JUDGMENT : By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the respondents to change the nomenclature of his engagement from Muster Roll (MR) Despatch Rider to MR Lower Divisional Clerk (MR LDC) with effect from his initial date of appointment i.e. 03.12.2008. He has also prayed for setting aside the impugned Communication dated 03.10.2019 by which his prayer for change of nomenclature was rejected. The further prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents to include him in the seniority list of MR LDC w.e.f. 03.12.2008. 2. Brief facts essential for disposal of the writ petition is that the petitioner who is a Graduate in Arts and having a Diploma Certificate in Computer Application was engaged as MR Despatch Rider under the establishment of the respondent No. 4 w.e.f. 03.12.2008. His initial engagement was for a period of 89 days i.e. w.e.f. 03.12.2008 to 01.03.2009. Thereafter, the same got extended from time to time. According to the petitioner, although he was engaged as MR Despatch Rider, he is assigned with duties and functions which ordinarily are to be performed by LDC. Since the petitioner is proficient with Computer application, he is assigned with Computer related works. In fact, the petitioner was selected and sent for Computer Training at the Advanced Training Institute Kolkata. He undertook the training w.e.f. 09.07.2015 to 11.07.2015 and was given a Certificate of Proficiency. 3. The petitioner having come to learn that there is no sanctioned post of Despatch Rider under the establishment of the respondent No. 4 submitted an application to the respondent No. 4, requesting the change of his designation from MR Despatch Rider to MR LDC vide his application dated 20.09.2018. The same was then forwarded by the respondent No. 4 to the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Labour, Employment, Skill Development & Entrepreneurship Department (LESDE Department) vide letter dated 21.09.2018. By the said communication, the respondent No. 4 made favorable proposal for re-designation of the petitioner alongwith one Smt. J. Lalhlunchhungi, who was engaged as MR Computer Operator for change of their nomenclature to LDC. As there was no response to the proposal, the respondent No. 4 once again vide letter dated 30.04.2019 made a second proposal for re-designation of the petitioner and Smt. J. Lalhlunchhungi as MR LDC. As there was no response to the proposal, the respondent No. 4 once again vide letter dated 30.04.2019 made a second proposal for re-designation of the petitioner and Smt. J. Lalhlunchhungi as MR LDC. The proposal however came to be rejected after the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (ARW)(DP&AR (ARW)) was consulted on the ground that the post of LDC carried higher pay and therefore, the proposal could not be considered. The same was communicated to the respondent No. 4 by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, LESDE Department vide letter dated 18.06.2019 (Annexure 19). 4. The respondent No. 4 however once again made another proposal for the third time to the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, LESDE Department on 03.07.2019 and pursuant thereto, certain informations and documents were requisitioned by the said authority from the respondent No. 4 and which was accordingly provided. However, the proposal once again came to be rejected after the same was examined by the DP&AR (ARW), who opined that the change of nomenclature involving up-gradation of level in Pay Matrix was not advisable and the proposal was therefore regretted. The said decision was communicated to the respondent No. 4 by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, LESDE Department on 03.10.2019 (Annexure 23). 5. While the proposal in respect of the petitioner for his redesignation as LDC was rejected, the proposal in respect of Smt. J. Lalhlunchhungi from MR Computer Operator to MR LDC was approved. The approval was conveyed to the respondent No. 4 by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, LESDE Department on 06.01.2020. This however came to light only after the filing of the writ petition. Aggrieved with the decision of the respondents, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. Mr. Jonathan L. Sailo, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is engaged as MR Despatch Rider but his services since his engagement is utilized for performing clerical works and importantly, relating to computer works. The nature of duties and functions performed by him is in fact the work of LDC. The petitioner is also qualified to be appointed as LDC as he fulfills all the criteria and also has the requisite typing speed. He submits that as MR worker, he has been categorized as MR Skilled-II. Likewise, MR Computer Operator is also categorized as MR Skilled-II. The petitioner is also qualified to be appointed as LDC as he fulfills all the criteria and also has the requisite typing speed. He submits that as MR worker, he has been categorized as MR Skilled-II. Likewise, MR Computer Operator is also categorized as MR Skilled-II. Therefore, when Smt. J. Lalhlunchhungi can be re-designated from MR Computer Operator to MR LDC, the petitioner cannot be denied of a similar benefit. He therefore submits that appropriate direction may be given to the respondents for changing the nomenclature of the petitioner from MR Despatch Rider to MR LDC. In support of his submission, he relies upon the following authorities:- (1) Judgment and Order dated 04.09.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 60/2018 (Smt. Laltlanliani & Another Vs. State of Mizoram & 5 Others). (2) E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Another, (1974) 4 SCC 3 . (3) Government of India & Others Vs. Court Liquidator’s Employees Association & Others, (1999) 8 SCC 560 . (4) Nihal Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (2013) 14 SCC 65. 7. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents by relying upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents on 27.07.2020 submits that there are more than 100 different posts under the Government of Mizoram. But in respect of MR employees, they are classified only in four categorize i.e. Un- Skilled, Semi-Skilled, Skilled-II and Skilled-I. Therefore, some posts which are having different Pay Level have to be categorized in the same Skill Group and therefore, the claim of the petitioner to be in the same Skill Group with Smt. J. Lalhlunchhungi cannot be accepted. She submits that a Computer Operator is at a higher Pay Level than a Despatch Rider and therefore, the rejection of the petitioner’s prayer for re-designation is only justified. 8. The learned Government Advocate further submits that although the services of the petitioner may have been utilized for clerical works and computer application but that by itself cannot be a ground for changing his nomenclature from MR Despatch Rider to MR LDC when in fact his initial engagement is as MR Despatch Rider. 8. The learned Government Advocate further submits that although the services of the petitioner may have been utilized for clerical works and computer application but that by itself cannot be a ground for changing his nomenclature from MR Despatch Rider to MR LDC when in fact his initial engagement is as MR Despatch Rider. The learned Government Advocate also submits that as per the Seventh Central Revision of Pay (as modified and extended to the employees under the Government of Mizoram) Rules, 2018, the Pay Level of a Despatch Rider Grade-III is Level-2 while the Pay Level of LDC is at Level-4. The Pay Level of Computer Operator is at Level- 7. As Smt. J. Lalhlunchhungi did not have any objection to her redesignation as MR LDC in a lower Level of Pay, the re-designation was approved in her case. In respect of the petitioner as he is in a much Lower Pay Level as Despatch Rider, it is not possible for him to ask re-designation to a post which has a higher Level of Pay. She thus submits that under the circumstance, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed. 9. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on records. 10. As may be noticed, the issue to be decided is as to whether the petitioner engaged as MR Desptach Rider can be re-designated as MR LDC, more particularly, when Smt. J. Lalhlunchhungi was given the benefit of redesignation as MR LDC from her appointed post of MR Computer Operator. From a perusal of the two impugned Communications dated 18.06.2019 and 03.10.2019, what can be noticed is that the reason for rejection of the prayer for changing the nomenclature is that the same involves in the upgradation of Level in Pay Matrix or the post of LDC carries higher pay. From the approval given by the State respondents for continuous engagement of MR employees under the LESDE Department, it can be seen that the post of Despatch Rider, Computer Operator & LDC have been categorized as MR Skilled-II. However, explanation given in this regard is that as there are only four categories of skilled employment, different posts having different pay have to be brought under one common category. However, explanation given in this regard is that as there are only four categories of skilled employment, different posts having different pay have to be brought under one common category. This explanation cannot be accepted in view of the fact that different posts categorized under a particular Skilled Group get similar pay or wages per day as can be seen from the Notification dated 17.07.2007 which is annexed by the State respondents as Annexure-1 in their affidavit-in-opposition filed on 27.07.2020. Therefore, the explanation or grounds for rejecting the redesignation due to the post of LDC carrying a higher pay or being in the higher level in the Pay Matrix can only be acceptable if one is talking about a regular post of LDC and a regular post of Despatch Rider. The prayer of the petitioner otherwise is for re-designation from MR Despatch Rider to MR LDC as both the posts are categorized as MR Skilled-II post and having similar wages. The continuous engagement of the petitioner and his services being utilized for clerical works which otherwise is normally performed by LDC as can be seen from the Testimonial issued by the respondent No. 4 on 20.06.2019 (Annexure 26 of the writ petition) would go to show that the services of the petitioner is indeed required by the respondent No.4. 11. In the case of Smt. Laltlanliani & Another (Supra), the claim of the petitioner was that they should be considered for conversion of the post in which they were appointed i.e. Gangman to the post of LDC on MR basis. Their claim was that the private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were given the benefit of conversion and therefore, such benefit should also be given to them. This Court in deciding the matter held that as according to the State respondents themselves both Gangman and LDC were classified as MR Skilled-II and having the same wage and therefore, directed the respondents to consider their case within a time frame of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. In so far as their seniority was concerned, the same was left open for the respondents to decide. 12. Coming to the present case, it may be seen that the MR Despatch Rider and MR LDC are also both classified under a common category i.e. MR Skilled-II having similar wages attached. In so far as their seniority was concerned, the same was left open for the respondents to decide. 12. Coming to the present case, it may be seen that the MR Despatch Rider and MR LDC are also both classified under a common category i.e. MR Skilled-II having similar wages attached. It may be true that in respect of a regular Despatch Rider and a regular LDC, the Pay Level or Pay Matrix may not be similar but here, we are concerned with the MR Despatch Rider and MR LDC which are placed under a common category with similar wage. Although, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that it was due to the no objection of the incumbent concerned engaged as MR Computer Operator i.e. Smt. J. Lalhlunchhungi, who agreed to step down to a lower Pay Level for her to be re-designated as MR LDC, the same cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there are no pleadings or material to be seen to this effect and the Communication dated 06.01.2020 which is annexed by the petitioner in his affidavit-in-reply dated 07.12.2020 at Annexure-B nowhere states that the approval for change in the nomenclature was granted due to the above reason as stated by the learned Government Advocate. The question of comparison of pay or wage will only arise if a claim is made by the petitioner that his post of MR Despatch Rider be converted or re-designated to a regular post of LDC. The same is however not the case. 13. In the case of E.P. Royappa (Supra), the Apex Court in the given facts of that case held that the ambit and reach of Articles 14 and 16 are not limited to cases where the public servant affected has a right to a post. Even if a public servant is in an officiating position, he can complain of violation of Articles 14 and 16 if he has been arbitrarily or unfairly treated or subjected to mala fide exercise of power by the State machine. The Apex Court further observed that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. The Apex Court further observed that equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore, violative of Article 14 and if it effects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrariness in State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatment. 14. In respect of the other two cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Nihal Singh & Others (Supra) and Government of India & Others Vs. Court Liquidator’s Employees Association & Others (Supra), they relate to the question of absorption vis-à-vis the claim that the employees concerned were not employed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law or authorization, I find the same to be not applicable to the present case and therefore, they are not being discussed in detail. 15. Thus, upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, I find merit in the writ petition. The two impugned Communications dated 18.06.2019 and 03.10.2019 are hereby set aside. The respondents are accordingly directed to consider the case of the petitioner for his redesignation from MR Despatch Rider to MR LDC within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This direction is made keeping in view the fact that the service of the petitioner undisputedly has been utilized for clerical jobs which ordinarily are to be performed by a LDC. Besides, the petitioner also has the requisite qualification that is required for one to be appointed as MR LDC or even a regular LDC. It is however, made clear that the petitioner on being redesignated as MR LDC shall not be entitled to claim seniority over any other already existing MR LDC. 16. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of as allowed.