JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 09.07.1990 contained in Annexure No.3, orders dated 25.02.1989 and 19.06.1989, 03.04.1996 contained in Annexure Nos. 8, 9 & 10 respectively to the writ petition to the extent these orders discriminate between direct recruited and promotee Assistant Accountants in the matter of grant of time scales and also quash the order dated 27.02.2012 contained in Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. (ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give all benefits of service including grant of time scales to petitioners at par with directly recruited Assistant Accountants i.e. by treating date of joining the post of Assistant Accountants induction point for the purpose of grant of 1st, 2nd, 3rd time bound pay scales and in consequence pay arrears of salary with interest @ 12% per annum." 3. The case set forth by the petitioners is that they are working in the respondent Corporation. Regulation 5 of the U.P. State Electricity Board (Accounts Staff Services) Regulations, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 1970 Regulations') provides for recruitment to various posts in the service. Regulation 5 (2) of 1970 Regulations provides recruitment for the post of Accountant as 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Similarly recruitment to the post of Assistant Accountant is 45% by direct recruitment, 45% by selection out of Office Assistants employed in subordinate offices and 10% by promotion from Accounts Clerks in the manner prescribed under Regulation 21-B of 1970 Regulations. 4. On 26.07.1977, the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board (for short, 'Board') issued an order in respect of all Class III & Class IV employees (excluding Junior Engineers) who had put in 10 years service in regular cadre up to 31.03.1977 to be given the scales next higher to the post on which they had been working on 31.03.1977 with effect from 01.04.1977, the designation remaining the same. Copy of the Board's order dated 26.07.1977 is Annexure-1 to the petition. On 27.12.1986, another order was issued by the Board by which 10 years period of service was reduced to 9 years. Copy of the order dated 27.12.1986 is Annexure-2 to the petition. Copy of the Board's order dated 26.07.1977 is Annexure-1 to the petition. On 27.12.1986, another order was issued by the Board by which 10 years period of service was reduced to 9 years. Copy of the order dated 27.12.1986 is Annexure-2 to the petition. On 09.07.1990, another Board's order was issued by which it was provided that in case any employee gets two promotion before completing first 9 years of service then he will get the benefit of next scale after completion of 16 years of service provided the benefit of next scale is not available prior to 01.04.1983. Likewise it was provided that in case any employee is given third promotion, the benefit of next scale shall be available only after completing 21 years' of service provided the same was not available prior to 01.12.1987. Copy of the Board's order dated 09.07.1990 is Annexure-3 to the petition. By means of another order dated 29.09.1998, the Board provided that the benefit of first, second and third time scales of pay would be provided after completing 9, 14 and 19 years of service instead of 9, 16 and 21 years of service as provided earlier. Copy of the Board's order dated 29.09.1998 is Annexure-4 to the petition. 5. The Assistant Accountants, who had been directly recruited and those who had been selected out of Office Assistants, were granted the first, second and third time scales of pay by taking the pay scales of Assistant Accountants as the induction post but with respect to those Assistant Accountants including the petitioners, who had been promoted from the post of Accounts Clerk, were denied the benefit of time scale. This, according to the petitioners, has resulted in an anomalous situation of the alleged juniors of the petitioners despite being in the same cadre getting a higher pay scale on account of their direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Accountant. The same has been demonstrated by the petitioners by way of a chart in paragraph 8 of the petition. 6. On 12.10.2011, the Union of the employees made a representation for grant of time scale to promotee Assistant Accountants i.e. those promoted from the post of Accounts Clerk, treating the post of Assistant Accountant as the induction post which was negated by the Corporation through order dated 27.02.2012, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition. 6. On 12.10.2011, the Union of the employees made a representation for grant of time scale to promotee Assistant Accountants i.e. those promoted from the post of Accounts Clerk, treating the post of Assistant Accountant as the induction post which was negated by the Corporation through order dated 27.02.2012, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition. It is contended that once all Assistant Accountants form a common cadre consequently, for grant of time scale of pay, treating the post of Assistant Accountant as the induction post for the direct recruits and those coming through selection out of Office Assistants vis-a-vis treating the post of Assistant Accountant for the petitioners i.e. the promotees as not being an induction point amounts to discrimination which is legally impermissible in the eyes of law. 7. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hamid Ali Qazi and others vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others, 2007 (25) LCD 1487. 8. In order to understand the controversy the Court would have to see the scheme for grant of timescales of pay which the petitioners are claiming. 9. The order dated 25.02.1989 indicates about the implementation of the scheme for admissibility of the first, second and third timescales of pay. For the sake of convenience, the scheme dated 25.02.1989 is reproduced below:- "In continuation of the Para-6 of Board's Order No. 1744-P/Ra.Vi.Pa.-Tees-4P/1986, Dated 30.11.1987 and in supersession of all its earlier orders with regards to admissibility of time-scale to Workmen (except Junior Engineers), the Board has been pleased to decide that the scheme of 9-7-5 time-scales of its workmen be implemented from 1-12-87 as follows:- 1. The first time-scale shall be admissible after completion of 9 (Nine) years of service, the second time-scale shall be admissible after completion of 16 (Sixteen) years of service and the third time-scale shall be admissible after completion of 21 (twenty-one) years of service. If any employee gets promoted to the next higher post before completion of 9 (nine) years of service from the date of direct recruitment then he shall not get first higher time-scale. In such situation that employee shall be entitled to get the Second time-scale on completing the service-period of 16 years calculated from the date of direct recruitment. If any employee gets promoted to the next higher post before completion of 9 (nine) years of service from the date of direct recruitment then he shall not get first higher time-scale. In such situation that employee shall be entitled to get the Second time-scale on completing the service-period of 16 years calculated from the date of direct recruitment. But if he has got two promotions before completing the said period of 16 (sixteen) years then he shall not get the second time-scale. In such situation that employee shall be entitled for the Third time-scale on completing the service-period of 21 years calculated from the date of direct recruitment, provided he would not have got third promotion before completing the said period of 21 (twenty-one) years. 2. (a) For every employee in any cadre, the period prescribed for the aforesaid time-scale shall be calculated from the date of start of service on the lowest post of direct recruitment in his cadre. For being entitled to each time-scale, it shall be mandatory to complete the prescribed service-period on the concerned post. All those services shall be included in this service-period which had been tendered on such posts which could be interchanged and which exist in the same pay-scale, or where the benefit of pay-fixation on promotion would have not been given on going from one post to another post of the same pay-scale, or services tendered outside the cadre, or external services, or services tendered on deputation. (b) If any employee gets directly appointed through open selection to such a post, which is a promotional post for him, then in such situation the calculation of time-period for the purpose of aforesaid time-scale scheme in that cadre shall recommence from the date of his direct recruitment on aforesaid post but with this condition that such post be the lowest post of direct recruitment in this cadre. The list of lowest posts of direct recruitment in each cadre is being issued separately. (c) If appointment is also made through direct recruitment on the promotional post of any cadre then in such situation the time-period prescribed for the applicable time-scale for aforesaid promotional post from the lowest direct recruitment post of that cadre, shall be presumed completed and whichever time-scales would be admissible ahead to that level, the same shall be granted. 3. (c) If appointment is also made through direct recruitment on the promotional post of any cadre then in such situation the time-period prescribed for the applicable time-scale for aforesaid promotional post from the lowest direct recruitment post of that cadre, shall be presumed completed and whichever time-scales would be admissible ahead to that level, the same shall be granted. 3. The First, Second and Third time-scale shall be respectively the next higher pay-scales of the same cadre from the pay-scale of the post of direct recruitment. But if in any cadre the pay-scale of promotional post and the pay scale of that post from which the promotion is made to aforesaid promotional post, be the same then that very pay-scale shall be presumed the next higher pay-scale for granting the time-scale. 4. If in any cadre, ahead of the post of direct recruitment, as much higher pay scales are not present as are admissible under the aforesaid time-scale scheme, then the next time-scale shall be that pay-scale of any other cadre which is nearest higher than the pay-scale of promotion/time-scale already received. Like-wise, on single posts, or such posts for whom, no channel of promotion is laid down, for them first, second and third time-scale shall be the nearest higher pay-scales available in any cadre. 5. If pay-scale of both posts that is the next post after promotion and the post from which the promotion is done in any cadre would be same then that very pay-scale shall be admissible as time-scale also. In this condition also, as per Fundamental Rule- 22B of the Financial Hand Book, by providing notional increments, the benefit of pay fixation on next level shall be granted. This way, the benefit of pay fixation shall be payable there also, where the pay of a servant goes beyond the highest level of the applicable pay-scale, but next level shall be granted at the place where that level is available in the pay-scale. 6. This way, the benefit of pay fixation shall be payable there also, where the pay of a servant goes beyond the highest level of the applicable pay-scale, but next level shall be granted at the place where that level is available in the pay-scale. 6. If before revision of the pay-scales w.e.f. 1-4-81 the pay-scale of any post and the pay-scale of the promotional post from that post would have been the same and w.e.f. 1-4-84 both pay-scales would have been separated and the pay-scale of such promotional post would have been received as time-scale to any servant before 1-4-84 then in such case w.e.f. 1-4-84 above time-scale shall be deemed converted into revised pay-scale from the date 1-4-84 of that post, but for admissibility of next higher time-scale, if any payable, calculation of prescribed period shall be done from that date when before 1-4-84 the existing time-scale had been granted to him. 7. If pay-scale of Rs.530-810 is received to any employee of the mechanical cadre before 1-4-84 as a result of promotion or as time-scale then revised pay-scale of Rs.1350-2160 shall be admissible to him w.e.f. 1-4-84. In such matters the calculation of prescribed period for grating next higher time-scale shall be done from the date of receiving of pay-scale of Rs.530-810 as time-scale. If pay-scale of Rs.530-810 would have been received before 1-4-84 as a result of promotion then second time-scale shall be admissible to him on completing 16 years of prescribed period from the date of his direct recruitment in the cadre. 8. Wherever in relevant service regulations prescribed minimum duration of service for promotion on any post is higher than the period of service prescribed above for grant of pay-scale of the said post as time-scale, there minimum period of service prescribed for promotion for admissibility of time-scale shall be equalized to the prescribed period and concerned service regulations shall be amended accordingly. 9. In case of promotion to the higher pay-scale or admissibility of pay-scale of the higher post as time-scale, whichever is earlier, the benefit of pay fixation shall be admissible under Fundamental Rule- 22 B of the Financial Handbook Volume- 2. But after receiving of any pay-scale as the time-scale if there is promotion in that very pay-scale then under the said rule the pay shall be fixed on next pay-level itself in that very pay-scale. But after receiving of any pay-scale as the time-scale if there is promotion in that very pay-scale then under the said rule the pay shall be fixed on next pay-level itself in that very pay-scale. Besides it if the promotion is given before the period prescribed for any time scale then the pay shall be fixed at the next level of the same pay-scale on completing the period prescribed for getting aforesaid time scale. In the matters where personnel have got any time scale and thereafter their promotion is made in the pay-scale lower to it, then in such matters any benefit of pay-fixation will not be admissible. 10. The determination of seniority of personnel on any post shall be made according to the principles contained in concerned/relevant regulations. The pay/ perquisites drawn in any pay-scale shall not affect the seniority of personnel in any manner. The demand of senior employees for equalising their pay with the higher pay drawn by the junior employees after getting the benefit of time scale, shall not be considered before getting the third/ last time scale. Even after getting third time scale if the pay of the senior employee is still lesser than the pay of his junior then it shall be equalised only in that condition when the seniority of both the employees is undisputed, both are in the same pay-scale and it is clear that the pay of junior employee is higher than the senior employee only due to getting time scale. 11. The aforesaid scheme of time-scales shall be presumed in force with effect from 1.12.87. The matter of every employee, who remained in the service of Board on that date, shall be considered according to above and accordingly whichever time scale would be admissible to whoever on that date or thereafter, the same shall be given to him, and his pay shall be fixed in that (pay scale). The ad-hoc continuous services rendered on the same post before the regular service shall also be added for the purpose of calculating the period prescribed for admissibility of time scale. If any higher pay-scale has already been granted as time-scale to any employee of the Board before 1.12.87 which is greater than the benefit admissible under aforesaid scheme then that will not be taken back. If any higher pay-scale has already been granted as time-scale to any employee of the Board before 1.12.87 which is greater than the benefit admissible under aforesaid scheme then that will not be taken back. Where any question arises for granting first, second or third time-scale to the workmen of such cadre where it is higher than the maximum pay-scale Rs. 1650-2690 admissible to them then such time-scale shall be denoted after the revision of pay-scales of officers and Junior Engineers with effect from 1.4.84. The time-scales for the posts of dying cadre shall be declared separately. 12. The appointing authority of different/concerned cadres will be competent for granting the time-scale and the procedure for it shall be the same which is adopted on the occasion of promotion. 13. Under the aforesaid scheme of time-scales, the payment of payable arrears for the period from 1.12.87 to 31.12.88 shall be made as Fifty percent in cash and Fifty percent of that shall be deposited in the provident fund account of the employee. 14. For the purpose of admissibility of pay-scales, any employee shall have an option to opt it from the date of completion of prescribed 9-16-21 years' period or the upcoming date of next increment falling thereafter. 15. It shall be essential to get verified the pay-fixation and bills related to time-scale from concerned Chief Accounts Officer/ Regional Deputy-Chief Accounts Officer (Kshetriya Up-mukhya Lekhadhikari)/Senior Accounts Officer. 16. If there will be any clarification regarding aforesaid subject, the same shall be issued at the level of Board only." (Translated by the Court) The scheme dated 25.02.1989 was modified through order dated 19.06.1989 which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:- "In place of existing Paras 7, 9, 10 and 13 of the Board's Order Number 489-P/Ra.Vi.Pa.-Tees-4P/1986, Dated 25.02.1989 regarding aforementioned subject, the following provisions are substituted- (7) If pay-scale of Rs.530-810 is received to any employee of any cadre including mechanical cadre before 1-4-84 as a result of promotion or as time-scale then revised pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2160 shall be admissible to him w.e.f. 1-4-84. In such matters, the calculation of period prescribed for grating next higher time-scale shall be made from the date of receiving the pay-scale of Rs. 530-810 as time-scale. If pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2160 shall be admissible to him w.e.f. 1-4-84. In such matters, the calculation of period prescribed for grating next higher time-scale shall be made from the date of receiving the pay-scale of Rs. 530-810 as time-scale. If pay-scale of Rs. 530-810 would have been received before 1-4-84 as a result of promotion then the Second time-scale shall be admissible to him on completing 16 years' prescribed duration from the date of his direct recruitment in the cadre. (9) In case of promotion to the higher pay-scale or admissibility of pay-scale of the higher post as time-scale, whichever is earlier, the benefit of pay fixation under Fundamental Rule-22B of the Financial Handbook shall be admissible; but after getting any pay-scale as time-scale if the promotion is made in that very pay-scale then the pay shall be fixed on next pay-level in that very pay-scale under the aforesaid Rule. Besides it if the promotion is given before the period prescribed for any time scale then on completing the period prescribed for getting aforesaid time scale, the pay shall be fixed at the next pay-level of the same pay-scale. In the matters where personnel have got any time scale and thereafter their promotion is made in the pay-scale lower to it, then in such matters too, the benefit of pay-fixation after giving one increment in the existing pay-scale on that date will be admissible to the concerned personnel. 10. The determination of seniority of personnel on any post shall be made according to the principles contained in concerned/relevant regulations. The pay/ perquisites drawn in any pay-scale shall not affect the seniority of personnel in any manner. If the pay of a senior employee becomes lesser than the junior employee in consequence of providing him time scale then in such situation the pay of the senior employee shall be fixed at the pay-level of his junior employee (from the date of anomaly). This facility will be admissible only in that condition when the seniority of senior and junior employee is undisputed in their cadre and the anomaly would have emerged only due to providing time scale. 13. Under the aforesaid scheme of time-scales, the payment of payable arrears for the period from 1.12.87 to 31.12.88 shall be made as Fifty percent in cash and Fifty percent of that shall be deposited in the provident fund account of the employee. 13. Under the aforesaid scheme of time-scales, the payment of payable arrears for the period from 1.12.87 to 31.12.88 shall be made as Fifty percent in cash and Fifty percent of that shall be deposited in the provident fund account of the employee. The full amount of arrears for the period prior to 1.12.87 shall be deposited in the provident fund accounts of the employees which shall be presumed deposited w.e.f. 1.4.89." (Translated by the Court) A clarification was also introduced by the Board vide order dated 09.07.1990 which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:- "In respect of the condition mentioned in your above referred Letter Number S.W. 7/12-S.P.O. Camp, Dated 10.01.1990 i.e. whether an employee would get the benefit of pay-fixation to next stage on completing the service period mentioned in the Para-9 of the Board Order No. 489-P/Ra.Vi.P.-Tees-4P/1986, Dated 25.02.1989 if he has already got two promotions even before completing first nine years of his service, I have been directed to tender this clarification that since the concerned employee would have already got the benefit of Rule-22B in both his promotions before nine years of his service, therefore the benefit of Next Stage would be admissible on completion of the service period of sixteen years (Nine + Seven). The restriction would be that the benefit of next stage shall not be payable before 1-4-83 but if the concerned employee gets third promotion even before this then the benefit of pay-fixation to next stage would be admissible to him only on completion of twenty-one years' service in the Pay-scale of third promotion. The restriction shall be that the next level shall be payable before 1-12-87." (Translated by the Court) Subsequent thereto, the Board issued another order dated 03.04.1996, the English translation of which has been filed as Annexure SA-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit dated 05.06.2019 which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:- "Letters are being received from Zonal Units under U.P.S.E.B. to clarify the B.O. No.489-P/SEB-30-4P/86 dated 25.02.1989, No.497-P/SEB-30 dated 20.03.89, No.565/P/SEB-30-4P/86 dated 20.03.89 and No.9P/SEB-30-4P/86 dated 20.03.89 relating to determination of induction point for grant/admissibility of time bound pay scales and after due consideration, I have been directed to clarify as follows:- 1. For admissibility of time bound pay scales, the induction points shall be determined as follows:- (A) Induction point of a personnel (employee) shall be the post on which he has been directly appointed initially. (B) If an employee is appointed in a post in a specific cadre directly but he shifts subsequently on a direct recruitment post in another cadre then such employee's induction point will be the date of joining in the subsequent (last) cadre and such an employee will not be entitled to get any benefit of service rendered in the previous cadre for computing service rendered in respect of admissibility of time bound pay scales. For example if an employee is initially appointed on posts like peon, runner, collie, mate, helper etc. but subsequently such employee is selected in a higher post in clerical, operating, mechanical or any other cadre like routine grade clerk (clerk), stenographer (grade-3), lineman, driver, Assistant Store Keeper, S.S.O., Operator etc. then such an employee's induction point will be the date of joining on clerical/operating/mechanical post in the cadre or the date of joining in an other cadre/post. (C) If a personnel after initial appointment in a specific cadre of SEB joints a higher post on promotion in the same cadre after open selection or a selection procedure which is different than promotion procedure then such a personnel's induction point will be the date of joining on higher post. (D) Such personnels who have joined on their posts prior to issue of regulations and these posts are declared promotional posts under the regulations then the dates of joining on initial post of employees so appointed will be their induction point in respect of time bound pay scales. (2) Direct recruitment means an open selection or process which is different than a procedure of promotion on a post/cadre i.e. in case an employee is selected from a lower pay scale in the same or from an other cadre under recruitment regulations then the date of joining on a post after such selection shall be the induction point. For example in a selection conducted either by selection committee no.1 or 2, on higher post belonging to operating/mechanical cadre from amongst those working on lower posts then the induction point will be the date of joining on higher post after selection even if word promotion is mentioned instead of appointment. For example in a selection conducted either by selection committee no.1 or 2, on higher post belonging to operating/mechanical cadre from amongst those working on lower posts then the induction point will be the date of joining on higher post after selection even if word promotion is mentioned instead of appointment. Provided that the selection procedure of regular channel of promotion is different." 10. A perusal of the scheme would indicate that the logic behind the scheme is that where the employees do not get any promotion within the specified time then they would be entitled for grant of first, second and third timescales of pay upon completion of specified years of service initially starting from 9, 16 and 21 years to be subsequently modified to 9, 14 and 19 years of service. In case an employee gets a promotion to the next higher post before completion of specified years of service i.e. 9, 14 or 19 years of service then in such an eventuality the employee would be entitled to get the second timescale of pay on completion of specified period of service and so on. Thus, the net effect of the scheme is an attempt by the Board to remove the stagnation in service and not grant actual promotion to the employee concerned. The scheme also provides that when an employee gets promotion on account of facing a competition i.e. either being recruited directly or being promoted after facing selection to such a post then the employee's appointment on such a post would be the date of joining in the cadre which would be the starting point or the induction point for grant/admissibility of time bound pay scale, meaning thereby that it is the post on which an employee is directly appointed or promoted after selection which would be treated to be the starting point for grant of the benefits of the aforesaid orders for grant of timescales. 11. 11. The aforesaid procedure can also be understood from the analogy that where an employee is promoted after facing some level of competition, be it open direct selection or a limited departmental competition, his promotion/ appointment would be treated as the induction point vis-a-vis an employee who simply gets upgraded or gets timescales of pay on the basis of his seniority or gets the benefits of the timescales of pay solely on the basis of having completed the requisite period of service and without involving any element of competition or selection. 12. In this regard, the Apex Court in the case Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs. R. Santhakumar Velusamy & Ors, (2011) 9 SCC 510 has set forth the difference between promotion and upgradation as follows:- "12. We may next consider the concepts of 'promotion' and 'upgradation'. In Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India, (1973) 3 SCC 862 , this Court explained the difference between a promotion post and a selection grade : "It is well recognised that a promotion post is a higher post with a higher pay. A selection grade has higher pay but in the same post. A selection grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who may not get a chance of promotion on account of limited outlets of promotions should at least be placed in the selection grade to prevent stagnation on the maximum of the scale. Selection grades are, therefore, created in the interest of greater efficiency." In Tarsen Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 5 SCC 392 , this Court defined 'promotion' thus : "Promotion as understood under the service law jurisprudence means advancement in rank, grade or both. Promotion is always a step towards advancement to a higher position, grade or honour." In Union of India vs. S.S. Ranade, (1995) 4 SCC 462 the scope and meaning of the word 'promotion' was considered. The issue in that case was whether a Commandant (Selection Grade) held a higher rank than a Commandant and consequently entitled to be superannuated at a later age of 58 years instead of 55 years. This Court, following the decision in Lalit Mohan Deb, held as follows: "Undoubtedly, a Commandant who becomes a Commandant (Selection Grade) secures a promotion to a higher pay scale. But it is a higher pay scale in the same post. This Court, following the decision in Lalit Mohan Deb, held as follows: "Undoubtedly, a Commandant who becomes a Commandant (Selection Grade) secures a promotion to a higher pay scale. But it is a higher pay scale in the same post. The use of the word 'promotion' in Rule 6 and the Constitution of a Departmental Promotion Committee for selection of Commandant (Selection Grade) in Rule 7, do not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the promotion which is contemplated there is necessarily a promotion to a higher post. Promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post. These two Rules and the use of the word 'promotion' there do not conclude the issue. xxx xxx xxx In the present case, an element of selection is involved in granting selection grade because there is no automatic promotion to the selection grade pay scale. But this factor is not decisive. In the present case also, as in the above cases, Selection Grade posts are created entirely for the purpose of granting some relief to those who have very limited avenues of getting promotion to a higher post. That is why a higher pay or pay scale is granted in the same post. Thus, by its very nature, a selection grade post cannot be considered as a higher post for the purposes of Rule 9. ...Because the creation of a selection grade in the same post stands on a very different footing. By its very nature a selection grade provides a higher pay or a higher pay scale in the same post. The beneficiary of a selection grade does not thereby occupy a post which is higher in rank than the post earlier occupied by him." (emphasis supplied) On facts, this Court found that the respondent therein required a promotion which resulted in occupation of a post which was higher in rank than the post earlier occupied, to get the relief of longer service. This Court held that though his promotion from Commandant to Commandant (Selection Grade), resulted in a promotion to a higher pay scale, that was not sufficient to grant relief to the respondent therein as his promotion to selection grade did not involve advancement to a higher post. This Court held that though his promotion from Commandant to Commandant (Selection Grade), resulted in a promotion to a higher pay scale, that was not sufficient to grant relief to the respondent therein as his promotion to selection grade did not involve advancement to a higher post. In State of Rajasthan vs. Fateh Chand Soni, (1996) 1 SCC 562 , this Court following Ranade defined 'promotion' thus: "The High Court, in our opinion was not right in holding that promotion can only be to a higher post in the service and appointment to a higher scale of an officer holding the same post does not constitute promotion. In the literal sense the word "Promote" means "to advance to a higher position, grade, or honour". So also "Promotion" means "advancement of preferment in honour, dignity, rank or grade". [See: Webster's Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edition, p. 1009]. "Promotion" thus not only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade. In service law also the expression "Promotion" has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that "Promotion can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post." (emphasis supplied) The distinction between upgradation and promotion was spelt out by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in N.G. Prabhu vs. Chief Justice, Kerala High Court, 1973 (2) LabIC 1399, thus : "Promotion is, of course, appointment, to a different post carrying a higher scale of pay in the service. If, to better the conditions of service of the incumbents in posts in the same category the scale of pay of all the posts in the category is raised, the incumbents would naturally get the higher scale of pay. But in such a case it may not be proper to characterize the event as a promotion to higher posts though a benefit of a higher scale of pay is obtained by all concerned. In other words, if the upgradation relates to all the posts in a category naturally, there is no sense in calling it a promotion of all the persons in that category. That is because there is no question of appointment from one post to another. Parties continued to hold same posts but get a higher scale of pay. In other words, if the upgradation relates to all the posts in a category naturally, there is no sense in calling it a promotion of all the persons in that category. That is because there is no question of appointment from one post to another. Parties continued to hold same posts but get a higher scale of pay. It may be that it is not all the posts in a particular category that are so upgrade, but only a part of it. Normally, the benefit of such upgradation would go to the seniors in the category. They would automatically get a higher scale of pay. That is because though their posts continue in the same category a higher scale of pay is fixed for those posts. It is appropriate then to say that the seniors have been nominated to the higher grade which has been so created by upgradation. This phenomenon does not differ from the case where all the posts are upgraded and, it appears to us that those who get the higher grade cannot be said to have been 'promoted' because here again there is no question of appointment from one post to another. They continue to hold the same post, but because of seniority in the same post they are given a higher scale of pay. When a person is nominated to the higher scale of pay from time to time based on seniority, it may perhaps be loosely termed as a promotion." 13. Being armed with the aforesaid analogy and the judgment of the Apex Court and having considered the scheme which gives the first, second and third timescales of pay after requisite period of service, what the Court finds is that the alleged discrimination between direct recruits and promotee Assistant Accountants in the matter of grant of timescales of pay on the ground of discrimination is sought to be challenged by the petitioners. However, in terms of the scheme, the grant of timescales of pay are simply an upgradation in order to avoid stagnation for the employees who do not get any chance of promotion. However, in terms of the scheme, the grant of timescales of pay are simply an upgradation in order to avoid stagnation for the employees who do not get any chance of promotion. Moreover, in case an employee gets promoted after facing competition through selection or gets appointed as a direct recruit consequently his promotion after selection as a direct recruit has to be treated as an induction point which is not the case with respect to the petitioners who have been given timescales of pay on account of facing stagnation in the cadre after completing requisite years of service. Discrimination can only be alleged where the persons are similarly circumstanced but in the present case the petitioners are not similarly circumstanced or are equal to those who have been promoted or appointed after facing selection or have been directly recruited and thus it is not the case where equals are being treated unequals as is sought to be made out by the petitioners. 14. In this regard, apt would be to indicate as to what has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Pushpa Rani and others, 2008 (9) SCC 242 , wherein the Apex Court has held as under:- "Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration." 15. Accordingly, when the issue involved in the present case is seen in the context of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Rani (supra) as well as R. Santhakumar Velusamy (supra), what the Court clearly finds is that the orders which have been challenged by the petitioners have been validly issued by the respondents taking into consideration the power vested in them and would also stand scrutiny in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Rani (supra). The argument on behalf of the petitioners that equals have been treated as unequals is also rejected inasmuch as this Court has already held that the petitioners cannot be held to be similarly circumstanced to those who have been promoted on the basis of either a departmental competitive examination or have been appointed after facing selection or as direct recruit and hence any interference in the impugned orders would virtually amount to treating unequals as equals which is legally impermissible in the eyes of law. Even otherwise, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Rani (supra), the Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadre or the methodology of making promotions for all such matters lie in the exclusive domain of the employer and no discrimination could be indicated by the petitioners in the impugned orders. 16. Reliance placed over the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hamid Ali Qazi (supra) would be of no help to the petitioners inasmuch as the order dated 19.06.1989 as considered in Hamid Ali Qazi (supra) does not conform to the order dated 19.06.1989 as has been challenged and annexed by the petitioners in the present petition vide Annexure-9 as has already been reproduced above inasmuch as the order dated 19.06.1989 in the present petition does not have the stipulation as was considered in Hamid Ali Qazi (supra). The judgment of Hamid Ali Qazi (supra) would also not be applicable in the present facts of the case inasmuch as here is a case in which this Court has already spelt out that in terms of the aforesaid orders which have been challenged by the petitioners i.e. the orders dated 25.02.1989 as modified on 19.06.1989, 09.07.1990 and 03.04.1996, all pertain to grant of timescales of pay on completion of requisite years of service. Also the judgment of Hamid Ali Qazi (supra) has not considered the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pushpa Rani (supra) as well as the R. Santhakumar Velusamy (supra). 17. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.