JUDGMENT : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.K. Dey and Mr. R.M. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam for Respondents No. 2 and 3. 2. The appellant-Assam Urban Water Supply and Sewerage Board, (for short the Board), is before this Court assailing the order dated 10.10.2018 passed in W.P. (C) No. 5829/2017. Through the said order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and had directed the appellant herein to promote the private respondent herein as Chief Engineer of the Board with effect from 22.10.2014 with all consequential benefits. The appellant, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved by the same is before this Court in this appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the order passed by the learned Single Judge would contend that the promotion as being granted to the private respondent would result in anomalous situation inasmuch as the pay scale of the private respondent in the post of Chief Engineer could be above that of the Managing Director. In that light, it is contended that in a circumstance where such anomaly could arise and further when the Government keeping in view this aspect of the matter has approved the designation of the private respondent herein as Chief Engineer without the financial benefits, but providing the same scale as that of the Superintending Engineer, the direction as issued by the learned Single Judge would not be justified and the same is liable to be set aside. 4. 4. Learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 1, who has accepted notice, would contend that the learned Single Judge having taken into consideration the very resolution passed by the appellant Board has noted that the Board had resolved to create the post of Chief Engineer in the rank of Additional Chief Engineer with parity to the Assam Public Health Engineering Department (for short PHED) and when it is noticed that prior to such decision, the officers being deputed from the PHED, were granted the pay scale of Additional Chief Engineer and in that circumstance, when the learned Single Judge has arrived at the conclusion that the decision taken by the appellant Board to deny the pay scale is not justified, such decision being in accordance with law, the same does not call for interference. 5. In the background of the contention put forth, we have perused the appeal papers including the order passed by the learned Single Judge. While we have been exhaustively taken through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we noticed that the factual aspect which has been put forth in the writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition has been taken note by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge based on the same has taken his ultimate decision in the matter. Hence, it would be appropriate to refer to the consideration made by the learned Single Judge in paragraphs-14 and 15 of the order, which read as follows: "14. It may further be noticed that vide the Meeting Minutes of the 2nd Board proceeding held on 29.03.1989, the post of Chief Engineer under the Board was created in the rank of Additional Chief Engineer in the PHED. The newly created post was resolved to be manned by Engineers on deputation from the PHED. Subsequently, the Board in its 19th meeting held on 07.02.1996 passed a resolution that the Board will henceforth appoint its own officers/employees as per the requirement and as per the provision laid down under the Act of 1985. 15. The respondent No. 3 in its affidavit-in-opposition dated 26.04.2018 has not disputed the creation of the post of Chief Engineer under the Board in the rank of Additional Chief Engineer of the PHED. 15. The respondent No. 3 in its affidavit-in-opposition dated 26.04.2018 has not disputed the creation of the post of Chief Engineer under the Board in the rank of Additional Chief Engineer of the PHED. However, the specific stand taken in the affidavit is that no resolution was taken as to whether Superintending Engineer of the Board would be entitled to be promoted to the post of Chief Engineer. This stand only runs contrary to the resolution adopted by the Board in its 49th Board of Directors meeting held on 19.02.2011. The further stand taken is that the post of Chief Engineer of the Board is next below the post of Managing Director of same Board and therefore, the Grade pay of the Chief Engineer cannot be above the grade pay of the Managing Director of the Board. This stand in my considered opinion cannot be accepted, inasmuch, as the creation of the post of Chief Engineer under the Board has not been disputed and as per the resolution passed on 29.03.1989 by the Board, the post of Chief Engineer was created in the rank of Additional Chief Engineer of PHED. The post of Managing Director which is manned by the State civil servant being an Assam Civil Service cadre post and having the same grade pay can only be understood to be as coincidental. Moreover, the previous incumbent having held the post of Chief Engineer on deputation by coming from the PHED was also in the grade pay of Rs. 7,400/-. Admittedly, the highest cadre post under the Board is the post of Chief Engineer while the post of Managing Director is a cadre post of the Assam Civil Service and placed just above the post of Chief Engineer. Parity in the grade pay of two posts though unequal in hierarchy can happen such as in the present case. Likewise, the scale of pay or monthly emoluments drawn by two different officers holding similar post is also possible. By virtue of service seniority, persons in the same post can be having different monthly emoluments. Therefore, the similarity in the grade pay of Chief Engineer under the Board with that of the Managing Director cannot be the ground for denying the petitioner his promotion, more particularly, when a resolution to that effect was already passed unanimously on 19.02.2011." 6. By virtue of service seniority, persons in the same post can be having different monthly emoluments. Therefore, the similarity in the grade pay of Chief Engineer under the Board with that of the Managing Director cannot be the ground for denying the petitioner his promotion, more particularly, when a resolution to that effect was already passed unanimously on 19.02.2011." 6. A perusal of the same would indicate that the appellant Board has resolved to create the post of Chief Engineer and, in that circumstance, the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the very admitted position, has arrived at the conclusion that in a circumstance where the Chief Engineer on deputation from the PHED was in the Grade Pay of Rs. 7,400/- had extended the benefit to the post of Chief Engineer created by the Board through their resolution. In such situation, when there is no other contrary material available on record to indicate that the factual position as taken note by the learned Single Judge is not the correct position, we see no reason to take any other view. 7. Though the learned counsel for the appellant sought to rely on the averment as presently made in the writ appeal to contend that the private respondent had not satisfied the requirement of minimum service in the post of Superintending Engineer to be considered to the post of Chief Engineer, such contention sought to be put forth presently cannot be accepted inasmuch as the appellant at an earlier point had resolved to promote the private respondent to the post of Chief Engineer and such proposal having been sent to the Government, the Government through the communication dated 20.10.2014 has granted the approval. The only issue, therefore, was the non-extension of the financial benefit by way of pay scale in the post of Chief Engineer for the said post of Chief Engineer, which was denied through the very same approval dated 20.10.2014. In that regard, when a detail consideration with regard to the validity or otherwise of such decision taken by the communication dated 20.10.2014 was made by the learned Single Judge and, in that circumstance, had arrived at the conclusion that the benefit is required to be extended, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge in an intra-court appeal of the present nature. 8. 8. Even otherwise, in other aspects of the matter, the Chief Engineer in hierarchy would be below that of the Managing Director. Hence, even in that regard, the appellant cannot make out any grievance. 9. The appeal, accordingly, being devoid of merit stands disposed of.