of Rs.1300-3220/-. The said higher scale was neither recommended by the Pay Commission nor was that approved by the Government. It was a clear mistake identified immediately after publication of the ROP Rules. The said error was rectified by way of the corrigendum dated 24.09.1988. After the said corrigendum was issued by the 2nd Amendment Rules, a further change in the structure was brought about in the ROP Rules, 1988 as it was found that giving the higher pay scale to the equivalent officer vis-a-vis the cadre of Pharmacist it would create a cascading impact on the other posts and hence, the amendment was carried out and the post of Pharmacist was incorporated under Column No.2 below entry No.13 but in fact, there was no entry like 13 and that necessitated further modification of the ROP Rules, 1988 and accordingly, by the 10th Amendment of the ROP Rules, 1988 [as brought about by the notification dated 25.04.2009] the post of Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] having pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- as was appearing in column Nos.2 and 3 against Sl. 560-1300/- as was appearing in column Nos.2 and 3 against Sl. No.13 has been deleted and those posts with their pre-revised scale inserted under column Nos.2 and 3 as sub-serial [xiii] under Sl. No.15. That was so done as per the decision of the Government and thus, the notification issued by the Deputy Secretary cannot be held incompetent for the same being circulated under the signature of a Deputy Secretary as this is permitted by the rules of executive business. Such correction has been held by the Gauhati High Court as valid. Now the petitioners cannot open that ‘issue’ again. But the respondents by their counter affidavit did not clarify what action they have taken on the observation dated 31.10.2013 or on the recommendation of the Anomaly Committee of 4th Tripura Pay Commission as quoted in the Para-8 above. The respondents evaded that reply and they have not as well furnished the reasons for not giving effect to the said recommendation which are apparently informed by reasons. Thus, the respondents have acted in breach of Article 14 of the Constitution. 29. On scrutiny of the records and having due regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court should on due consideration make the initial observations which are as under: (i) This Court cannot examine the validity of the corrigendum whereby the scale of pay of Rs. 2000-4410/- had been withdrawn inasmuch as that aspect has been considered by the judgment and order dated 23.09.2010 in W.A. No.26 of 2010. (ii) The observation made in the memorandum dated 04.01.2010 under No.F.2(2-17)-MS/ESTT-II/ 09 has been clarified by the Finance Department by the notification under No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)-88 dated 25.04.2009 that the Pharmacist having Diploma in Pharmacy who were recruited prior to publication of TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 and in receipt of pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- under ROP (RP) Rules, 1982 were eligible to get pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- as per TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 [revised to Rs. 5000-10300/- under TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1999]. But after publication of TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 the entry level pay scale of Pharmacists was prescribed at Rs. 1300-3220/- [revised to Rs. 4200-8650/- under TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1999]. So, providing the scale of pay of Rs. 1300-3220/- to those Pharmacists with Diploma in Pharmacy who were recruited after publication of TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 has been held to be justified. 1300-3220/- [revised to Rs. 4200-8650/- under TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1999]. So, providing the scale of pay of Rs. 1300-3220/- to those Pharmacists with Diploma in Pharmacy who were recruited after publication of TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 has been held to be justified. Further, it has been clarified that the Pharmacists recruited prior to publication of TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 were provided with the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710-/- and they should be treated as if they had consumed the CAS-1 at that stage. It exemplifies that the pay scale which the Pharmacists were enjoying even prior to 01.01.1986 has been downgraded retrospectively, in a veiled manner. The said clarification clearly shows further that even the Pharmacists who were appointed prior to introduction of the ROP Rules, 1988 were also provided the revised pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- whereas from their pre-revised scale of Rs. 560-1300/- the pay scale was revised to Rs. 1450-3710/-, meaning that virtually their pre-revised pay scale was downgraded to Rs. 430-850/- which is equivalent to the pay scale of the Pharmacist [Non-Diploma] Grade-III of the Hospital Services in terms of the ROP Rules, 1982. Is it not a clear breach of Article 14? It is. Unequals have been treated equally. 30. Therefore, in the premises as noted above, the questions those falls for consideration of this Court are (a) whether by means of revision the pay scale can be downgraded on taking away the right that was vested by the ROP Rules, 1982 and (b) whether non-consideration of the expert committees’ recommendation to give the Pharmacist the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- in the ROP Rules, 1988 is the continuation of the arbitrary action or non-consideration of the relevant factors, despite the order dated 31.10.2013 is giving rise to the legal action involving the jurisdiction of the court for mandating the respondents to allow the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- in terms of the ROP Rules, 1988 by way of severance? 31. This Court is of the view that when by the order/notification dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014, it has been clearly admitted by the Government that the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] deserves separate pay scale then the existing pay scale/structure allowed to them in view of their higher qualification compared to the non-Diploma Pharmacist. Even the Anomaly Committee and 4th Tripura Pay Commission had clearly recommended, in view of the higher qualification, to make parity with the posts requiring diploma after passing the H.S. (+2 stage) examination in order to provide the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] the scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- with the next scale of pay of Rs. 1700-3980/-. Moreover, the Pharmacist [Non-Diploma] by operation of the ROP Rules, 1982 were enjoying the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 430-850/- and that pay scale has been revised to Rs. 1300-3220/-. Therefore, the Pharmacist [Non-Diploma] may not have any grievance or prejudice if the recommendation is implemented and they have not expressed such grievance anywhere, at least such grievance is not borne in the records. But making the pay scale of the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] equal to the pay scale of the Pharmacist [non-Diploma] in view of the reasons given by the Pay Anomaly Committee and 4th Pay Commission as reproduced in the Paragraph-8 above that the post requiring diploma after H.S. (+2 stage) examination shall be given the pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- has been belatedly accepted by the State by the order/notification dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2014. Despite such clear acceptance, the State has not arbitrarily implemented the said recommendation. Such non-implementation is opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Even in the matter of the pay scale when the High Court or the apex court finds that the recommendation is informed with reason and such reason has been accepted by the State, but the recommendation has not been implemented, the court has the power to direct the state to implement the said recommendation notwithstanding that the court ordinarily does not exercise its jurisdiction regarding the policy matters, particularly, in respect of any fiscal decision. But here is the case where the State did not act in accordance with the constitutional prescription, even on agreeing with the reason, based for recommendation. 32. Having held so, the respondents are directed to provide the scale of pay of Rs. But here is the case where the State did not act in accordance with the constitutional prescription, even on agreeing with the reason, based for recommendation. 32. Having held so, the respondents are directed to provide the scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/- with the corresponding revised pay scales including the movement to the higher pay scale in terms of Rule 10 of the ROP Rules, 1999 or the ROP Rules, 2009 or their subsequent amendments or furtherance to the Pharmacist, irrespective of their appointment before or after 01.01.1986, when the ROP Rules, 1988 was given effect to. Their pay shall be fixed in terms of the ROP Rules, 1988 in terms of the said pay scale and the notifications issued for its implementation for time to time, except those which stands contrary to the above direction. Those notifications as stands contrary to the above direction, are hereby interfered with and quashed. 33. So far the prayer in respect of recovery is concerned, in view of the said direction the said relief has become infructuous. In other words, no recovery shall be made from the petitioners where they are under order for recovery in terms of the impugned notifications. 34. It is further declared that since the petitioners have approached this court belatedly even though they may embark on the cause to approach this court in view of the order/notification dated 31.10.2013, their pay shall be fixed notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1986 or from their date of appointment in the scale of pay of Rs. 1450-3710/-(pre-revised) and in the corresponding revised pay scales to a date, 3(three) years prior to the date of filing of the writ petitions and the actual pecuniary benefits shall be released from those dates as given hereinunder to the petitioners. The relevant date to be considered for counting actual financial/pecuniary benefits No. of the writ petitions for purpose of posting such date for releasing the actual financial/pecuniary benefits of the writ petitioners 02.04.2011 The writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.144 of 2014 11.11.2011 The writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.452 of 2014 26.02.2012 The writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.74 of 2015 35. The respondents shall release the benefits to the petitioners within a period of 3(three) months from the day when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order. 36. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. The respondents shall release the benefits to the petitioners within a period of 3(three) months from the day when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order. 36. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.