JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Saurav Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arbind Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C.I for the respondents in W.P.(S) No. 6143 of 2013 and Mr. Sachin Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned A.C. to S.C. (L&C)-III for the respondents in W.P.(S.) No. 2254 of 2015. 2. As in both the cases similar questions, facts and laws enumerated as such both the petitions are heard together and disposed of by common judgment. 3. The petitioners have prayed for quashing the resolution as memo No. 660/F dated 08.02.2009 whereby the petitioners have been granted pay band i.e PB-II and grade pay i.e. G.P. 4200. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order of Fitment Committee dated 27.11.2012 whereby benefits of PB-II and G.P.-5400 has been rejected and further unrevised pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500/- and its corresponding revised 6th Pay Revision is Rs.9300-34800/- has been denied. It is further prayed to grant the benefits of PB-II and G.P. 5400 to be paid in the unrevised pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 to revised pay scale of Rs. 9300-34800 w.e.f. 01.01.06. It is further prayed to rectify the anomaly in the pay scale of the petitioners. The further prayer is made for grant of Dynamic Assured Career Progression (i.e. DACP) in favour of the petitioners similar to those allopathic doctors. 4. Mr. Saurav Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 6143 of 2013, submits that by notification dated 9.6.2000 & 9.11.2000 issued by the Health Department, Government of Bihar, the petitioners have joined the posts and the said posts of the petitioners was re-designated by virtue of notification dated 10.01.1981 as Ayurvedic Medical Officer. He further submits that by notification dated 03.05.1978 (Annexure-3) issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar, the pay scale of Rs. 296-406/- and Rs. 610-1155 have been set at par as the pay scale of Allopathic Doctors. He further submits that by notification dated 03.05.1978 (Annexure-3) issued by the erstwhile State of Bihar, the pay scale of Rs. 296-406/- and Rs. 610-1155 have been set at par as the pay scale of Allopathic Doctors. Thereafter, the Health Department of State of Bihar had issued one circular dated 5.12.1979 whereby the post of Ayurvedic and Unani Medical Officer has been declared to be a Gazetted Post and it has been clarified that the Unani and Ayush Medical Officers are entitled to get all the medical benefits and facilities which are availed by the doctors of Health Services Cadre and other benefits are also applicable, this notification has been brought on record by way of Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 5. Mr. Saurav Shekhar further submits that in the 4th Pay Revision Committee’s recommendation, which came into effect on 01.04.91, the said committee recommended that the pay scale of Ayush Medical Officer was at par with the pay scale of Allopathic Medical Officer which was paid in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1150 and in the pay scale of Rs. 1000-1820 and further benefits were also extended to Ayush Medical Officer which are allowed to Allopathic Doctors with respect to payment of extra increment and accordingly it was also recommended for junior selection grade and senior selection grade in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2000/- and Rs. 1900-2500/- respectively. When the 5th PRC made its recommendation. The pay scale of Ayush Medical Officer had been given in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-3800/- while the Allopathic Doctors have been given the pay scale of Rs. 2425-4000/- and as such the anomaly has been created from the recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Committee. He further submits that the Central Government by virtue of 6th Pay Revision Committee has treated all the doctors i.e. Allopathic, Indian Medicines like Ayurveda, Yoga, Siddha, Unani and Homeopath, at par with Allopathic Doctors, including the scheme of DACP to be extended to these petitioners also. In view of the recommendation of 6th PRC & the Government of India recommended that all these doctors should be treated at par for pay & allowances and service conditions purpose. Since the recommendation was not followed by the State Government. In view of the recommendation of 6th PRC & the Government of India recommended that all these doctors should be treated at par for pay & allowances and service conditions purpose. Since the recommendation was not followed by the State Government. Finance Department by its resolution dated 28.02.09 allowed different grades pay for Allopathic Doctors GP 5400 and for Ayurvedic, Homeopath and Unani Doctors GP 4200 accepted and being aggrieved with these actions, the petitioners have approached this Court. 6. Mr. Saurav Shekhar, submits that the petitioner are Ayush Medical Practitioners and they have been appointed in the year 2000 after qualifying the said service examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission. By referring Annexure-2 of the writ petition, he submits that the posts of Vaidya will be treated as Ayurvedic Medical Officer. Further, it is reiterated that in letter dated 10.08.2010 at Annexure-22 to the writ petition. He further submits that the Ayush and Vaidya will be treated as Ayurvedic Medical Officer (Vaidya) and Hakim and Unani will be treated as Unani Medical Officer and they are State Cadre Officers. Vide Bihar Gazette dated 08.12.1979, which is brought on record by way of Annexure-4 to the writ petition, wherein it is stated that the posts of Vaidya and other indigenous posts have been declared as gazetted. He further submits that Rule 18 of State Service Code defines the Gazetted Government Servant and doctors of the State Service. On the extent of this, he submits that the petitioners are Gazetted Government Servants they will be appeared to be member of State Government Service. Further submits that this has been asserted by declaration of Memo No. 282 dated 15.09.2016 that Ayurveda, Allopathic, Unani, Hakim and Vaidya are Doctors of the Jharkhand Government Service. Further submits that declaration has got no meaning as the indigenous practitioners are already declared as Gazetted employee in the year 1987 as such they are already doctors of the State Service as per provision of the Rule 18 of the State Service Code. There is no any dispute with respect to the posts of indigenous system of medication are Group A posts that the same has been accepted by the Central Government mutatis mutandis. There is no any dispute with respect to the posts of indigenous system of medication are Group A posts that the same has been accepted by the Central Government mutatis mutandis. The rule under the proviso 309 of the Constitution of India, the President of India has already declared and published the Gazette of India as Extraordinary which is notified on 17.03.1998 and this brought on record as Annexure-13. On perusal of the said Annexure-13, it transpires that their services have been declared as Grade-A gazetted service. 7. Mr. Saurav Shekhar, learned counsel draws the attention of this Court on Annexure-10 which is circular dated 17.12.2007 of the State of Jharkhand by which the pay scale of Ayush Medical Officers revised as Rs. 6500-10500- from Rs. 2200-4000/- and refixed to the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500. According to the resolution of Government of Bihar -3PAR-01/98-32/B(2) dated 02.01.1998 the State Government is provisionally agreed to provide its employees Central Pay Scale, allowance and other facilities viz. medical allowance, travelling allowance, group insurance, gratuity, HRA etc. along with the Central Service Conditions. By referring to this Annexure-10, he submits that if the Central Government has considered and accepted and declared as a matter of rule published under the Proviso 309 Constitution of India by the President of India that the practitioner of the said indigenous system of medication are Group A employee and the same has to be accepted as Central Service Condition to be mutatis mutandis for the State Government also. He further argues that the petitioners are in Group A service have not been granted GP of Rs. 5400 and the Government has discriminated by keeping them in the GP of Rs. 4200. He relied in the case of Chandra Shekhar Sahukar Vs. Union of India in W.P.(C) No. 2780 of 2011 which has been disposed of vide order dated 14.10.2014. The counsel for the petitioner particularly referring the paragraph nos. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 and 23 submits that the case of the petitioners are covered by this judgment. He further relied on the case of The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Vs. Anand and Ors. reported in 2016 4 JLJR Page 1. Referring paragraph nos. The counsel for the petitioner particularly referring the paragraph nos. 16, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 and 23 submits that the case of the petitioners are covered by this judgment. He further relied on the case of The State of Jharkhand & Anr. Vs. Anand and Ors. reported in 2016 4 JLJR Page 1. Referring paragraph nos. 10, 11 and 12, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No. 406 of 2012 vide order dated 29.11.2017 also covered the case of the present petitioners. 8. Mr. Sachin Kumar, appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 2254 of 2015 to fortifying the submissions of his counter-part submitted that the petitioners were appointed vide notification dated 09.06.2000 and 9.11.2000 on the post of Ayurvedic Medical Officers in the pay band Rs. 6500-10500. It is evident from these two notifications which are annexed as Annexures-9 and 9/1 to the writ petition. After bifurcation of the State of Bihar, the petitioners have joined in the State of Jharkhand as Ayurvedic Medical Officers in the State of Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand by the Department of Finance by resolution dated 17.12.2007enhanced the pay scales to Rs. 8000-13500 to all those whose unrevised pay scale was Rs. 2200-4000 and revised Pay Scale is Rs. 6500-10500 and as such the 1st ladder of promotion was in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200. In notional pay scale was Rs. 8000-13500 was made from 15.11.2000 and the financial benefits/actual benefits given from 01.03.2007 as it would be evident from the resolution dated 17.12.2007 annexed as Annexure-11. He further submits that the pay scale of the petitioner is enhanced to Rs. 8000-13500 taking into account the payment of the petitioners were in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 and as such 1st ladder of promotion of the petitioners were found to be in the pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200. To substantiate his argument the salary slip of the petitioner no. 1 has been brought on record as Annexure-12. From perusal of the salary slip it transpires that he was getting salary in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500. He further submits that there are several persons in the cadre of the petitioners who are granted pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200 where as the petitioners getting their pay scale in Rs. 8000-13500. From perusal of the salary slip it transpires that he was getting salary in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500. He further submits that there are several persons in the cadre of the petitioners who are granted pay scale of Rs. 10000-15200 where as the petitioners getting their pay scale in Rs. 8000-13500. Similarly, the second ACP to the Several Officers of the cadre in the pay scale in Rs. 12000-16500 during the basic pay scale being Rs. 8000-13500. To substantiate his argument he referred Annexure-13 to the writ petition. He further submits that the recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee vide report dated 15.12.2008 inter alia recommended that the Ayush, Yoga, Siddha, Unani and Allopathy have been provided the same pay-scale at par. However, when the 6th pay committee fixation was made, the petitioners were granted GP 4200 instead of GP 5400 for which the petitioners were entitled for. He further submits that in view of the fact that there were payment of Rs. 6500-10500 which was later on revised to Rs. 8000-13500 in view of the resolution of the State of Jharkhand dated 17.12.2007. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsels for the State submit that the posts of the petitioners are not gazetted posts in the State Service Cadre and as such fitment committee has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners. This is the only argument which has been advanced on behalf of the State. 10. Against the argument of the State Mr. Sachin Kumar draws the attention of this Court at paragraph 5 of supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners wherein it is clearly stated that the service of the petitioners have been declared as the State Service which is evident form the notification dated 15.09.2016 at Annexure-25. He further submits that in notification of the year 2016 affidavit sworn by the officer of the respondent in the year 2017 but this aspect has not been stated correctly as such in view of the Annexure-25, the State has not denied that the service of the petitioners have been declared as State Service in the year 2016 itself. He further submits that the State has annexed Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which is the resolution dated 7.11.2003, by this resolution there are several services declared as the State Government Services. He further submits that the State has annexed Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which is the resolution dated 7.11.2003, by this resolution there are several services declared as the State Government Services. In this resolution at the bottom there is note which stipulates that in future if the cadre is declared as State Service the same would be deemed to part and parcel. In view of the notification dated 7.11.2003 the contention of the learned Counsel for the State has got no legs to stand. 11. He further submits the persons who have been given G.P. 5400 and on that basis they have been given 1st and 2nd ACP/MACP vide notification dated 16.12.2016. By way of example he referred the case of the petitioner no. 1 whose name was appearing at serial no. 6 to which the petitioner was granted 1st ACP in the GP 4600 considering the GP 4200 whereas Dr. Mohiuddin whose name was at serial no. 7 of notification dated 16.12.2016 have been provided GP 6600 considering GP was 5400 and further submits that the petitioners and Mr. Ansari are of the same cadre i.e Jharkhand State Ayurveda Health Service Cadre. Petitioner No. 1 is the Ayush Medical Officer in the State of Jharkhand, State Ayurvedic Dispensary, Namkum Ranchi and also like the petitioner no. 1 others petitioners are also posted at different places but they belongs to same cadre of Jharkhand State Health Service. Referring this example it is submitted that the petitioners have been discriminated and it also violates the Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Further submits that in respect of the statement made in paragraph 38 of the writ petition, the State has not denied in the counter-affidavit. 12. By way of I.A. in W.P.(S) No. 6143 of 2013 Recruitment and Service Conditions Rules of 2018 has been brought on record. In the said Rule the same anomaly have been promulgated which appeared in the resolution of the year 2009. The rights of the petitioners already accrued by gazette notification dated 5.12.1979 and circular dated 17.12.2007. Thus, there is no need of examining the Rule of 2018 as the Rule will not have retrospective operation. Nothing has been reflected from bare reading of the said Rule having no reference of retrospective operation. The rights of the petitioners already accrued by gazette notification dated 5.12.1979 and circular dated 17.12.2007. Thus, there is no need of examining the Rule of 2018 as the Rule will not have retrospective operation. Nothing has been reflected from bare reading of the said Rule having no reference of retrospective operation. Rule has come after supersession of recommendation of 6th Pay Revision Committee and enforcement of 7th Pay Revision Committee w.e.f. 01.01.2016 and the Rule has come in the year 2018. 13. On the basis of the above facts, the learned counsels for the petitioners submit that State Ayush Services and other Allopathic Doctors are the State Cadre Service and anomaly has been created in the recommendation of 5th the Pay Revision Committee this continued in recommendation of the 6th Pay Revision Committee and as such this case is fit to be interfered with by this Court. 14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court taking into account the submission and the documents brought on the record comes to the conclusion that the prayer of the petitioners are fit to be allowed for the following reasons:- (i) By Memo No. 1213 dated 3.5.1978 the service conditions of the allopathic doctors and doctors belonging to indigenous system of medication have been kept at par. (ii) By gazette notification dated 5.12.1979 the Recruitment Rules and process of recruitment for the indigenous system will be same as that of the State Medical Service Cadre. (iii) In view of the 6th Pay Revision Committee the benefit of DACP should be extended to all doctors irrespective of their stream in allopathic or in indigenous system of medication. (iv) In view of Annexure-14 to the writ petition Recommendation of 6th PRC to treat the doctors of indigenous system of medication at par with allopathic doctors in their service conditions, pay, allowances and other benefits. (v) In view of the Gazette Notification dated 17.03.1998 the indigenous system of medication has to be considered as Group A services, which is brought as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. (vi) In view of the circular dated 17.12.2007, the Government of Jharkhand took the decision that the Central Service Condition of the Central Govt. Employees mutatis mutandis same for the State Govt. employees. As such the provision of gazette notification dated 17.03.1998 deemed to be applicable to the petitioners declaring them Group A services. (vi) In view of the circular dated 17.12.2007, the Government of Jharkhand took the decision that the Central Service Condition of the Central Govt. Employees mutatis mutandis same for the State Govt. employees. As such the provision of gazette notification dated 17.03.1998 deemed to be applicable to the petitioners declaring them Group A services. (vii) Up to 5th PRC w.e.f. 18.12.1989 the Allopathic doctors have been provided pay scale in revised pay scale of Rs. 2425-4000 anomaly has been created and pay scale of indigenous system was fixed at Rs. 2200-4000 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). (viii) Another resolution dated 08.02.1999 the Allopathic and indigenous doctors have been provided pay scale Rs. 6500-10500. (ix) Circular dated 17.12.2007 it clears that all those State Cadre Officer who are getting Rs. 2200-4000 who have been granted the revised pay scale Rs. 6500-10500 and as such their amount scale has been Rs. 8000-13500 is in accordance with Central Service Conditions. This circular has been adopted by the State of Jharkhand mutatis and mutandis. (x) In this the petitioners started getting salary in pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-.in the same cadre some other persons have been allowed to GP 5400 and the petitioners have been discriminated. (xi) The rights of the petitioners accrued by gazette notification dated 05.12.1979 and circular dated 17.12.2007. Thus, Rule 2018 not coming in the way of providing the benefits in favour of the petitioners. 15. As a cumulative effect of the above facts and reasons and the documents brought before this Court, this Court finds that the impugned order cannot sustain in the eyes of law and as such the letter dated 27.09.2011 is fit to be quashed. There is no reason as to why these petitioners will be discriminated and as such they are also entitled for the scale of Rs. 9300-34800 in the GP. 5400 as the similarly situated persons are being provided w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and they will be entitled for this benefit from 01.01.2006 the date when the 6th PRC has been came in existence. 16. In the light of directions issued herein above, the petitioners are also be entitled for DACP, the Authorities shall pass an appropriate speaking order in this regard for extending the benefits in favour of these petitioners within 8 weeks’ from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 17. 16. In the light of directions issued herein above, the petitioners are also be entitled for DACP, the Authorities shall pass an appropriate speaking order in this regard for extending the benefits in favour of these petitioners within 8 weeks’ from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 17. With the aforesaid observations and directions, these writ petitions stand allowed and have been disposed of. 18. Accordingly, I.A., if any, stands disposed of.