ORDER : 1. This petition was initially filed as an original application before erstwhile learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and after the abolition of the learned Tribunal, the same has been transferred to this Court. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are as under:- The case of the petitioners is that respondent-State vide recruitment notice dated 22.06.2012, invited applications from eligible desirous candidates for recruitment against the posts of constables (800 males) in the Himachal Pradesh Police Department in the pay scales of Rs. 5910-20200+Grade Pay Rs. 1900. A copy of the recruitment notice is appended with the petition as Annexure A-1. The pay structure of the constables sought to be so appointed was to be governed by Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (category/Post wise Revised pay) Rules, 2012 ( hereinafter to be referred as the ‘2012 Rules’ for short), copy of which is appended with the petition as Annexure A-2. Finance Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 28.09.2012 added certain provisions in the Schedule governing the pay structure of the employees of the Home Department in terms of Rule 9 of the 2012 Rules. The addition in the Schedule made with respect to the Constables in the Police Department was that revised pay structure of Rs.10300-34800+Rs.3200 Grade Pay was introduced post completion of two years of regular service w.e.f. 01.10.2012. A copy of said notification is appended with the petition as Annexure P-3. 3. It is further the case of the petitioners that in the year 2014, the Finance (Pay Revision) Department submitted a draft Cabinet Memorandum for approval before the Council of Ministers regarding grant of revised pay structure on completion of eight years to the new 800 constables, which were yet to be advertised. This was sought to be done by amending the 2012 Rules. The intent behind the said proposal was to prospectively lessen the so called recurring financial burden upon the State Government. 4. In the year 2015, the Finance (Pay Revision) Department issued impugned notification dated 14.01.2015, vide which, 2012 Rules were amended contrary to the opinion of the Home Department and the revised pay structure of Rs.10300- 34800+Rs.3200 Grade Pay was now made available to Constables after completion of eight years of regular service. The amendment was made applicable w.e.f. 01.10.2013. 5. In the year 2015, the Finance (Pay Revision) Department issued impugned notification dated 14.01.2015, vide which, 2012 Rules were amended contrary to the opinion of the Home Department and the revised pay structure of Rs.10300- 34800+Rs.3200 Grade Pay was now made available to Constables after completion of eight years of regular service. The amendment was made applicable w.e.f. 01.10.2013. 5. Thereafter, a fresh recruitment notice dated 15.03.2015 was issued for recruitment of 776 posts of Constables in the police department in the pay scale of Rs. 5910-20200+Rs.1900 (Grade Pay). It was mentioned in this recruitment notice (Annexure P-7) that said pay scales would be drawn by the future recruits after completion of eight years regular service from the date of initial appointment in terms of notification dated 14.01.2015. 6. The petitioners being eligible participated in the selection process so undertaken by the Department pursuant to notice dated 15.03.2015 and they were offered appointment to the said post in the month of September, 2015 as such. The petitioners were offered the job on an initial pay scale of Rs.7810, which was to be revised to Rs.10300-34800+3200 (Grade Pay) after completion of long span of eight years as Constables. 7. According to the petitioners, they had no alternative but to accept such offer from the department. They joined as such under the 2nd India Reserve Battalion, Sakoh, District Kangra, H.P. and 3rd India Reserve Battalion Pandoh, District Mandi, H.P. 8. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Constables, who were appointed before 01.01.2015 in terms of earlier advertisement, filed an Original Application No. 2076 of 2016, titled as Ct. Prashant Kumar and Others vs. State of H.P. in May, 2016, assailing the date of applicability of impugned notification dated 14.01.2015. Certain departmental correspondence was also assailed before the Tribunal and prayer was made for grant of revised pay structure upon completion of two years of regular service instead of eight years. 9. During the pendency of this original application, the Finance Department issued another notification dated 17.06.2016 (Annexure A-9), vide which, previous notification dated 14.01.2015, stood partially modified and the benefit of revised pay band and grade pay post completion of eight years of regular service was made applicable to the constables appointed on or after 01.01.2015. 10. 9. During the pendency of this original application, the Finance Department issued another notification dated 17.06.2016 (Annexure A-9), vide which, previous notification dated 14.01.2015, stood partially modified and the benefit of revised pay band and grade pay post completion of eight years of regular service was made applicable to the constables appointed on or after 01.01.2015. 10. As per the petitioners, despite their discharing same and similar duties, as were being discharged by Constables appointed before 01.01.2015, they have been deprived benefit of superior pay scale and grade pay on completion of two years of regular service, and thus, they are being treated unequally and are being discriminated against by the respondent-State, without any lawful authority which is contrary to the principles of equal pay for equal work. 11. It is further the case of the petitioners that Home Department vide letter dated 24.06.2016 (Annexure A-10), addressed to the Director General of Police endorsed the amendment of the Finance Department, which action of the Police Department was contrary to their own stand of proposing five years regular service for getting revised pay structure . The Director General of Police, vide letter dated 02.08.2016 (Annexure A-11), requested the Home Department to grant revised pay benefit after completion of five years regular service instead of eight years, and according to the petitioners, this request was suo motu made at the level of Director General of Police understanding their plight, and in view of the anomaly in the pay of Clerks who get revised pay scale of Rs.10300-34800+3200 Grade Pay, on completion of two years of regular service, whereas the petitioners had to wait for similar benefit for eight years of regular service despite the fact that they perform hazardous duties. 12. According to the petitioners, the Home Department vide letter dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure A-12), in consultation with Finance Department, rejected the request of the Director General of Police without any reason whatsoever. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners made a representation to the worthy Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, for the grant of revised pay scale. This representation was forwarded to the Home Department for further examination by the Chief Minister, however, the grievance of the petitioners did not stand redressed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners made a representation to the worthy Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, for the grant of revised pay scale. This representation was forwarded to the Home Department for further examination by the Chief Minister, however, the grievance of the petitioners did not stand redressed. It is in this background that this petition has been filed by the petitioners praying for the following substantive reliefs:- “I. That the application is for quashing notification of the Government of Himachal Pradesh Finance (Pay Revision) Department dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure A-6) & partial modification of the said notification dated 17.06.2016 (Annexure A-9) whereby an arbitrary amendment has been given effect to w.e.f. 01.01.2015 purportedly in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 9 read with Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post wise Revised pay) Rules, 2012. II. That the application is for setting aside the stand taken by the Government of H.P. (Home Department) in letter dated 24.06.2016 & 17.03.2017 (Annexure A-10 & A-12) as it is arbitrary and discriminatory. III. That the application is for granting the applicants revised pay structure of Rs. 10,300-34800+3200 grade pay after putting in 2 years regular service as is being granted to constables appointed before 2015 and clerks even now, along with interest @ 10% from the date when it became first due on 01.09.2017 till its realization. IV. That in the alternative the respondents may be directed under Rule 10 of the HPCS Rules, 2012 to relax the provision in column 5 of the amended schedule (Annexure A-6) suitably in order to release the benefit of revised pay structure of Rs. 10300-34800+Rs. 3200 grade pay in favour of the applicants.” 13. The petition is resisted by the respondents inter alia on the ground that the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 28.09.2012 notified the pay scales of Constables in H.P. Police Department at the rate of Rs.5910-20200+1900 (G.P.) at entry level and at the rate of Rs.10300-34800+3200 (G.P.) after two years of regular service. Subsequently, the Department of Finance vide notifications dated 14.01.2015 and 17.06.2015 substituted/amended serial No. 3 vide abovementioned notifications and ordered that Constables are to be granted higher pay band with Rs.3200/- Grade Pay after completion of eight years of regular service w.e.f. 01.01.2015. Subsequently, the Department of Finance vide notifications dated 14.01.2015 and 17.06.2015 substituted/amended serial No. 3 vide abovementioned notifications and ordered that Constables are to be granted higher pay band with Rs.3200/- Grade Pay after completion of eight years of regular service w.e.f. 01.01.2015. It was clarified vide government letter dated 12.06.2015 that on or after 01.01.2015, the Constables would be entitled for pay structure of Rs.10300- 34800+3200 (GP) only after completion of eight years of regular service. According to the Department, the issue regarding grant of higher pay structure to the Constables who were appointed before 01.01.2015 but were completing two years of service after 01.01.2015, was re-considered by the government, and vide notification dated 17.06.2016, provisions contained in Notification 14.01.2015 were made applicable only to the Constables appointed on or after 01.01.2015. As per the Department, the petitioners having been appointed in Police Department as Constables on 01.09.2015 were not eligible for grant of higher pay band and Grade Pay after completion of two years of regular service in terms of government Notifications dated 14.01.2015 and 17.06.2015. This act of the government was not arbitrary, as provisions contained in Notification dated 14.01.2015 were made applicable to the Constables appointed on or after 01.01.2015, and as all the petitioners herein were appointed after 01.01.2015, therefore, they were eligible for grant of higher pay band and grade pay only after completion of eight years of regular service. The action of the State has been justified to be legally fair on the said basis. 14. By way of rejoinder, the petitioners have reiterated the averments made in the petition and denied the stand taken in the reply filed by the respondents. 15. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has argued that as the petitioners are similarly situated to the Constables who were recruited vide recruitment process initiated by the Government dated 22.06.2012, because the nature of duties being performed by one and all are the same and similar, therefore, there is no justification in the act of the respondent-Department of delaying the grant of revised pay scale and grade pay to the petitioners as compared to the Constables recruited earlier. According to him, the ground of financial burden cannot be allowed to be taken by the respondent-State to deny the higher/revised pay band+grade pay to the petitioners. According to him, the ground of financial burden cannot be allowed to be taken by the respondent-State to deny the higher/revised pay band+grade pay to the petitioners. According to him, this act of the respondent-State is highly arbitrary as similarly situated persons are being treated with a different yardstick. He has argued that need of grant of revised pay scale in favour of the petitioners has also been highlighted by the Director General of Police to the State, yet the cause of the petitioners is being defeated on account of the indifferent attitude, which has been adopted by the Finance Department by taking the plea of financial implications. He has argued that taking into consideration the nature of duties, which are to be performed by the petitioners, which as per office of Director General of Police, are hazardous as also risky and round the clock, the petitioners are entitled for parity as far as the revised pay band and grade pay is concerned vis-a-vis the Constables recruited in the year 2012. He has further argued that the cut of date which has been fixed by the government vide Notification dated 17.06.2016 is arbitrary as the same is not based on any reasonableness. He also submitted that as said notification was issued on 17.06.2016, at least those Constables, who stood appointed on or before 17.06.2016, should have been given similar treatment. On these grounds, he has prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the petitioners be granted revised pay band and grade pay, as prayed for. He has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:- (i) Randhir Singh Versus Union of India and Others (1982) 1 SCC 618 ; (ii) Mewa Ram Kanojia Versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others (1989) 2 SCC 235 ; (iii) South Malabar Gramin Bank Versus Coordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees’ Union and South Malbbar Gramin Bank Officers’ Federation and Others (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 101; (iv) State Bank of India and Another Versus M.R. Ganesh Babu and Others (2002) 4 SCC 556 ; (v) Union of India and Another Versus International Trading Co. and Another (2003) 5 SCC 437 ; (vi) Chairman and MD, NTPC LTD. and Another (2003) 5 SCC 437 ; (vi) Chairman and MD, NTPC LTD. Versus Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors (2004) 2 SCC 663 ; (vii) Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and Others Versus G.S. Uppal and Others and other connected matters (2008) 7 SCC 375 ; (viii) Union of India and Others Versus Atul Shukla and Others (2014) 10 SCC 432 ; 16. On the other hand, Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General has argued that there is no merit in the writ petition for the reasons that the advertisement to which the petitioners responded clearly and categorically contained the conditions on which the appointment was being offered to them. He argued that the advertisement in very unambiguous terms spelled out that posts of Constables were being advertised in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+1900 (GP) upto eight years in terms of the notification of the government dated 14.01.2015. The petitioners, knowing full well the contents of this recruitment notice, participated in the process without any challenge to the same. He argued that as the petitioners participated in the recruitment process without any objection, they are stopped from assailing the condition of grant of revised pay scale after eight years of service because the petitioners acquiescenced to the terms of the recruitment notice. He further submitted that the petitioners cannot equate themselves with the Constables who stood recruited before issuance of Notification dated 14.01.2015. According to him, the Constables, who were recruited earlier, were rightly given protection because in the recruitment notice to which they responded, it was mentioned that they would get revised pay scale after two years regular service. As per him, the petitioners are not being discriminated as alleged because in terms of the terms and conditions of the recruitment notice to which they responded, no alteration to their deterrent has been made by the State. He has also relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:- Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Surender Singh and Others, (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67; Air Commodore Naveen Jain versus Union of India, (2019) 10, Supreme Court Cases 34; Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Through Legal Representatives) vs. Purushottam and Others, (2020) 6 Supreme Court Cases 387; State of H.P. & Ors. versus Rajesh Chander Sood etc. etc. 2016 (10 SCC 77; 17. versus Rajesh Chander Sood etc. etc. 2016 (10 SCC 77; 17. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the pleadings as well as record of the case. 18. The petitioners in the present case were appointed as Police Constables w.e.f. 01.09.2015. They participated in the recruitment process, which was initiated by the respondent-State by way of issuance of recruitment notice dated 05.03.2015 (Annexure P-7). A perusal of this notification demonstrates that it was mentioned therein that applications stood invited from eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Constables in the Himachal Pradesh Police Department in the pay scale of Rs.5910- 20200+Grade Pay @ Rs.1900/- upto eight years of service as per H.P. Government’s Notification No. Fin(PR)-B(7)-64/2010, dated 14.01.2015. 19. The impugned Notification (Annexure A-6) is dated 14.01.2015. A perusal thereof demonstrates that it stands mentioned in it that in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 9 read with Rule 3 of the Himachal Pradesh Civil Services (Category/Post wise Revised Pay Rules, 2012), Governor of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to henceforth substitute the words and figures appearing against Sr. No. 3 under Heading 15 Home Department of the Schedule appended to Rules ibid, notified vide Department’s Notification of even number dated 28th September, 2012 as mentioned therein. 20. Now, by way of this notification, an incumbent, who was appointed to the post of Constable, was to get the pay band of Rs.5910-20200+1900 (GP) with initial start of Rs.7810 as entry level scale and the pay band of Rs.10300-34800+Grade Pay of Rs.3200 after eight years of regular service. The date of applicability of this notification was mentioned as 01.01.2015. 21. This notification was subsequently clarified vide Notification dated 17.06.2016 (Annexure A-9), in which, it was mentioned that in partial modification of the department’s notification of even number dated 14th January, 2015, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh was pleased to order that the provisions contained in this notification would be applicable on or after 01.01.2015. 22. There is on record a communication dated 02.08.2016 addressed from the office of Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Himachal Pradesh, to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the subject of revision of pay band and grade pay of Constables after completion of five years regular service instead of eight years. 22. There is on record a communication dated 02.08.2016 addressed from the office of Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Himachal Pradesh, to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh on the subject of revision of pay band and grade pay of Constables after completion of five years regular service instead of eight years. A perusal of this communication demonstrates that it was recommended in the same that the category of Constables are entitled for pay structure of Rs.10300-34800+3200 (GP) on completion of eight years of regular service as per H.P. Government Notification dated 14.01.2015, whereas the category of Clerks enjoy the revised Grade pay after completion of two years of service. It was further mentioned in this communication that in terms of policies of the government, the services of the contractual appointees were being regularized after completion of 5 years of service as on 31.05.2015 in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+1900 (GP) with initial start of Rs.7810. Clerks after completion of two years of regular service were being given pay band of Rs.10300-34800+3200 (GP). The clerks were getting Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- after completion of total seven years of service, including the services on contractual basis. Therefore, there was gap of one year as far as the Constables getting the revised Grade Pay of Rs.3200/- was concerned. It was further mentioned in this communication that Constabulary comes under the category of trained manpower, whose nature of duties is hazardous, risky and round the clock, therefore, the disparity in pay scale was irrational. A request was made to re-examine the matter with the competent authority to reduce the condition of eight years to five years for the grant of revised pay band of Rs.10300-34800+3200(GP) as the same would boost the morale of the Constables and result in more efficiency and effectiveness in discharging their duties. 23. In response thereto, the Director General of Police was intimated vide communication dated 17.03.2017 (Annexure A-12), that the matter was examined in consultation with the Finance Department, which did not accede to the request of the Police Department. It was further mentioned in the communication that in view of the nature of duties performed by the Police Constables, they were being appointed on regular basis whereas all other categories of employees are appointed on contractual basis. 24. It was further mentioned in the communication that in view of the nature of duties performed by the Police Constables, they were being appointed on regular basis whereas all other categories of employees are appointed on contractual basis. 24. There is also on record another communication addressed by the office of Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, to the Additional Secretary to the Chief Minister, Himachal Pradesh, dated 16.01.2019, on the subject ‘request for reducing the time of grant of revised pay scale to Police Constables from eight years to three years’. In this communication, the Director General of Police has highlighted the need for grant of pay band of Rs.10300-34800+3200(GP) after completion of three years regular service of Police Constables taking into consideration the emergent nature of their service conditions. 25. Now this Court will refer to the judgments relied upon by learned Counsel for the parties in support of their respective case. 26. In Randhir Singh Versus Union of India and Others (1982) 1 SCC 618 , Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was dealing with an issue wherein the petitioner therein who was working as a Driver Constable in the Delhi Police Force under Delhi Administration demanded that his pay scale be at least same as the pay scale of other drivers in the service of Delhi Administration. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the facts of the case held that construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. 27. In Mewa Ram Kanojia Versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others (1989) 2 SCC 235 , Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with the issue of the petitioners therein who had raised the grievance that Hearing Therapist though was performing similar duties as that of Speech Therapists, Senior Physiotherapist etc. yet respondents therein were practicing discrimination in paying salary to the petitioner in a lower scale of pay. yet respondents therein were practicing discrimination in paying salary to the petitioner in a lower scale of pay. In the said judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court again reiterated that though the doctrine of ‘Equal pay for equal work” is not expressly declared a fundamental right under the Constitution yet the same was applicable when employees holding the same rank perform similar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibilities are treated differently. Hon’ble Court further held that the application of the doctrine would arise where employees are equal in every respect but they are denied equality in matters relating to the scale of pay. It held that it was open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned and if the classification had reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scale but if the classification does not stand the rest of reasonable nexus and the classification was founded on unreal, and unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hon’ble Court held that equality must be among the equals and unequal cannot claim equality. 28. In South Malabar Gramin Bank Versus Coordination Committee of South Malabar Gramin Bank Employees’ Union and South Malbbar Gramin Bank Officers’ Federation and Others (2001) 4 Supreme Court Cases 101, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that as the award passed by the Justice S. Obul Reddy’s Tribunal had become final and award in question not having been assailed and on the other hand having been implemented, it was futile attempt on the part of the employer as well as the Union of India to re-agitate the dispute, which has already been resolved and has been given effect to and it would no longer be open, either for the Bank or the Union of India to raise a contention that in determining the wage structure for the employees of the Regional Rural Bank, the financial condition would be a relevant factor. 29. In State Bank of India and Another Versus M.R. Ganesh Babu and Others (2002) 4 SCC 556 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that equal pay must depend on the nature of work done and though functions may be same but the responsibilities make a difference. 30. 29. In State Bank of India and Another Versus M.R. Ganesh Babu and Others (2002) 4 SCC 556 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that equal pay must depend on the nature of work done and though functions may be same but the responsibilities make a difference. 30. In Union of India and Another Versus International Trading Co. and Another (2003) 5 SCC 437 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that Article 14 of the Constitution applies also to matters of government policy and if policy or any action of government, fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. 31. In Chairman and MD, NTPC LTD. Versus Reshmi Constructions, Builders & Contractors (2004) 2 SCC 663 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleaded to hold that necessitas non habet legem is an age-old maxim which means necessity knows no law. Hon’ble Court held that a person sometimes have to succumb to the pressure of the other party to the bargain who is in a stronger position. 32. In Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and Others Versus G.S. Uppal and Others and other connected matters (2008) 7 SCC 375 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleaded to hold as under:- “33. The plea of the appellants that the Corporation is running under losses and it cannot meet the financial burden on account of revision of scales of pay has been rejected by the High Court and, in our view, rightly so. Whatever may be the factual position, there appears to be no basis for the action of the appellants in denying the claim of revision of pay scales to the respondents. If the Government feels that the Corporation is running into losses, measures of economy, avoidance of frequent writing off of dues, reduction of posts or repatriating deputationists may provide the possible solution to the problem. Be that as it may, such a contention may not be available to the appellants in the light of the principle enunciated by this Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India and Indian Overseas Bank v. Staff Canteen Workers’ Union. However, so long as the posts do exist and are manned, there appears to be no justification for granting the respondents a scale of pay lower than that sanctioned for those employees who are brought on deputation. However, so long as the posts do exist and are manned, there appears to be no justification for granting the respondents a scale of pay lower than that sanctioned for those employees who are brought on deputation. In fact, the sequence of events, discussed above, clearly shows that the employees of the Corporation have been treated at par with those in Government at the time of revision of scales of pay on every occasion.” 33. In Union of India and Others Versus Atul Shukla and Others (2014) 10 SCC 432 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to hold that when officers are a part of the cadre, their birthmarks, based on how they joined the cadre is not relevant. They must be treated equal in all respects including salary and other benefits. 34. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi versus Surender Singh and Others, (2019) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67, has been pleased to hold that when a candidate responds to an advertisement, then if at all if he has any grievance with regard to a clause contained therein, which according to the candidate is arbitrary and might affect his right, then, the same is required to be assailed at the said stage itself. As per the Hon’ble Supreme Court, otherwise the principle of aprobate and reprobate would apply and a candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard to complaint in that regard. 35. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Air Commodore Naveen Jain versus Union of India, (2019) 10, Supreme Court Cases 34, has been pleased to hold that a party is stopped to challenge the policy after participating in the selection process on the basis of such policy. While holding so, Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to rely upon its earlier judgment passed in Madan Lal vs. State of J & K, (1995) 3 SCC 486 and subsequent judgments in which this principle of estoppel has been followed. 36. In Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Through Legal Representatives) vs Purushottam and Others, (2020) 6 Supreme Court Cases 387, Hon’ble Supreme Court, has been pleased to hold that doctrine of of election is a facet of law of estoppel. A party cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. Any party, which takes advantage of any instrument, must accept all that is mentioned in the said document. A party cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. Any party, which takes advantage of any instrument, must accept all that is mentioned in the said document. While arriving at the said conclusion, Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to treatise 'Equity-A course of lectures' by F.W. Maitland, Cambridge University, 1947, wherein the learned author described principle of election in the following terms:- “The doctrine of Election may be thus stated: That he who accepts a benefit under a deed or will or other instrument must adopt the whole contents of that instrument, must conform to all its provisions and renounce all rights that are inconsistent with it....’’ 37. Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of H.P. & Ors. versus Rajesh Chander Sood etc. etc. 2016 (10 SCC 77, has been pleased to hold that it is not possible for the Hon’ble Supreme Court to accept that any Court has the jurisdiction to fasten a monetary liability on the State Government, unless it emerges from the rights and liabilities canvassed in the lis itself. Hon’ble Supreme Court has been further pleased to hold that Budgetary allocations, are a matter of policy decisions, and in the facts of that case, as the State Government while promoting ‘1999 Scheme’, felt that the same would be self-financing, as the State Government never intended to allocate financial resources out of State funds, to run the pension scheme, therefore, the State Government could not be burdened by the High Court for the liability, which it never contemplated. 38. Coming to the case in hand, this Court is of the considered view that as the petitioners participated in the process of recruitment knowing fully well that they were to serve in the pay band of Rs.5910-20200+1900 (GP) up to eight years of regular service in terms of recruitment notice dated 14.01.2015, they cannot be now permitted to assail the same. Whether or not Notification dated 14.01.2015, as amended subsequently, is sustainable in law, cannot be questioned by the petitioners for the reasons that by participating in the recruitment process, without any caveat qua the condition of serving in the pay scale of Rs.5910- 20200+1900 (GP) upto eight years of service, they impliedly consented to this condition, and thus of pay scale acquiescensed to the same by their act of participation. It is settled law of the land that if a person participates in a process without protest/prejudice, then such incumbent cannot assail the process thereafter. In this case, the condition of serving in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200+1900 (GP) up to eight years of service as a condition of recruitment notice to which the petitioners responded and participated. It is not in dispute that the petitioners did not lay challenge to this condition at the time of participating in the process of recruitment nor they participated in the process subject to their right to assail this condition. This Court is alive to the fact that bargaining power of the petitioners cannot be equated with that of mighty State but still the fact remains that it is not as if the conditions, as were contained in the recruitment notice, to which the petitioners responded, were subsequently altered to their disadvantage. Here is a case where the government in its wisdom issued a Notification vide which, it revised the period of grant of revised pay band and grade pay to the Constables from two years service to eight years regular service. This Court has no doubt that those Constables who stood recruited before issuance of said Notification and whose right of grant of revised pay band+grade pay was adversely affected by the Notification, had a right to assail the same. However, incumbents like the petitioners, who were not borne in the cadre as on the date when the Notification was issued, do have any locus to assail it. It is reiterated that pursuant to the issuance of recruitment notice dated 06.09.2015, it was open for the petitioners not to respond to the same, in case, they were not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the appointment, including the pay scale. 39. The plea of cut-off-date being arbitrary raised by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners also does not comes to their assistance for the following reasons. The notification vide which the conferment of the higher pay band + grade pay was revised from two years to eight years payable to Constables, was issued by the Finance Department on 14.01.2015. The recruitment notice to which the petitioners responded is dated 05.03.2015. Notification dated 14.01.2015 was modified as being applicable to Constables appointed on or before 01.01.2015 vide Notification dated 17.06.2016. The recruitment notice to which the petitioners responded is dated 05.03.2015. Notification dated 14.01.2015 was modified as being applicable to Constables appointed on or before 01.01.2015 vide Notification dated 17.06.2016. However, fact of the matter remains that this notification stood issued so as to protect the interests of Constables upon whom, right of grant of revised pay band and grade pay had accrued after two years service in terms of earlier Notification dated 28.09.2012. As far as the petitioners are concerned, as already mentioned hereinabove, when the advertisement to which they responded to, was issued, Notification dated 14.01.2015, in terms whereof revised pay band and grade pay was payable to the Constables after eight years of regular service, was already in force. Not only this, in advertisement dated 05.03.2015 also it was clearly mentioned that the posts of Constables were in the pay scale of Rs.5910-20200 + Grade Pay of Rs. 1900/- up to eight years of service in terms of notification dated 14.01.2015. Therefore, the cut-off-date, as has been fixed subsequently vide notification dated 17.06.2016, is not arbitrary, as has been argued by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, for the reason that the classification which has been made by the department between the Constables appointed before 01.01.2015 and after 01.01.2015 is based on intelligible differentia because the right of grant of revised pay scale had already accrued upon the appointees who stood appointed before 01.01.2015 when the same was taken away from them vide notification dated 14.01.2015. 40. In view of above discussion, the judgments which have been relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners are also of no assistance to them for the reason that it is not as if a right, which stood accrued in favour of the petitioners, has been subsequently arbitrarily taken away. Had that been the case, then obviously, the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, would have had come to their assistance as this Court is of the considered view that even on the ground of financial implications, vested rights cannot be taken away. However, in this case, no vested right of the petitioners has been taken away. However, in this case, no vested right of the petitioners has been taken away. Even as far as the bargaining power of the parties is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that as the terms on which the appointment was being offered to which the petitioners responded were expressly mentioned in the advertisement itself, therefore, it cannot be said that the terms contained in the advertisement were dotted lined or that the petitioners have been forced to accept the conditions of service against their wish or will because of their diminishing bargaining power as compared to the State. 41. Coming to the communications, which have been addressed by the Director General of Police, to the State Government, all that this Court can observe is this that in case the government, taking into consideration the nature of duties, which are being performed by the Constables, takes a decision to reduce the period of regular service entitling the Constables for the revised pay scale and grade pay, then with regard to decision of the government, this Court can have no objection. However, this Court has serious doubt as to whether it can issue a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to alter this policy decision of changing the period of regular service to be rendered by a Constable, for being eligible to receive the revised pay band and grade pay of Rs.10300-34800+3200 (Grade Pay). 42. Accordingly, in view of the discussion held herein above as well as law discussed, as the Court does not finds any merit in this petition, the same is accordingly dismissed. 43. However, it is clarified that though this Court is not concurring with the prayers of the petitioners, as they stand spelled out in the writ petition, however, this writ petition is being closed with the observation that non-grant of the relief to the petitioners by the Court shall not come in the way of the State Government, in case, it does intend to revisit the number of years of regular service, which a Constable has to put in after his appointment for the grant of revised pay scale and grade pay. With these observations, the petition is ordered to be closed. The petition stands disposed of in above terms, so also pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.