JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Dr.L.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri A.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The preset intra court Special Appeal under Chapter-VIII, Rule-5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has emanated from the judgment and order dated 30.10.2015, passed by the learned Writ Court in Writ Petition No.3924 (SS) of 2012 (Kuljyoti Kumar Awasthi & Others Versus State of U.P. and others). The learned Writ Court while allowing the writ petition has directed that the petitioners will also be entitled to the benefit of the pay scale of Rs.470-735 w.e.f. 01.07.1979 in the seniority list of 18.04.1978 as compared to other persons similarly situate. 3. The brief facts of the case for adjudication of the present controversy are that a Multi Purpose Worker Scheme was issued by the Government of India for eradication of Malaria, in which the posts of Malaria Inspectors and Surveillance Inspectors were created in one and the same pay scale of Rs.230-385. A combined inter-se seniority list dated 18.04.1978 was issued containing the names of Surveillance Inspectors and Malaria Inspectors. The pay revision took place in the year 1981 as per recommendation of Pay Commission, in which the Malaria Inspectors were given the pay scale of Rs.400-615, whereas the Surveillance Inspectors were given the pay scale of Rs.470-735 w.e.f. 01.07.1979. By means of the Notification dated 30.06.1981 the Central Government directed to keep the Malaria Inspectors out of the Scheme and they be posted at the Headquarters. The said directions were accepted by the State Government by means of the Government Order dated 31.01.1983. By that time the respondents/petitioners were not born in service. Since some of the senior persons in the combined seniority list were not confirmed and due to the discrepancies of pay scale created w.e.f. 01.07.1979 on the post of Malaria Inspectors and the Surveillance Inspectors, two writ petitions bearing No.213 of 1984 and writ petition no.2132 of 1984 were filed by the U.P. Malaria Nirikshak Sangh and others Versus State of U.P. and others. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and decided by a common judgment and order dated 25.04.1989 with a direction to consider the matter pertaining to the confirmation of the petitioners in accordance with the seniority list circulated by the order dated 18th April, 1978, contained in Annexure no.4 to the writ petition and afford the petitioners the benefit of confirmation in accordance with the said seniority list. The operative portion of the order is extracted hereunder:- "In view of what has been said hereinabove, a writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to reconsider the matter pertaining to the confirmation of the petitioners in accordance with the seniority list circulated by order dated 18th April, 1978, contained in Annexure-IV to the writ petition and afford the petitioners the benefit of confirmation in accordance with the said seniority list. No order as to costs." 4. Thereafter an application for clarification of the judgment and order dated 25.04.1989 was moved, which was disposed of by means of order dated 15.11.1989/13.12.1989, clarifying that in case the State Government decides the matter in favour of the petitioners certainly the benefit of re-fixation of pay scale vis-a-vis to that of Surveillance Inspector will be given to them. The operative part of the order is extracted below:- "We had allowed the writ petitions by issuing a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to re-consider the matter pertaining to the confirmation of the petitioners in accordance with the seniority list dated 10.04.78 contained in Annexure-4 to the writ petition and to afford the benefit of confirmation to the petitioners in accordance with the said seniority. Now in case the State Government decides the matter in favour of the petitioners, certainly the benefit of re-fixation of pay scale vis-a-vis to that of Surveillance Inspector will be given to them. The application stands finally disposed of. " 5. The respondents-petitioners were appointed on the substantive post of Malaria Inspectors through a Selection Committee in the year 1985, except one Shri Vijay Shanker, who was appointed in the year 1984 in the pay scale of Rs.400-615/-. 6. It appears that the Pay Commission had recommended the pay Scale of Rs.470-735 for the Malaria Inspectors as well as Surveillance Inspectors but the State Government had not accepted the same and it revised the pay scale of Malaria Inspectors as Rs.400-615 and Surveillance Inspectors as Rs.470-735 w.e.f. 01.07.1979. 6. It appears that the Pay Commission had recommended the pay Scale of Rs.470-735 for the Malaria Inspectors as well as Surveillance Inspectors but the State Government had not accepted the same and it revised the pay scale of Malaria Inspectors as Rs.400-615 and Surveillance Inspectors as Rs.470-735 w.e.f. 01.07.1979. The judgment of this Court dated 25.04.1989 clarified by the order dated 15.11.1989/ 13.12.1989 was complied by the Government by means of the Government Order dated 14.10.1992 and all the Malaria Inspectors, who were in the combined Seniority list dated 18.07.1978, above Surveillance Inspectors in the seniority list, were confirmed and granted the pay scale of Rs.470-735 and the consequential benefits were also given to them. However, the said order was cancelled by means of order dated 17.08.1999 and all the Malaria Inspectors of the Combined Seniority list dated 18.07.1978, over and above Sr.No.800 were granted the pay scale of Rs.470-735. 7. The respondents preferred a highly belated writ petition no.3924 of 2012 challenging the order dated 14.10.1992 and demi official letter dated 17.08.1999 with a further prayer for a direction to grant the pay scale of Rs.470-735 w.e.f. 1st of July 1979 till further revision has been made by a subsequent Pay Commission as per Government Order of August 1999, as contained in Annexure no.7 to the writ petition. The writ petition was contested by the respondents. 8. After considering the pleadings of the parties and hearing, the writ petition was allowed by means of the judgment and order dated 30.10.2015. Being aggrieved the present special appeal has been filed by the appellants. 9. The delay in filing the special appeal was condoned and the special appeal was disposed of by means of order dated 10.03.2017 on the concession given by the learned counsel for the appellants providing therein that the impugned order would stand modified to the extent that the respondents-petitioners would be entitled to the benefits under the judgment keeping in view their date of entry into the cadre. 10. Against the order dated 10.03.2017 a Review petition was filed and by a detailed judgment, the review petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 11.12.2017 and the judgment and order dated 10.03.2017 was set aside. 11. 10. Against the order dated 10.03.2017 a Review petition was filed and by a detailed judgment, the review petition was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 11.12.2017 and the judgment and order dated 10.03.2017 was set aside. 11. The order dated 11.12.2017, passed in the Review Petition was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.(s).12496 of 2018, which was disposed of by means of order dated 03.05.2018 providing therein that special appeal will be heard confining only to the facts and issues raised in the appeal and clarified that while allowing the review application/petition, the judgment under review is not to be set aside, and it can only be recalled. Hence the Special Appeal has come up for hearing. 12. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that initially the post of Malaria Inspectors and Surveillance Inspectors in the Medical and Health Department were created in one and the same pay scale of Rs.230-385 and a common seniority list was prepared on 18.04.1978. In the year 1981 the pay scales were revised. Though the Pay Commission had recommended for the pay scale of Rs.470-735 for both the posts but the State Government did not accept the same and the State Government allowed the Pay Scale of Rs.400-615 to the Malaria Inspectors and pay scale of Rs.470-735 to the Surveillance Inspectors w.e.f. 01.07.1979, which has not been challenged. Subsequently, in compliance of the Notification of the Central Government dated 30.06.1981 the Malaria Inspectors were brought out of the Multi Purpose Worker Scheme of the Central Government by means of the order dated 31.01.1983 and they were posted at the Headquarters. Since some of the Malaria Inspectors, who were higher in seniority in the combined seniority list dated 18.04.1978 were not confirmed and granted the pay scale of Rs.470-735, therefore, the writ petitions were filed before this court, which were allowed by means of judgment and order dated 25.04.1989, which was clarified vide order dated 15.11.1989/13.12.1989 specifically directing the respondents to consider the matter pertaining to the confirmation of the petitioners in accordance with the seniority list circulated by order dated 18th April 1978 and in case the State Government decides the matter in favour of the petitioners the benefit of re-fixation of pay scale viz-a-viz to that of Surveillance Inspectors be given to them. Therefore, the judgment was restricted to the petitioners of the said writ petition and seniority list dated 18.04.1978. 13. He further submitted that the respondents-petitioners were born in the cadre in the year 1984-1985 after bifurcation of the cadre in pursuance of the Notification issued by the Central Government on 30.06.1981, accepted vide order dated 10.1.1983, therefore, the respondents-petitioners are not entitled for the benefit of the said judgment because the said judgment was in respect of a class in itself who were included in the seniority list dated 18.04.1978, so no discrimination can be alleged on account of non giving the benefit of the said judgment to the respondents-petitioners. 14. He further submitted that the respondents were appointed on the post of Malaria Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs.400-615 and the terms and conditions of the appointment order were never challenged by the respondents-petitioners. The respondents-petitioners were sitting on the fence and watching the proceedings and approached to this Court with a great delay in the year 2012 challenging the order dated 14.10.1992 and 17.08.1999, which was highly barred by delay and laches, therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. 15. He further submitted that the writ petition was filed stating in paragraph 3 of the writ petition that by an order of this Hon'ble Court the petitioners have been directed to agitate/claim their right of the pay scale claiming to be Malaria Inspectors pursuant to the revised pay scale w.e.f. 01.07.1979, but no such order was brought on record. Though in reply it has not been specifically denied, but once it was claimed by the respondents-petitioners they should have disclosed the order by which the liberty was granted. The learned Single Judge without considering the aforesaid aspects and pleading of appellants has allowed the writ petition and held entitled the respondents-petitioners to the benefit of pay scale of Rs.470-735 w.e.f. 01.07.1979 in the seniority list of 18.04.1978 as compared to other persons similarly situated. While on that very date the respondents-petitioners were neither born in the cadre nor they have been placed in the seniority list dated 18.04.1978, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable at all in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. 16. While on that very date the respondents-petitioners were neither born in the cadre nor they have been placed in the seniority list dated 18.04.1978, therefore, the impugned judgment and order is not sustainable at all in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the writ petition nos.213 of 1984 and 2132 of 1984 were filed by the U.P. Malaria Nirikshak Sangh and others in the year 1984. The respondents-petitioners were appointed in the year 1984-85, therefore, they were members of the Sangh and their cause was being agitated before this court and therefore, the respondents-petitioners are entitled for the benefit of the judgment and the clarification order passed in the said writ petition. 17. He further submitted that the State Government suo moto had reconsidered the matter with regard to its earlier Government Order dated 14.10.1992 by Government Order of August 1999 specifically providing that the Malaria Inspectors' pay scale be revised for all the Inspectors and not relating to a few Malaria Inspectors whose pay scales alleged to have been revised as personal pay scales. But the said Government Order was not issued. While once the decision was taken by the Government itself for granting the pay scale of Rs.470-735, the same should have been granted and the respondents-petitioners are entitled for the same. He further submitted that once the pay scale has been granted to some of the Malaria Inspectors the same cannot be denied to other Malaria Inspectors. 18. On the basis of above, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the learned Writ Court has rightly considered and allowed the pay scale of Rs.470-735 to the respondents-petitioners and Special Appeal has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds which is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be dismissed. 19. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record. 20. Indisputably the posts of Malaria Inspectors and Surveillance Inspectors were created in the pay scale of Rs.230-385. A common seniority list dated 18.04.1978 of the Malaria Inspectors and Surveillance Inspectors was issued. After recommendation of the Pay Commission the pay scales were revised by the Government w.e.f. 01.07.1979. The malaria Inspectors were granted pay scale of Rs.400-615, whereas the Surveillance Inspectors were given the pay scale of Rs.470-735. 21. A common seniority list dated 18.04.1978 of the Malaria Inspectors and Surveillance Inspectors was issued. After recommendation of the Pay Commission the pay scales were revised by the Government w.e.f. 01.07.1979. The malaria Inspectors were granted pay scale of Rs.400-615, whereas the Surveillance Inspectors were given the pay scale of Rs.470-735. 21. It appears that some of the Malaria Inspectors higher in seniority list dated 18.04.1978 were not confirmed while some junior Surveillance Inspectors were confirmed and some of the Surveillance Inspectors were transfered on the post of Malaria Inspectors at the district level after re-inforcement and re-organization of the Scheme. Therefore the U.P. Malaria Nirikshak Sangh and some Malaria Inspectors came forward and approached to this court by means of writ petition no.213 of 1984 and writ petition no.2132 of 1984. 22. The writ petition no.213 of 1984 was filed alleging that the petitioners therein have suffered a set back on account of their non-confirmation although they are senior and non-confirmation of them shall affect their salaries. It appears that the Joint Director, Malaria, Jawahar Bhawan, Lucknow, on the re-inforcement and re-organization of the Scheme had directed that the senior most Surveillance Inspectors working in the department are to be transferred as Malaria Inspectors at the district level without their individual consent with the stipulation that in the event of not willing to join the post of Malaria Inspector his future claim would not be entertained. On 18.09.1979 it was directed that the senior most Surveillance Inspectors should join on the post of Malaria Inspectors and it was clarified that the seniority which has already been fixed was not to be disturbed. Subsequently by means of order dated 08.01.1980 the Surveillance Inspectors were transferred to the districts indicating their names on the post of Malaria Inspectors in public interest, on the assurance that their seniority will remain the same. In the year 1978 the respondents had issued a seniority list of Senior Malaria Inspectors/Malaria Inspectors and Surveillance Inspectors. On 24.03.1981, 33% out of the total strength of the Surveillance Inspectors were confirmed by the order passed by the respondents, who were actually working on the post of Surveillance Inspectors, but the benefit was not given to those who originally belong to the services of Surveillance Inspectors and posted at that time on the post of Malaria Inspector by virtue of being senior. The petitioners therein, who were claiming seniority in preference to the Surveillance Inspectors, who were confirmed, had challenged the said order on the ground that the juniors have been given preference for confirmation on the post, but they were denied the said benefit. A list of the persons who were affected by the said order was filed indicating the names of those persons, who appears to be juniors have been confirmed as against those persons who stand senior in the seniority list. 23. The Division Bench of this Court had directed the petitioners to separate their reliefs. Therefore, the writ petition no.2134 of 1984 was filed mainly on the ground that the action of the respondents in directing the confirmation of their juniors in preference to their seniors is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Since no counter affidavit was filed, therefore, accepting the version of the petitioners the Division Bench after holding the impugned order as illegal and discriminatory, instead of quashing the same and relegating the Surveillance Inspectors to their position prior to 15.09.1982 directed the respondents to re-consider the matter pertaining to the confirmation of the petitioners in accordance with seniority list circulated vide order dated 18.04.1978 by means of judgment and order dated 25.04.1989, modified vide order dated 15.11.1989/13.12.1989. Therefore, the aforesaid writ petition was filed because the Senior Surveillance Inspectors were posted as Malaria Officer and the junior Surveillance Inspectors were confirmed and getting the higher pay scale, but the petitioners who were basically senior Surveillance Inspectors and posted as Malaria Officer on account of seniority with the assurance that their seniority will remain the same therefore the said writ petitions were disposed of in favour of the petitioners therein. 24. It is apparent from the aforesaid order that the order was in personam between the parties and it was restricted only to the Malaria Inspectors included in the seniority list dated 18.04.1978 because, in fact they were senior Surveillance Inspectors but posted as Malaria Inspectors. So the benefit was granted to the Surveillance Inspectors posted as Malaria Inspectors. Therefore, the petitioners who were appointed on the post of Malaria Inspectors in the year 1984 and 1985 can not be treated at par and entitled for the said benefit. 25. So the benefit was granted to the Surveillance Inspectors posted as Malaria Inspectors. Therefore, the petitioners who were appointed on the post of Malaria Inspectors in the year 1984 and 1985 can not be treated at par and entitled for the said benefit. 25. Admittedly the respondents-petitioners were appointed in the year 1984 and 1985 on the post of Malaria Inspectors much after the post of Malaria Inspector was brought out of the Multi Purpose Worker Scheme in which both the posts were created for eradication of Malaria in the pay scale of Rs.230-385 and after the revision of pay scale of both the posts w.e.f. 01.07.1979 in two different pay scales of Rs.400-615 and Rs.470-735. The respondents-petitioners appointed in the year 1984-1985, by any stretch of imagination, could not have been said to be included in the seniority list dated 18.04.1978 and therefore, they cannot be held entitled for any benefit given to the employees who were included in the seniority list dated 18.04.1978. It has also not been disputed that the respondents-petitioners have never challenged the terms and conditions of their appointment and revision of pay-scales w.e.f. 01.07.1979. 26. In a similar case, in which the pay scales were revised w.e.f. 01.04.1979, who were allowed the pay scale equivalent to the State Government employees as a personal measure and the persons recruited on or after the said date were given the normal pay scale, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dharam Chand and others Versus Haryana Agricultural University and others, (2004) 9 SCC 74 has held that the question of applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not arise. Relevant paragraph 7 of the judgment reads as under:- "7. In the instant case, the question of applicability of the Doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work does not arise. There is no dispute that the appellants herein, as also those who are appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, perform similar nature of duties and functions. However, in the instant case, the authorities of the University, as noticed hereinbefore, have merely accepted the recommendations of the Anomaly Removal Committee in terms whereof the scales of pay payable to the Clerks, who were appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, was protected. However, in the instant case, the authorities of the University, as noticed hereinbefore, have merely accepted the recommendations of the Anomaly Removal Committee in terms whereof the scales of pay payable to the Clerks, who were appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, was protected. By accepting the said recommendations, the University did not make any discrimination; keeping that in view the fact that those who are appointed prior to 6th June, 1980 form a different class and, thus, they were entitled to different treatment. Insofar as the scale of pay which was in vogue immediately prior to 6th June, 1980 is concerned, the same was given to them merely with a view to protect their pay. Such an order directing protection of scale of pay of employees, which is personal in nature, will not confer any legal right upon the appellants herein to claim the same remuneration in terms of the principles of equal pay for equal work or otherwise. It is now well known that the state is entitled to make a classification provided the same is a reasonable one and based on intelligible differentia. As the employees, who were appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, form a separate and distinct class. Such a classification was permissible, keeping in view the fact that they were in enjoyment of a higher scale of pay. The decision of the respondent- University to revise their scales of pay, in our considered opinion, cannot be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory." 27. The revision of pay scale w.e.f. 01.07.1979 on the post of Malaria Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs.400-615 has never been challenged. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and others versus Savinderjit Kaur, (2004) 4 SCC 58 has held that since the validity of the Notification by means of which the revision of pay scale was made, the judgment passed by the High Court claiming the same pay scale granted to other set of employees was not sustainable. However, since the said pay scale was granted keeping in view the fact that the respondent therein was a handicapped teacher, the Hon'ble Apex Court, refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 28. The writ petitions were allowed by means of order dated 25.04.1989 and clarified vide order dated 15.11.1989/ 13.12.1989. However, since the said pay scale was granted keeping in view the fact that the respondent therein was a handicapped teacher, the Hon'ble Apex Court, refused to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 28. The writ petitions were allowed by means of order dated 25.04.1989 and clarified vide order dated 15.11.1989/ 13.12.1989. The order was complied by means of order dated 14.10.1992 and clarified vide order dated 17.08.1999, which was in respect of the Malaria Inspectors included in the seniority list dated 18.04.1978, who were above the Surveillance Inspectors at Sr.no.800. The respondents-petitioners wake up in the year 2012 after about 20 years of the order dated 14.10.1992 and 13 years of demi-official letter dated 17.08.1999 and approached this Court challenging the said orders without any explanation for the delay and laches, merely making a statement in paragraph 3 that by means of order of this Hon'ble Court the petitioners have been directed to agitate/claim their right of the pay scale equivalent to the Malaria Inspectors, pursuant to the revised pay scales w.e.f. 01.07.1979 without disclosing the order or the case in which the said order was passed. Therefore the writ petition was highly barred by delay and laches without any explanation for the same. It appears that the respondents-petitioners had made a wrong statement that this court has directed to agitate/claim their right of the pay scale because even during the course of arguments the respondents could not disclose any such order. 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Versus Arvind Kumar Srivastava and others, (2015) 1 SCC 347 has summed up the principles in which the parity of judgment passed by the court can be given. The relevant paragraph 22 is reproduced as under:- "22.The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under: 22.1 Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently. 22.2 However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim. 22.3 However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence." 30. Even if it is assumed that the petitioners were members of the U.P. Malaria Nirikshak Sangh as argued by learned counsel for the respondents who had approached this court by means of the writ petitions no. 713 of 1984 and 2139 of 1984, the Nirikshak Sangh had raised the cause of only those Malaria Inspectors who were included in the seniority list dated 18.04.1978 and who were not confirmed despite being senior to the Surveillance Inspectors confirmed in the said seniority list as they were appointed as Surveillance Inspectors but posted as Malaria Inspectors being senior Surveilliance Inspectors, as born out from the judgment and order passed in the said writ petitions. We are of the view that it is always open to the Union to raise the cause of a group of its members who have been discriminated for one or the other reason, but that does not entitle the other members, who are not identically situated, to claim the benefit granted to the said set of members for whom the relief was claimed. Since the respondents-petitioners were not in service on 01.07.1979 and part and parcel of the seniority list dated 18.04.1978, the said benefit could not at all be extended from the said dates, when they were not even born in the cadre. It is settled principle of law that a person is not entitled for any benefit from a date when he was not even born in the cadre. 31. In view of above, we are of the considered opinion that the respondents are not entitled for the pay scale, as granted by the learned writ-court. Therefore the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned judgment and order dated 30.10.2015 passed in Writ Petition Service Single No.3924 of 2012 is hereby set aside. 32. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. 33. No order as to costs.