ORDER : Satyen Vaidya, J. By way of instant petition, following substantive reliefs have been prayed: (i) That the impugned Annexure A-14, dated 3.7.2001 may be quashed and set-aside. (ii) That the respondent Board may be directed to grant the members of the applicant Association the Time Bound Promotional Scales on completion of 9/16 years of service from the date of their joining the induction post of SAS Superintendents (NG) with all consequential benefits and to pay arrears along with interest @ 18% per annum. 2. Petitioner No.1 is an Association (for short, “Association”) of Supervisory Accounts Services officers working with H.P. State Electricity Board Ltd. (for short ‘Board’). 3. On 14.11.1990, the Board vide office order No.80, revised the scales of pay to certain categories of its employees w.e.f. 01.01.1986. SAS Superintendents (NG) were placed in the pay scale of Rs.2000 – 3500 with initial start of Rs.2100/-. 4. On 31.01.1991, the Board introduced a Scheme providing for the benefit of Time Bound Promotional Scales (for short, ‘TBPS’) to its employees after completion of 9/16 years of regular service in the Board having a maximum scale upto Rs.3500/-. On 20.5.1992, the SAS Superintendents (NG) were also declared eligible for the benefit of TBPS. Accordingly, the SAS Superintendents (NG) became entitled for pay scale of Rs.2400-4250 after 9 years and Rs.3000-4500 after 16 years. Needless to say, that the benefit of TBPS was to be made available only when the employee did not get promoted to the next higher post before the requisite period of 9 or 16 years as the case may be. 5. The Board, vide office order No.1 dated 05.01.1995 revised the pay scale of SAS Superintendents (NG) to Rs.2100-3700 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. On 12.5.1995 the benefit of TBPS granted to SAS Superintendents (NG) was ordered to be withdrawn by the Board with immediate effect. 6. The posts of SAS Superintendents (NG) in the Board were re-designated as Assistant Accounts Officers in the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 plus Rs.200/- as special pay, vide office order dated 6.6.1996. 7. On 04.12.1996, the Board sought options from SAS Superintendents (NG) to the effect that those who wanted to opt for the initial scale of Rs.2000-3500 with a start of Rs.2100/- would be entitled for the benefits of TBPS and those who opted for improved pay scale of Rs.2100-3700 would not be so entitled. 7. On 04.12.1996, the Board sought options from SAS Superintendents (NG) to the effect that those who wanted to opt for the initial scale of Rs.2000-3500 with a start of Rs.2100/- would be entitled for the benefits of TBPS and those who opted for improved pay scale of Rs.2100-3700 would not be so entitled. In pursuance to office order dated 4.12.1996, two different classes of SAS Superintendents (NG) were formed, one which opted for the initial scale of Rs.2000-3500 with a start of Rs.2100/- and those who opted for the improved pay scale of Rs.2100-3700/-. 8. On 03.07.2001, a communication was made by the Secretary of the Board to its Chief Accounts Officer in the following terms : “It is clarified that only those SAS Supdt. (NG), who have completed 9/16 years service on induction post of SAS Supdt. (NG) prior to their re-designation as Assistant Accounts Officer i.e. 6.6.1996 is entitled for the benefit of time bound promotional scale on Punjab State Electricity Board pattern as the post of Assistant Accounts Officer does not exist in P.S.E.B.” 9. As a necessary consequence of above noted communication dated 3.7.2001, a further classification was drawn by the Board between the SAS Superintendents (NG) having opted for the scale of Rs.2000-3500. First, who had become eligible for TBPS before re-designation of the post as Assistant Accounts Officer and second, those who became eligible for TBPS after the re-designation of the post. 10. The Association made a detailed representation to the Member (Finance and Accounts) of the Board on 4.3.2002 and the matter relating to above noted discrimination was taken up with the Board. A meeting, between the Board and the representatives of Association was held on 26.7.2002 in which one of the agenda item was as under: “3. Delay in sanction of time bound promotional scale to SAS appointee and subsequently re-designated as A.A.O. which have become due w.e.f. 1998 onwards.” 11. The decision of such agenda item was as under: “It was decided to examine this demand afresh and thereafter to submit the case in detail to the Whole Time Members of the Board for their consideration and decision after obtaining views of Member (F&A).” 12. When no action was taken by the Board on the representation of the Association, the present petition came to be filed. 13. When no action was taken by the Board on the representation of the Association, the present petition came to be filed. 13. The Association, by way of instant petition, has espoused the cause of those SAS Superintendents (NG), who in sequel to communication dated 3.7.2001 became eligible for TBPS. The communication dated 3.7.2001 has been assailed primarily on the ground that the classification drawn thereby is not reasonable and has no rationale or legal basis. Rather, such classification treats equals as unequal. There is no nexus of such classification with the object sought to be achieved. Thus, the said classification has been alleged to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. The Board has contested the claim of the Association on the ground that the Board in principle follows the Punjab State Electricity Board pattern in the matter of pay scales and other Career Progression Schemes like TBPS etc. to its employees. However, the Board has stated that it had deviated from the pattern adopted by the Punjab State Electricity Board while granting improved pay scale of Rs.2100-3700 to SAS Superintendents (NG) and also while re-designating them as Assistant Accounts Officers. As per the Board, the Punjab State Electricity Board did not maintain the category of Assistant Accounts Officers, hence the employees with such designation in the Board could not be granted the benefit of TBPS. 15. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 16. The posts of SAS Superintendents (NG) were re-designated as Assistant Accounts Officers on 6.6.1996 by a decision of the Board. Subsequently, the Board on 4.12.1996 came up with a decision, again of its own, to allow opportunity of option to the incumbents of category of SAS Superintendents (NG). Once the options were invited by the Board after redesignation of the post, it did not lie in the mouth of the Board to subsequently turn around and say that the benefits of TBPS would be restricted to a specific class of SAS Superintendents (NG) and would be denied to the others similarly situated persons only on the ground that the Punjab State Electricity Board did not have the category of Assistant Accounts Officers. 17. 17. If the defence raised by the Board regarding the alleged parity with the Punjab State Electricity Board pattern is tested in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the plea of the Board appears to be fallacious. It is the stand of the Board itself that it had deviated from the Punjab State Electricity Board pattern while granting improved pay scale of Rs.2100-3700 to SAS Superintendents (NG) and also while re-designating their posts as Assistant Accounts Officers. Keeping this in view, it cannot be said that the Board peremptorily and without any exception follows the pattern of the Punjab State Electricity Board. The conduct of the Board is evident of the fact that it deviates from the pattern of the Punjab State Electricity Board at its Will. This being so, the Board cannot be allowed to deny the benefit of TBPS to those re-designated Assistant Accounts Officers, who became eligible for the benefit of TBPS after redesignation of the post only on the ground that the Punjab State Electricity Board pattern does not allow such benefit. 18. Even the contention of the Board, that posts of Assistant Accounts Officers are not available in the Punjab State Electricity Board, does not appear to be correct. The Association has specifically contended in its pleadings and prior to that in its representation made to the Member (F&A) of the Board that the Punjab State Electricity Board had the posts of Assistant Accounts Officer since 1997 as per PSEB order No.8025 dated 24.4.1997. There is no specific rebuttal to this effect by the Board. In such circumstances also, the defence of the Board cannot sustain. 19. The denial of the benefit of TBPS to SAS Superintendents (NG) on the ground that after re-designation as Assistant Accounts Officers, they were not entitled for the benefit, is clearly prejudicial to the rights of such class of employees. They definitely have been put to financial loss. It is evident from the record that the SAS Superintendents (NG), having pre-revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 were given pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 with Rs.200/- as special pay on re-designation, the equivalent of which on revision of pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.1996 was Rs.7750-13300. On getting the benefit of TBPS, this category would be placed in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.2400-4250 after 9 years, the equivalent of which in revised pay scale after 1.1.1996 was Rs.8275-13700. 20. On getting the benefit of TBPS, this category would be placed in pre-revised pay scale of Rs.2400-4250 after 9 years, the equivalent of which in revised pay scale after 1.1.1996 was Rs.8275-13700. 20. In the light of discussion held above, the classification made by the Board cannot be held to ne reasonable. Merely because re-designation of the post was done on 6.6.1996, the right otherwise available to the persons under TBPS Scheme could not be defeated. Re-designation of the post in this case definitely was not the promotion. 21. Equality is the hallmark of every public employment. In State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. Triloki Nath Khosa, 1974 (1) SCC 19 , the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “29. His argument, as presented, is attractive but it assumes in the court a right of scrutiny somewhat wider than is generally recognized. Article 16 of the Constitution which ensures to all citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment is but an instance or incident of the guarantee of equality contained in Article 14. The concept of equal opportunity undoubtedly permeates the whole spectrum of an individual's employment from appointment through promotion and termination to the payment of gratuity and pension. But the concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Equality is for equals. That is to say that those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. 31. Classification, however, is fraught with the danger that it may produce artificial inequalities and therefore, the right to classify is hedged in with salient restraints; or else, the guarantee of equality will be submerged in class legislation masquerading as laws meant to govern well-marked classes characterized by different and distinct attainments. Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.” 22. Testing the facts of the case at the touch-stone of the above noted exposition of law, I have no hesitation to hold that the denial of the benefits of TBPS Scheme to SAS Superintendents (NG) on attaining eligibility after re-designation of the post is wrong, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Testing the facts of the case at the touch-stone of the above noted exposition of law, I have no hesitation to hold that the denial of the benefits of TBPS Scheme to SAS Superintendents (NG) on attaining eligibility after re-designation of the post is wrong, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Order dated 3.7.2001 issued by the Board in this behalf is, therefore, held to be arbitrary and cannot be sustained. The respondent has not been able to show as to what object was sought to be achieved by the impugned classification and what was the nexus between the classifications so made with the object, if any, sought to be achieved. The classification made by the Board vide order dated 3.7.2001 is clearly unreasonable. 23. During the pendency of this petition, an affidavit dated 15.3.2011 was filed on behalf of the Board in compliance to order dated 21.02.2011 passed by this Court. One of the facts disclosed by way of said affidavit was that the representation dated 4.3.2002 of the petitioner stood rejected after consideration. The said consideration order, however, did not see the light of the day and was never produced on record by the Board during the entire pendency of the petition. In any case, the order rejecting the representation dated 4.3.2002 of petitioner having been passed during the pendency of the petition has to abide by the final outcome of the petition. 24. The petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned Annexure A-14 i.e. communication dated 3.7.2001 issued by the Secretary Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board to its Chief Accounts Officer is quashed and set-aside. The respondent is directed to grant to all those members of the petitioner Association, the benefit of time bound promotional scale on completion of 9/16 years of service, who were eligible and left out as a consequence of communication Annexure A-14 dated 3.7.2001, from the date of their eligibility and to pay them the arrears along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum. 25. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.