JUDGMENT : Devan Ramachandran, J. The notification of a Pay Commission Report invariably brings cheer to the persons in public employment, who normally would became entitled to higher pay scales and to escalated concomitant benefits. However, the facts of this case presents an exception to the afore general rule, because with the introduction of the 6th Pay Commission Report, the contesting respondents herein, who are teachers under the UGC Scale of Pay, are pushed to an apparent predicament where their juniors in service draw higher scales of pay on account of certain singular provisions of the afore mentioned Pay Commission Report, which operate to effectively deny them certain benefits which though are made available to their juniors in service. 2. The seemingly unusual scenario, as afore, suffered by the writ petitioners/respondents would become clear once the essential facts are narrated. 3. This appeal has been filed by the State of Kerala and its functionaries impugning the judgment in W.P.(C) No.30802 of 2015, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court declared that the writ petitioners/respondents herein are also entitled to the benefits of three non-compounded advance increments, as is available under the 6th UGC Pay Revision Scheme, implemented by the Government of India on parity with the 6th Central Pay Commission, with effect from 01.09.2008 and a consequential direction was given to afford them all benefits based on such grant of advanced increments. 4. The appellants contend that if the directions in the judgment, impugned in this appeal, is implemented in its letter and spirit, the respondents would obtain undue advantage of increase in salary on the combined working of 5th and 6th Pay Commission Reports. The appellants attempts to build this contention on the factual circumstance that under the earlier Scheme, based on the 5th Pay Commission Report, persons like the respondents were entitled to two non-compounded increments as an incentive for obtaining Ph.D, whereas in the case of the 6th Pay Commission Report and the consequent UGC scheme, the benefit is the award of three non-compounded increments in the case of a teacher who obtained Ph.D after the said Scheme was brought into effect. They say that if both these benefits are given to the writ petitioner/respondents, as has been now directed by the Learned Single Judge, the effect would be that they would obtain the benefit of five increments, while those who acquired Ph.D after the date of the 6th Pay Commission Report would get only three increments. 5. The learned Government Pleader, in support of the afore contentions, draw our attention to Exhibit P1 Scheme dated 31.12.2008, formulated by the Ministry of Human Resources Department, Government of India, in terms of the 6th Pay Commission Report and in particular to Clause xxiii thereof, to show us that Teachers, Library and Physical Education cadres who have already availed the benefits of increments, for having acquired Ph.D/M.Phil while in service, as per the earlier Scheme, made adopting the 5th Pay Commission Report, would not be entitled to the benefits under Exhibit P1 Scheme. The learned Government Pleader says that the Government of Kerala has only implemented Exhibit P1 Scheme of the Government of India by issuing Exhibit P2 order and that since the petitioners have chosen not to challenge this Scheme, their prayers in the writ petition ought not to have been granted by the learned Single Judge. 6. Sri. R.T Pradeep, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents herein, vehemently contend that teachers who acquired Ph.D while in service between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008 have been grossly discriminated against, because they have been granted only two non-compounded advance increments at the pre-revised rate from the date on which they acquired Ph.D. till 31.08.2008 and at the revised rate w.e.f. 01.09.2008. He asserts that by this, the persons like the writ petitioners, who obtained Ph.D between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008, are entitled only to two increments, that too on the pre-revised 5th Pay Commission rates till 01.09.2008 and on the revised 6th Pay Commission rates only thereafter; whereas a person who obtains Ph.D after 01.09.2008 would obtain three non-compounded increments at the 6th Pay Commission report rates. He says this is a clear inequity and that the persons like the petitioners should also be allowed the benefit of three non-compounded increments from 01.09.2008 as per Exhibit P2 Scheme, since there is no distinction between these two classes of persons, namely, those who took Ph.D between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2008 and those who took Ph.D. after 01.09.2008 and that they should be treated as one homogeneous class. He reiterates that this classification between these two categories of teachers has no intelligible differentia to any objective that is sought to be achieved, and, therefore, that the classification itself is bad. 7. We notice that Exhibits P2 and P4 are the orders issued by the Government of Kerala implementing Exhibit P1 Scheme formulated by the Government of India and that in Exhibit P2, the provisions of Exhibit P1 has been completely adopted without any change. As far as Exhibit P4 is concerned, it is an order that was issued by the Government of Kerala subsequently, to address an anomaly that was noticed, namely, that teachers who were earlier granted the two non-compounded increments under the Scheme governed by the 5th Pay Commission Report continued to enjoy it only on such rates even after Exhibit P1 Scheme adopting the 6th Pay Commission Report had been published by the Government of India. In order to rectify this, the Government ordered therein that those teachers who have acquired Ph.D. while in service between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2006 will be eligible for the two non-compounded advance increments at the 5th Pay Commission Report rates, from the date on which they acquired Ph.D and at the revised 6th Pay Commission rates of increment with effect from 01.09.2008. 8. Even that being so, Sri. R. T. Pradeep, learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that this has resulted in a grave anomaly because the junior of the petitioners, who acquired Ph.D much after them, became entitled to a higher salary, since the petitioners were granted only two non-compounded increments, while their juniors have obtained three non-compounded increments under Exhibit P1 Scheme. 9. The petitioners have placed on record certain documents, along with I.A. No. 725 of 2018, wherein their attempt is to demonstrate that on account of the working of Exhibits P2 and P4 Government Orders, those teachers who took Ph.D. prior to 31.08.2008 would obtain a lesser pay on account of the fact that only two non-compounded increments were given to them at the pre-revised scale until that day, in comparison to the Ph.D holders who qualified after 01.09.2008. 10. We see that the grievance shown by the petitioner is not without merit. 11. We find force in the afore submissions of Sri. 10. We see that the grievance shown by the petitioner is not without merit. 11. We find force in the afore submissions of Sri. R. T. Pradeep because, by the peculiar working of the stipulations in Exhibits P2 and P4 Government Orders, it is true that seniors in service now appear to be drawing a lesser pay than that enjoyed their juniors, because the juniors have had the benefit of three non-compounded increments from 01.09.2008 under Exhibit P1 Scheme, whereas the seniors have obtained only two such increments under the earlier Scheme, though obtaining the benefit of the revised rates under the 6th Pay Commission Report, through Exhibit P4 order. This certainly is an anomaly and we, therefore, asked Sri. P. N. Santhosh, the learned senior Government Pleader as to whether the Government would be in a position to rectify this, either by stepping up the scale of pay of the senior with that of the junior or such other appropriate method. 12. The learned Government Pleader fairly submitted before us that the singlular reason why the appellants were constrained to file this appeal is because the Learned Single Judge had directed that the benefit of three non-compounded increments also be given to the writ petitioners and he says that had the directions been confined to the rectification of the anomaly between the pay scales of the seniors vis-a-vis their juniors, on account of the implementation of the 6th pay commission, they would not have approached this Court by this appeal. 13. In effect, the submissions of Sri. Santhosh, the learned senior Government Pleader, is that the Government has no hesitation in rectifying the anomaly between the scales of pay of the seniors and the juniors, caused solely on account of the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission, by stepping up the pay scale of senior to be at par that of the junior, so that there will be no further difference in salary drawn by them. 14. Sri. R. T. Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioners though does not give up the contention that his clients are entitled to the benefit of three additional non-compounded increments as per Exhibit P1 Scheme after 01.09.2008, concedes that the primary reason why the writ petitioners had approached this Court by filing the writ petition is the anomaly in their pay scales vis-a-vis their juniors. He says that without giving up their claim for three non-compounded increments, his clients would be agreeable to have their pay scales stepped up to that of the juniors, which anomaly is, according to him, caused solely on account of the implementation of the 6th Pay Commission Report. 15. On a consideration of the afore submissions made before us, we are of the view since Exhibit P1 scheme has not been challenged by the petitioners in the writ petition, the submissions of Sri. R.T. Pradeep that his clients are entitled to three additional non-compounded increments as per the said Scheme, even though they have already obtained the benefit of the two non-compounded increments under the earlier Scheme, cannot be found tenable in law. This is particularly because, Clause 7 (xxi) of Exhibit P1 makes in indubitable that “those who have already availed the benefits of advance increments for possessing Ph.D/M.Phil at the entry level under the earlier scheme shall not be entitled to the benefit of advance increments under this Scheme”. Therefore, it is only if clause 7 (xxi) of Exhibit P1 scheme had been at least challenged, would the writ petitioners have obtained a locus for making such a claim. Since there is no challenge, we repel these contentions of Sri. R.T. Pradeep and we deem it appropriate to confine our consideration as to the manner in which the anomaly in the pay scales between the seniors and juniors can be rectified. 16. Guided by the afore objective, we find it apposite to accept the submission made by Sri. P. N. Santhosh, the learned senior Government Pleader, that the Government will initiate action immediately to have the pay scales of the petitioners equated with that of their juniors, if there is any anomaly between these two scales solely on account of the implementation of Exhibit P1 Scheme and the 6th pay commission recommendations. 17. P. N. Santhosh, the learned senior Government Pleader, that the Government will initiate action immediately to have the pay scales of the petitioners equated with that of their juniors, if there is any anomaly between these two scales solely on account of the implementation of Exhibit P1 Scheme and the 6th pay commission recommendations. 17. In the result, we allow this appeal and vacate the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment impugned before us and consequently direct the competent Authority of the Government of Kerala to immediately initiate action to rectify the anomaly, if any, between the pay scales and salary now enjoyed by the writ petitioners/respondents herein vis-a-vis their immediate juniors, solely on account of the implementation of Exhibit P1 Scheme and the 6th Pay Commission Recommendations and to thereafter issue appropriate orders, adverting to our observations herein as also to ExhibitP3 Government Order, as expeditiously as is practically possible but not later than 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This Writ Appeal is thus ordered.