ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the State challenging the order dated 22.9.2016 passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondents Suri Dass Negi and Ajit Kumar Bhardwaj alongwith twelve others were recommended/selected for the appointment of Block Development Officers through Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services by the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission on 01.09.1997. The pay scale of all fourteen Block Development Officers was fixed on the revised pay scale of Rs. 7800-11660/- from the date of their joining vide order dated 06.05.1998 passed by Director-cum-Additional Secretary (Rural Development) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. However, the said authority vide its subsequent order dated 14.1.1999, while superseding the earlier order dated 06.05.1998, reduced and re-fixed the salary of the entire batch of fourteen Development Block Officers in the pay scale of Rs. 7000-10980 from the date of their joining. This order was challenged by twelve officers, out of fourteen, by filing CWP (T) No. 6007 of 2008, titled Balbir Singh and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another. Respondents herein did not join their batch mates in the aforesaid petition as co-petitioners. Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 6.8.2010, while setting aside the order dated 14.01.1999, directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners strictly as per the principles laid down in the judgments rendered in Sanjeev Kumar Mahajan and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, CWP (T) No. 4063 of 2008, decided on 8.9.2009 and Suresh Rana and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, CWP (T) No. 14084 of 2008, decided on 20.4.2010. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondents while considering the case of twelve Block Development Officers, who had filed the aforementioned writ petition in Balbir Singh Thakur’s case supra, granted them the entire arrears. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondents while considering the case of twelve Block Development Officers, who had filed the aforementioned writ petition in Balbir Singh Thakur’s case supra, granted them the entire arrears. Respondents herein then approached this Court by filing CWP No. 3831 of 2012, which was disposed of by order dated 31.12.2014 on the basis of the judgments in Balbir Singh Thakur and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, CWP (T) No. 6007 of 2008, decided on 6.8.2010 as well as in Prem Raj vs. State of H.P. and Others in CWP No. 1807 of 2010, decided on 5.5.2010, requiring the petitioners to approach the respondents by means of suitable representations and calling upon the respondents to decide the same after affording the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners by passing a reasoned order. The respondents- State this time, however, while deciding the representation of the petitioners directed Rural Development Department of the Government of Himachal Pradesh who vide its order dated 25.2.2015 (which is wrongly mentioned as 25.2.2014 in the order) opined that since entire arrears have been paid to the other BDOs of the same batch on the basis of the advise of the Financial Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh. Respondents herein also sought the similar benefits and, therefore, recommended that their matter may be referred to the Finance Department for re-consideration. 4. The respondents herein thereafter approached the State Administrative Tribunal by means of Original Application No. 4178 of 2016, which vide its order dated 22.9.2016 passed the following order: “The applicants had been appointed as Block Development Officers alongwith others on the basis of H.A.S. etc. Combined Competitive Examination, 1995, held in July/August, 1996. They were granted higher pay scale in sequel to the directions of Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh in CWP (T) No. 6007 of 2008, Balbir Singh Thakur and Others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, decided on 06.08.2010, Annexure A-5. The applicants were similarly situate and have been granted the pay scale and however, arrears in their cases have been restricted to three years on the basis of a decision in Jai Dev Gupta’s case. The applicants were entitled for payment of arrears from the due dates, at par, with other similarly situate BDOs and restriction of payment to three years, would not be applicable in such cases.” 5. The applicants were entitled for payment of arrears from the due dates, at par, with other similarly situate BDOs and restriction of payment to three years, would not be applicable in such cases.” 5. Despite the above order passed by the Tribunal the respondent-State, on the representation dated 01.11.2016 of the petitioners, vide order dated 9.1.2017 again reiterated that as per the opinion of the Finance Department, the arrears have been restricted only for three years in view of the judgment of this Court in Kulbir Singh Rana and Others vs. State of H.P. and Another in CWP No. 3660 of 2012, decided on 20.9.2012. Now the respondent-State has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. 6. Having heard learned Additional Advocate General and learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, we find that the argument of the State that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Jai Dev Gupta vs. State of H.P. AIR 1998 SC 2819 , the arrears payable to the petitioners should have been restricted to three years, has been specifically considered by the Tribunal and not accepted by holding that the applicants were entitled for payment of arrears from the due dates, at par, with other similarly situate BDOs and restrictions of payment to three years, would not be applicable to their cases. The respondents also are not in a position to dispute that by virtue of order passed by this Court in Balbir Singh Thakur’s case supra. The petitioners, who were appointed as officers, who approached this court in respect of all of them, the respondent-State took a conscious decision to pay them entire arrears. The office order dated 14.1.1999 which was common to all fourteen officers was quashed and set aside by the judgment passed in the case of Balbir Singh Thakur. Yet, the respondent-State forced the petitioners to approach the Tribunal even though the order was applicable to all fourteen officers. And when the Tribunal allowed their petition, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No. CWP (T) No. 6007 of 2008, after having already restricted their arrears to three years. 7. Yet, the respondent-State forced the petitioners to approach the Tribunal even though the order was applicable to all fourteen officers. And when the Tribunal allowed their petition, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition No. CWP (T) No. 6007 of 2008, after having already restricted their arrears to three years. 7. Reliance placed by the respondent-State on the judgment in Kulbir Singh Rana’s case is misconceived because in that case the officers, who were petitioners in that case, were initially appointed on the pay scale of Rs. 7000-10980 but on the basis of the judgment passed in Balbir Singh Thakur’s case supra, their pay scale was ordered to be revised and raised to the pay scale of Rs. 7880-11660 from the date of their appointments as BDOs with all notional benefits but restricted the arrears to three years prior to the date of institution of the writ petition i.e. 4.5.2012. 8. Herein the case of the respondents is that the fourteen officers, who were all recommended and selected together by the Public Service Commission and appointed as Block Development Officers and their pay was also fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 7880-11660 by common order dated 6.5.1998 and subsequently the pay of all those fourteen officers was reduced to the pay scale of Rs. 7000-10980 by a common order dated 14.1.1999 and it was this order which was quashed and set aside by this Court in the writ petition filed by Balbir Singh Thakur and eleven others. Therefore, there is no reasons for the petitioners-State to give dissimilar treatment to the respondents herein, because all fourteen of them constitute a homogeneous class different than the petitioners in Kulbir Singh Rana’s case for the reasons aforementioned. Action of the respondents in not paying entire arrears to the petitioners would therefore tantamount to hostile discrimination inviting frown of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal as the judgment passed in Kulbir Singh Rana’s case relied upon by the petitioners-State is distinguishable. 10. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of. The compliance of the judgment of the Tribunal may now be made within two months from today. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.