Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1 (TRI)

State of Tripura v. Sutapa Majumder

2021-01-04

AKIL KURESHI, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2021
JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi, CJ. - These proceedings are interconnected and intertwined. All the Writ Appeals arise out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2016 in W.P. (C) No.144 of 2014 and connected petitions. The central issue decided by the learned Single Judge in favour of the petitioners which has aggrieved the State Government to file these Appeals, pertains to the correct pay scales to be granted to Pharmacists employed in the State service after 04.02.1991. According to the Government, these Pharmacists ought to have been placed in the pay scale of Rs.1300 - 3220/- under Revision of Pay Rules, 1988 ( ROP, 1988', for short) whereas the original petitioners had argued before the learned Single Judge that they ought to have been granted the pay scale of Rs.1450 -3710/-. The writ petitioners of the petitions, which are part of the present group of cases, are also Pharmacists engaged after 04.02.1991. They also claim similar fitment in the pay scale of Rs. 1450 - 3710/- from their initial engagement. 2. This short issue has a long history. We would record the background facts as briefly as possible without omitting any essential element. Such facts are as under: In the State of Tripura prior to 1991, the cadre of Pharmacists was divided on the basis of educational qualifications as Diploma holder Pharmacists and non-Diploma holder Pharmacists. Under ROP, 1982, the scale of pay prescribed for Pharmacists was Rs.560 -1300/- for Diploma holders and Rs.430 - 850/- for non-Diploma holders. ROP, 1988 were promulgated and brought into effect from 01.01.1986 under which initially, it appears erroneously, the Diploma holder Pharmacist's pay scale was fixed at Rs.2000 - 4410/- which was equivalent to the post of Assistant Director of Health Services. Under amendments dated 24.09.1988 and 26.11.1988 this pay scale for Diploma holder Pharmacists was withdrawn and it was replaced by Rs. 1300 - 3220/- which incidentally was also the fitment scale for non-Diploma holder Pharmacists. By an amendment dated 25.04.2009, both these earlier amendments dated 24.09.1988 and 26.11.1988 were repealed with effect from 01.01.1986. Essentially thus, the prescription of pay scale of Rs.1300 - 3220/- for Diploma holder Pharmacists with effect from 01.01.1986, was withdrawn. This amendment, however, did not prescribe a substitute pay scale for the post of Diploma holder Pharmacists. 3. By an amendment dated 25.04.2009, both these earlier amendments dated 24.09.1988 and 26.11.1988 were repealed with effect from 01.01.1986. Essentially thus, the prescription of pay scale of Rs.1300 - 3220/- for Diploma holder Pharmacists with effect from 01.01.1986, was withdrawn. This amendment, however, did not prescribe a substitute pay scale for the post of Diploma holder Pharmacists. 3. This created confusion since there was no clear prescription of revised pay scale for Diploma holder Pharmacists after ROP, 1988 were amended. The petitioners would point out that under ROP, 1988, the scale of pay of Rs.430 - 850/- which was the pre-revised scale assigned to non-Diploma holder Pharmacists was revised to Rs.1300 - 3220/-. Likewise, pre-revised scale of Rs.560 - 1300/- which was the scale of pay of Diploma holder Pharmacists, in general terms was revised to Rs.1450 -3710/-. According to them, therefore, such Diploma holder Pharmacists, who were engaged prior to 04.02.1991, had to be placed in the scale of pay ofRs.1450-3710/-. 4. This cutoff date of 04.02.1991 is significant and around which the sole surviving controversy revolves since the Government of Tripura issued a Notification on 04.02.1991 notifying the Recruitment Rules for the post of Pharmacists under the Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Tripura. Under these Recruitment Rules of 1991, the scale of pay prescribed for the posts in question was Rs.1300 - 3220/-. The Government argues that whatever be the position of Diploma holder Pharmacists engaged before 04.02.1991, those who are engaged after the said date, the pay scale prescribed under the said Recruitment Rules of 1991 must prevail. 5. Previously, some of the Pharmacists had made an attempt at protecting the pay scale of Rs.2000 - 4410/- initially prescribed in the ROP, 1988. However, their challenge failed before the Gauhati High Court. Having failed, one of them had approached the Supreme Court. On 28.03.2011 while allowing withdrawal of the SLP, the employee was allowed to make a representation before the Government which the Supreme Court expected would be decided on its own merits. The representation that the said Pharmacist made was decided by the Government on 31.10.2013. The expectation of the employee to be granted the pay scale of Rs.2000 - 4410/- did not succeed. However, importantly, in this speaking order dated 31.10.2013, the Government agreed to the position that Diploma holder Pharmacists cannot be placed in the lower scale of Rs. The representation that the said Pharmacist made was decided by the Government on 31.10.2013. The expectation of the employee to be granted the pay scale of Rs.2000 - 4410/- did not succeed. However, importantly, in this speaking order dated 31.10.2013, the Government agreed to the position that Diploma holder Pharmacists cannot be placed in the lower scale of Rs. 1300 - 3220/- with the introduction of ROP, 1988 because this scale was prescribed for non-Diploma holder Pharmacists. The relevant portion of this order reads as under: "NOW, THEREFORE, the entire matter has been re-examined taking all aspects into account. The non-diploma Pharmacist (re-designated from formerly" Compounder/Clerk-cum-Compounder' in receipt of pre-revised pay scale of Rs.430 -850/-) was provided the revised pay scale of Rs.1300 - 3220/-under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The Pharmacists (with Diploma in Pharmacy) in receipt of the time pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560 - 1300/- appointed prior to 01-01-1986 were placed in the Pharmacist Gr.II with revised pay scale of Rs.1450 - 3710/-under the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988. The revised pay scale of Rs.1300 - 3220/- was provided to the Pharmacist Gr-III as initial appointment, under Hospital & Miscellaneous Services of the Health and Family Welfare Department w.e.f. 01-01-1986 under the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 read with its Tenth Amendment to TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 issued vide Notification No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88 dated 25-04-2009. As per principle of 'scale to scale revision of pay' as adopted by the State Government for revision of pay of the employees, the revised pay scale of Rs.1450 - 3710/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 is the one, which corresponds to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560 - 1300/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1982. Therefore, the claim of the Petitioner for the revised pay scale of Rs.2000 - 4410/- as erroneously shown in the TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 in Sl. No.13 at Page-71 of the same rules is very much higher compared to revised pay scale corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560 - 1300/-. Accordingly, considering the representation made by Shri Monoranjan Naha both in person and writing on their merit, the claim of the Petitioner cannot be agreed to. No.13 at Page-71 of the same rules is very much higher compared to revised pay scale corresponding to pre-revised pay scale of Rs.560 - 1300/-. Accordingly, considering the representation made by Shri Monoranjan Naha both in person and writing on their merit, the claim of the Petitioner cannot be agreed to. However, as the pay scale of Rs.1300 - 3220/- meant for Pharmacist (with Diploma in Pharmacy) under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1988 had been revised to Rs.4200 - 8650/- under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, which had been revised subsequently to PB-2 (Rs.5310 - 24,000/-) + GP-Rs.2400/-under TSCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2009 effective from 01-01-2006, the Pharmacists (with Diploma in Pharmacy) deserve separate pay scale than existing pay scale/structure allowed to them in view of their higher qualification compared to the non-diploma Pharmacists." 6. Even after this conscious concession on part of the Government, the glorious uncertainties of the administrative mechanism continued. In some cases, the Diploma holder Pharmacists were granted fitment in the pay scale of Rs.1450 - 3710/- prior to passing of the speaking order dated 31.10.2013. In some other cases, it was done after the said order whereas large number of Diploma holder Pharmacists were not granted this benefit at all. Even then and surprisingly even after passing the speaking order dated 31.10.2013, the Government sought to withdraw the benefit of pay fixation in the scale of Rs.1450 - 3710/- for Diploma holder Pharmacists without distinction on the fact whether he or she was engaged prior to 04.02.1991 or thereafter. These aggrieved Pharmacists, therefore, approached the High Court. It appears that before the learned Single Judge, the sole question was whether those Diploma holder Pharmacists, who were engaged after 04.02.1991, were entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1300 -3220/- as canvassed by the Government or of Rs. 1450 - 3710/- as argued by the petitioners. With respect to those Diploma holder Pharmacists, who were engaged prior to 04.02.1991, the Government did not seriously contend that they should also be placed in the lower scale of pay of Rs. 1300-3220/-. 7. The learned Judge traced the entire history of the cadre and noticed that historically there was always a difference in scale of pay of Diploma holder and non-Diploma holder Pharmacists. 1300-3220/-. 7. The learned Judge traced the entire history of the cadre and noticed that historically there was always a difference in scale of pay of Diploma holder and non-Diploma holder Pharmacists. If the Diploma holder Pharmacists were to be granted the scale of pay of Rs.1300 - 3220/-, which was granted to non-Diploma holders, this distinction would be obliterated. It was also noticed that the scale of pay of Rs.560 - 1300/-, which was the pay scale of Diploma holder Pharmacists before ROP, 1988, under ROP, 1988 was revised to Rs.1450 - 3710/-. Therefore, to place the Diploma holder Pharmacists in the pay scale of Rs.1300 - 3220/- under ROP, 1988 would amount to their down gradation. 8. On the basis of such conclusions, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in case of those Pharmacists, who were appointed after 04.02.1991, the correct scale of pay would be Rs.1450 - 3710/-. However, noticing that the petitioners had approached the High Court after long delay, the directions for payment of arrears was restricted to 3 years prior to the date of filing of the petitions. Incidentally, the attempt made on part of some of the Pharmacists to re-agitate the question of restoration of the pay scale of Rs.2000 - 4410/- was repelled. Relevant portion of the judgment of the learned Single Judge reads as under: "[29] On scrutiny of the records and having due regard to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court should on due consideration make the initial observations which are as under: (i) This Court cannot examine the validity of the corrigendum whereby the scale of pay of 2000- 4410/- had been withdrawn inasmuch as that aspect has been considered by the judgment and order dated 23.09.2010 in W.A.No.26of2010. (ii) The observation made in the memorandum dated 04.01.2010 under No.F.2(2-17)-MS/ESTTII/09 has been clarified by the Finance Department by the notification under No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)-88 dated 25.04.2009 that the Pharmacist having Diploma in Pharmacy who were recruited prior to publication of TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 and in receipt of pre-revised pay scale of 560-1300/- under ROP (RP) Rules, 1982 were eligible to get pay scale of 1450-3710/- as per TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 [revised to 5000-10300/- under TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1999]. But after publication of TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 the entry level pay scale of Pharmacists was prescribed at 1300-3220/-[revised to 4200- 8650/- under TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1999]. So, providing the scale of pay of ' 1300-3220/- to those Pharmacists with Diploma in Pharmacy who were recruited after publication of TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 has been held to be justified. Further, it has been clarified that the Pharmacists recruited prior to publication of TSCS (ROP) Rules, 1988 were provided with the pay scale of 1450- 3710-/- and they should be treated as if they had consumed the CAS-1 at that stage. It exemplifies that the pay scale which the Pharmacists were enjoying even prior to 01.01.1986 has been downgraded retrospectively, in a veiled manner. The said clarification clearly shows further that even the Pharmacists who were appointed prior to introduction of the ROP Rules, 1988 were also provided the revised pay scale of ' 1300-3220/- whereas from their pre-revised scale of 560-1300/- the pay scale was revised to ' 1450-3710/-, meaning that virtually their pre-revised pay scale was downgraded to 430-850/- which is equivalent to the pay scale of the Pharmacist [Non-Diploma] Grade-III of the Hospital Services in terms of the ROP Rules, 1982. Is it not a clear breach of Article 14? It is. Unequals have been treated equally. [30] Therefore, in the premises as noted above, the questions those falls for consideration of this Court are (a) whether by means of revision the pay scale can be downgraded on taking away the right that was vested by the ROP Rules, 1982 and (b) whether non-consideration of the expert committees' recommendation to give the Pharmacist the pay scale of 1450- 3710/- in the ROP Rules, 1988 is the continuation of the arbitrary action or non-consideration of the relevant factors, despite the order dated 31.10.2013 is giving rise to the legal action involving the jurisdiction of the court for mandating the respondents to allow the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] the pay scale of ' 1450-3710/- in terms of the ROP Rules, 1988 by way of severance? [31] This Court is of the view that when by the order/notification dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2014, it has been clearly admitted by the Government that the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] deserves separate pay scale then the existing pay scale/structure allowed to them in view of their higher qualification compared to the non-Diploma Pharmacist. Even the Anomaly Committee and 4th Tripura Pay Commission had clearly recommended, in view of the higher qualification, to make parity with the posts requiring diploma after passing the H.S. (+2 stage) examination in order to provide the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] the scale ofpay of 1450-3710/- with the next scale of pay of 1700-3980/-. Moreover, the Pharmacist [Non-Diploma] by operation of the ROP Rules, 1982 were enjoying the pre-revised pay scale of 430-850/-and that pay scale has been revised to ' 1300-3220/-. Therefore, the Pharmacist [Non-Diploma] may not have any grievance or prejudice if the recommendation is implemented and they have not expressed such grievance anywhere, at least such grievance is not borne in the records. But making the pay scale of the Pharmacist [with Diploma in Pharmacy] equal to the pay scale of the Pharmacist [non-Diploma] in view of the reasons given by the Pay Anomaly Committee and 4th Pay Commission as reproduced in the Paragraph-8 above that the post requiring diploma after H.S. (+2 stage) examination shall be given the pay scale of 1450-3710/- has been belatedly accepted by the State by the order/notification dated 31.10.2013, Annexure-P/11 to the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 144 of 2014. Despite such clear acceptance, the State has not arbitrarily implemented the said recommendation. Such non-implementation is opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.." "[33] So far the prayer in respect of recovery is concerned, in view of the said direction the said relief has become infructuous. In other words, no recovery shall be made from the petitioners where they are under order for recovery in terms of the impugned notifications. Such non-implementation is opposed to Article 14 of the Constitution of India.." "[33] So far the prayer in respect of recovery is concerned, in view of the said direction the said relief has become infructuous. In other words, no recovery shall be made from the petitioners where they are under order for recovery in terms of the impugned notifications. [34] It is further declared that since the petitioners have approached this court belatedly even though they may embark on the cause to approach this court in view of the order/notification dated 31.10.2013, their pay shall be fixed notionally w.e.f. 01.01.1986 or from their date of appointment in the scale of pay of 1450-3710/-(pre-revised) and in the corresponding revised pay scales to a date, 3(three) years prior to the date of filing of the writ petitions and the actual pecuniary benefits shall be released from those dates as given hereinunder to the petitioners. The relevant date to be considered for counting actual financial/pecuniary benefits No. of the writ petitions for purpose of posting such date for releasing the actual financial/pecuniary benefits of the writ petitioners 02.04.2011 The writ petitioners of W.P.(C)No.144of2014 11.11.2011 The writ petitioners of W.P.(C)No.452of2014 26.02.2012 The writ petitioners of W.P.(C)No.74of2015 [35] The respondents shall release the benefits to the petitioners within a period of 3 (three) months from the day when the petitioners shall furnish a copy of this order." 9. The Government had challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge earlier by filing W.A. No.44 of 2017 and connected Appeals, which were disposed of by the Division Bench on 05.03.2019 asking the State Government to revisit its decision and take a fresh decision in light of the observations made in the judgment, making it clear that the Court had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and particularly, with respect to the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.12.2016. 10. Pursuant to the said directions, the Government passed a fresh speaking order dated 23.09.2019 in which the following decision was taken: "NOW, THEREFORE, keeping in view of the above and in compliance of the order of Hon'ble High Court of Tripura, it is informed that (i) the Pharmacists (with diploma) who were appointed prior to 04-02-1991 in the pre-existing pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- under ROP 1982 shall be entitled to the fixation of pay in the revised pay scale of Rs. 560-1300/- under ROP 1982 shall be entitled to the fixation of pay in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1450-3710/- after the implementation of ROP Rules, 1988 from 01-01-1986 or the date of their individual engagement prior to 04-02-1991, whichever is later on the basis of strength of Finance Department's Memorandum No.F.4(6)-FIN(PC)/88(L) dated 28-04-1990, (ii) those Pharmacists (with diploma) who were appointed after implementation of ROP 1988 and/or on or after 04-02-1991 as per new recruitment rule issued vide Notification dated 04-02-1991 as per new recruitment rule issued vide Notification dated 04-02-1991 shall be guided by the pay scale of Rs. 1300-3220/- as mentioned in the Recruitment Rules as well as ROP Rules. Their claim for higher pay scale as compared to Pharmacist (non-diploma) may not be agreeable because as per administrative department records the engagement of persons to the post of Pharmacists (non-diploma) was stopped long before 04-02-1991 and no engagement of to that post has been held since 04-02-1991 and (iii) Similarly Pharmacist (with diploma) who have been appointed after 01-01-1996 are entitled to revised pay as per ROP 1999. Subsequent appointment shall be entitled to pay scales as per respective period of ROP Rules. " 11. Thereupon some of the Pharmacists approached the High Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 1170 of 2019 and connected petitions. In such petitions, an order was passed by the Single Judge on 06.12.2019 in which it was observed that after the Division Bench had disposed of the Government's Writ Appeals and upon reconsideration by the Government, the Government was still not agreeable with the view point expressed by the learned Single Judge. It was for the Government to file fresh Writ Appeals to challenge the same and the litigants would not be expected to file fresh proceedings for ventilating the grievances. Thereupon the present Writ Appeals came to be filed. The Writ Appeals and independent Writ Petitions have been thus clubbed together. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. For the reasons to follow in our opinion the learned Single Judge has committed no error in granting the reliefs in favour of the original petitioners. From the outset, it was clear that at all stages till 04.02.1991,there was a clear distinction and demarcation between Diploma holders and non-Diploma holders Pharmacists in terms of scale of pay attached to the posts. From the outset, it was clear that at all stages till 04.02.1991,there was a clear distinction and demarcation between Diploma holders and non-Diploma holders Pharmacists in terms of scale of pay attached to the posts. Historically this distinction was maintained and clearly manifested in successive Pay Revision Rules. The issue became somewhat unclear under ROP, 1988 when non-Diploma holder Pharmacists were placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 1300 - 3220/- corresponding to their pre-revised scale of Rs.430 - 850/- and the Diploma holder Pharmacists were awarded the scale of pay of Rs.2000 - 4410/-. This was clearly an error since the scale of pay of Rs.2000 - 4410/- was assigned to a much higher post of Assistant Director of Health Services and in any case, the pre-revised scale of Rs.560 - 1300/- which was attached to the post of Diploma holders was; for other cadres, revised to Rs.1450 - 3710/-. In the process of correcting this error, confusion was further compounded when, as noticed earlier, first the correction amendments were introduced in the ROP and thereafter, such correction amendments were withdrawn from the beginning of the implementation of the Rules but without providing for any specific substitute pay scale. 13. Any reasonable approach on part of the Court, therefore, would be to interpret the situation in such a manner that no apparent conflict arises. The most logical view point therefore would be that the Diploma holder Pharmacists should be assigned the scale of pay of Rs.1450 - 3710/- from01.01.1986 with introduction of ROP, 1988. This was also the view expressed by the Government while disposing of the representation made by a Pharmacist after the Supreme Court dispose of the SLP under order dated 28.03.2011. While responding to the request for restoration of the previous scale of Rs.2000 - 4410/-, the Government had observed that the revised scale of Rs. 1450 - 3710/- under ROP, 1988 correspondents to the pre-revised scale of Rs.560 - 1300/-. Further, it was observed that pay scale of Rs.1300 - 3220/- effective from 01.01.2006 for Pharmacists with Diploma deserved separate pay scale than the existing scale in view of their higher educational qualification. 14. 1450 - 3710/- under ROP, 1988 correspondents to the pre-revised scale of Rs.560 - 1300/-. Further, it was observed that pay scale of Rs.1300 - 3220/- effective from 01.01.2006 for Pharmacists with Diploma deserved separate pay scale than the existing scale in view of their higher educational qualification. 14. Mercifully, this position became clearer on part of the Government when pursuant to the recommendation made by the Division Bench, the Government examined the entire issue afresh and as noted, passed the speaking order dated 23.09.2019, relevant portion of which we have already reproduced. As per this decision, the Government agreed that the Diploma holder Pharmacists, who were engaged prior to 04.02.1991 the correct scale of pay to be allowed on 01.01.1986 under ROP, 1988 would be Rs.1450 - 3710/-. If this be the position even according to the Government, the immediate question would arise; can the Government thereafter discriminate against Diploma holder Pharmacists by prescribing fresh set of Recruitment Rules and placing new recruits under a lower scale which is otherwise prescribed for non-Diploma holder Pharmacists? 15. Under the said Recruitment Rules of 04.02.1991, the distinction between Diploma holder and non-Diploma holder Pharmacists has been removed. Henceforth a Pharmacist to be engaged by the Government must possess a minimum qualification of Diploma. With this change, the Court can have no objection whatsoever. However, by this change, Government could never have implemented the scale of pay which is assigned to the Pharmacists holding lower qualifications. Insofar as Diploma holder Pharmacists are concerned, they would form a uniform class. They thereafter, cannot be bifurcated on the basis of the time when they were recruited. Prescribing lower pay scale for Diploma holder Pharmacists who were engaged after 04.02.1991 would have twin legal difficulties. Firstly, it would amount to drawing an artificial cutoff date for differential treatment between persons forming the same homogeneous class. Secondly, this would also breach the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Diploma holder Pharmacists appointed whether before or after 04.02.1991 occupy the posts carrying same nomenclature, educational qualifications and duties and responsibilities. 16. Somewhere along the line, the Government had argued that grant of pay scale of Rs. 1450 - 3710/- to Diploma holder Pharmacists engaged prior to 04.02.1991 was by way of Career Advancement. This is not borne out from the record at all. 16. Somewhere along the line, the Government had argued that grant of pay scale of Rs. 1450 - 3710/- to Diploma holder Pharmacists engaged prior to 04.02.1991 was by way of Career Advancement. This is not borne out from the record at all. Firstly, as noted earlier, by the order dated 23.09.2019 while reconsidering the entire issue and agreeing that the Diploma holder Pharmacists would be entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 1450 - 3710/-, the same has not been acknowledged by way of a Career Advancement. In clear terms, it is treated as entry level pay scale. In the said order, it is clearly stated that the Diploma holder Pharmacists enjoying the pre-existing scale of Rs.5600 - 1300/- under ROP, 1982 will be entitled to fixation in the revised scale of Rs.1450 - 3710/- after implementation of ROP, 1988 with effect from 01.01.1986 or "the date of their individual engagement prior to 04.02.1991". Thus, all Diploma holder Pharmacists engaged prior to 04.02.1991 would be placed in the scale of pay of Rs.1450 - 3710/- by way of entry level pay fixation. Even otherwise, as correctly observed by the learned Single Judge making the scale of pay of Rs.1450 - 3710/- for Diploma holder Pharmacists as a Career Advancement fitment would amount to downgrading the pay scale with effect from 01.01.1986 upon introduction of ROP, 1988 since they would be placed in the same pool as non-Diploma holder Pharmacists and fitted against the revised scale which corresponded to the lower pre-revised scale of Rs.430 - 850/-. 17. Learned Government Advocate also argued that the Recruitment Rules of 1991 were not challenged, nor set aside. The Pharmacists engaged after 04.02.1991 under the said Recruitment Rules, could not have been granted the higher pay scale. As noted earlier, the rigid interpretation adopted by the Government would leave the Recruitment Rules in question vulnerable to the vice of unconstitutionality being discriminatory and in clear breach of the principle of equal pay for equal work. What the learned Single Judge had achieved by issuing appropriate directions was to read down the Rules and save them from the vice of unconstitutionality. What the learned Single Judge had achieved by issuing appropriate directions was to read down the Rules and save them from the vice of unconstitutionality. Strangely and unfortunately, this anomaly which crept in under Recruitment Rules of 1991 was not corrected by the Government despite recommendation from the High Court in the judgment dated 05.03.2019 in the Writ Appeals and despite its own Anomaly Committees suggesting that the anomaly may be removed. Rather straightly the Government in the speaking order dated 23.09.2019 observed that such recommendations of the Anomaly Committee were not accepted and unless accepted such anomaly would not stand removed. To the suggestion that recommendation of the Anomaly Committee must be first accepted by the Government before it sees the light of the day, there can be no quarrel. However, when the anomaly was so apparent and the resultant dichotomy so obvious, we wonder whether the Government should have stood its ground and asserted its authority to reject such recommendations of the Anomaly Committee which were eminently sound and reasonable. 18. Coming to the individual Writ Petitions, so far as the central legal issues are concerned, they stand on the same footing. These are all the Pharmacists who have been engaged after 04.02.1991. They possess the qualification of Diploma in the relevant field but they are granted the scale of pay of Rs. 1300 - 3220/-. They also clamor for pay fixation in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 1450 - 3710/- under ROP, 1988 with consequential effect in successive Pay Revision Rules. They must get the same relief. However, the question of delay in their cases is even more glaring. They have been engaged not years but decades back. Unlike in case of the writ petitioners of the Writ Appeals, the issues were not unclear. The learned Single Judge gave a clear declaration of the rights of the Pharmacists engaged even after 04.02.1991 in the judgment which was delivered in the year 2016. Even this judgment did not prompt the petitioners into any action. They filed the Writ Petitions rather belated in the year 2019 or thereabouts. The principal that pay fixation is a recurring cause and therefore, Writ Petitions should not be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches may save them from total dismissal of their prayers. Even this judgment did not prompt the petitioners into any action. They filed the Writ Petitions rather belated in the year 2019 or thereabouts. The principal that pay fixation is a recurring cause and therefore, Writ Petitions should not be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches may save them from total dismissal of their prayers. Nevertheless, they cannot hope to get any benefit prior to the date of filingof their respective petitions. Under the circumstances, these proceedings are disposed of with following directions: (i) W.A. Nos.232 of 2019, 02 of 2020, 03 of 2020, 06 of 2020, 04 of 2021, 05 of 2021, 06 of 2021, 07 of 2021 and 08 of 2021 filed by the Government are dismissed. (ii) W.P. (C) Nos.1170 of 2019, 1171 of 2019, 1426 of 2019, 1427 of 2019, 1441 of 2019 and 1442 of 2019 are allowed in following terms: (a) The petitioners would be entitled to fixation of their pay in the scale of Rs. 1450 - 3710/- under ROP, 1988 from the date of their initial engagement with consequential Revision in Pay scales pursuant to subsequent Pay Rules. (b) In the interregnum, if they have received any benefit of Career Progression or Career Advancement, as the case may be, the same shall also be worked out on the basis of this correct pay fixation. (c) This exercise would have notional effect in their cases till the date of filing of the respective petitions after which date they will be entitled to arrears of salary. (d) The entire exercise in case of petitioners whose Writ Petitions are before us shall be completed within 6 (six) months from today. In case of the petitioners against whom the Government has filed Writ Appeals, the exercise as per the decision of the learned Single Judge shall be completed within 4(four) months from today. 19. It is further provided that this declaration is in ram and it is expected that the Government shall carry out the correction in pay fixation of Pharmacists similarly situated as these petitioners. If they have not approached the Court not so far and the Government will not drive the left out Pharmacists into filing further proceedings before the High Court. In their cases pay fixations will be notional till the date of this judgment, actual salary difference will be payable for the period thereafter. 20. If they have not approached the Court not so far and the Government will not drive the left out Pharmacists into filing further proceedings before the High Court. In their cases pay fixations will be notional till the date of this judgment, actual salary difference will be payable for the period thereafter. 20. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.