ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 17.6.2013, whereby the petitioner’s representation for grant of benefit of time pay scale has been rejected. 2. Petitioner, who retired from the service of respondent/Nigam, has earlier preferred a W.P. No. 10722/2012 on the ground that petitioner has been subjected to discrimination with regard to grant of benefit of higher pay scale as has been extended to similarly situated employees vide order dated 23.1.2010. The writ Court vide order dated 30.4.2013, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the competent authority of the M.P. Rajya Beej Evam Farm Vikas Nigam to examine the case of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order for grant of two higher pay scales in the light of order dated 23.1.2010. It was further directed that in case the petitioner is found entitled to the benefit of two higher pay scales, the same shall be extended to him with effect from the date when such benefit has been extended to the similarly situated employees and the amount due in this regard shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of decision on the representation of the petitioner. 3. The representation of the petitioner came to be rejected by the impugned order dated 17.6.2013 on the ground that he had already availed two promotions and the employee who has availed second promotion on the 100% promotional post is not entitled for the benefit of time pay scale in view of clause 5 of the circular dated 24.4.2012. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that he worked as Assistant Manager for more than 22 years and thereafter was eligible for grant of benefit of two pay scales in view of the circular dated 1.4.2008, wherein, clause 9, the State Government has clarified that such persons who have been promoted twice will also be entitled to benefit of this scheme. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the State has reiterated the grounds mentioned in the rejection order that the same has been rejected for the reason that petitioner’s second promotion was on the 100% promotional post and as per the circular dated 24.4.2012, the government servants who stand promoted twice shall be eligible for higher pay scale only if the second promotion is made to a post which as per service rule is to be filled partially by direct recruitment, hence the petitioner is not entitled to the second time pay scale. It is pertinent to note that this circular dated 24.4.2012 is not brought on record by the respondent. 6. Respondent No.3 in their reply to para 4.4 and para 4.5 of the petition has stated that the circular dated 1.4.2008 is not applicable, but there is no reasoning as to why it is not applicable nor it has been explained as to why petitioner’s case is different from nine other Assistant Managers, who were extended the benefit of pay scale vide order dated 23.1.2010. In their reply, respondent No.3 has stated that the petitioner was restrained due to departmental action and therefore, not entitled to the benefit extended to his juniors. This particular reason given in the reply, was not the basis of rejection of his application/representation, hence cannot be accepted now. 7. The parties have restricted their arguments to the extent of rejection of the representation of the petitioner for grant of time pay scale. No other ground has been raised or argued. 8. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 9. On perusal of the record, it is observed that after filing the petition, the petitioner has filed four rejoinders, I.A. Nos. 6445/2014, 11813/2014, third rejoinder dated 21.6.2016 and fourth rejoinder dated 28.3.17, I.A. No. 4254/2017 and also filed applications for amendments, I.A. Nos. 8446/2017, 12700/2018 and 10048/2018. By these repeated rejoinders and the applications for amendment, the petitioner has tried to bring on record new facts, new pleadings and new documents. This process of filing repeated rejoinders or amendment applications is unheard of and is not permissible. 8446/2017, 12700/2018 and 10048/2018. By these repeated rejoinders and the applications for amendment, the petitioner has tried to bring on record new facts, new pleadings and new documents. This process of filing repeated rejoinders or amendment applications is unheard of and is not permissible. Vide order dated 18.9.2018, this Court has given a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh application for amendment, as I.A. No.10048/2018 does not reflect as to which portion of the petition needs amendment and in that event liberty would be given to the petitioner to withdraw the existing amendment applications. However, no subsequent amendment application was filed. In view of such facts, all these rejoinders and applications for amendment are rejected. 10. The apex Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Atul Shukla and others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 432 has held that so long as the two employees are a part of the same cadre/rank, they cannot be treated differently either for the purpose of pay and allowances or other conditions of service including the age of superannuation. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has considered various earlier judgments of the apex Court including the case of The Sate of West Bangal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar and another reported in AIR (39) 1952 SC 75. The Court held as under:- 16. A long line of decisions of this Court that have explained the meaning of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and laid down tests for determining the constitutional validity of a classification in a given case immediately assume importance. These pronouncements have by now authoritatively settled that Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification. Decisions starting with State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali ( AIR 1952 SC 75 ) down to the very recent pronouncement of this Court in Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Director, CBI and Anr. ( AIR 2014 SC 2140 ) have extensively examined and elaborately explained that a classification passes the test of Article 14 only if (i) there is an intelligible differentia between those grouped together and others who are kept out of the group; and (ii) There exists a nexus between the differentia and the object of the legislation. 11. ( AIR 2014 SC 2140 ) have extensively examined and elaborately explained that a classification passes the test of Article 14 only if (i) there is an intelligible differentia between those grouped together and others who are kept out of the group; and (ii) There exists a nexus between the differentia and the object of the legislation. 11. Similar issue came up for consideration in the case of H.P. parashar v. State of M.P., W.P. No.13556/2014 and the writ Court while relying on the decision on the case of Atul Shukla (supra), allowed the petition vide order dated 31.7.2015, it was observed thus :- 9. From the aforesaid judgments of the apex Court the principle of law is clear that the employees who are part of the same cadre and rank, they cannot be treated differently for the purpose of pay and allowances. In the present case, the petitioner has been differentiated in regard to grant of second time scale pay on the ground that he was promoted second time on a post which was 100% promotional post. …………… 10 ……….. The object of the Scheme in regard to grant of time Scale which was introduced vide Circular dated 24.1.2008 was to grant benefit of Time Scale of pay to the members of State Civil Services for the purpose of advancement of their career. It is mentioned in the Scheme that A and B grade employees of Civil Services would be eligible to get the benefit after 8 years of their appointment and Class-III employees shall be eligible to get the benefit after 10 years of completing the service. There is no mention in the Scheme that the benefit of Second Time Scale Pay would not be made applicable to those employees who have been promoted on a 100% promotional post. The aforesaid provision has been introduced by way of clarification. In the aforesaid circular no reasons has been assigned for discrimination. It is contrary to the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Atul Shukla and others quoted above that if two employees are part of the same cadre and rank, they cannot be treated differently for the purpose of pay and allowances. Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation. In para 11 the Court has held thus :- 11. Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation. In para 11 the Court has held thus :- 11. In my opinion, by the act of clarification, the Finance Department has created two class of employees i.e. one class who are eligible to get benefit of second time scale pay, if they are promoted on a post which is partially by direct recruitment and partially by promotion and IInd class of employees who are promoted on a post which is 100% promotional post. It has created class within the class and due to the aforesaid anomaly the juniors were getting higher pay scale in comparison to the Seniors. The act is arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India 12. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the petitioner continued on the post of Assistant Manger for more than 22 years. Though, the claim of petitioner for grant of benefit of time pay scale was rejected on the ground of terms of circular dated 24.4.2012, but the same has not been brought on record. It has also not explained in the reply as to how the order dated 23.1.2010, whereby the benefit of time pay scale was extended to nine other persons having the same cadre (Assistant Manager) is not applicable to the case of petitioner. 12. In view of the aforestated and the law laid down in the case of Atul Shukla (supra), this petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the benefit of second time pay scale to the petitioner ignoring the fact that he was promoted on a post which was 100 % promotional post in accordance with the scheme of time scale of pay dated 01.04.2008. The arrears be also paid to the petitioner and his pay be fixed accordingly. The petitioner has been retired, his retiral benefits be calculated accordingly. 13. Let this exercise be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today. No order as to costs.