JUDGMENT Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appeal is directed against a judgment and order of March 19, 2020 passed on a petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India brought by the first respondent association, which is a body of the employees engaged in the Shillong Municipal Board. By the impugned judgment and order the writ court has, in effect, allowed the prayer in the writ petition that the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board will be entitled to the same pay scale and benefits as per the latest pay commission terms pertaining to the Meghalaya government employees. 2. The prayer in the writ petition was as follows: 'In the Premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordship would be graciously pleased to issue rule, call for records and after hearing the parties be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing Respondent No. 1 to provide the benefits of the recommendation of the 5th Pay commission to the Members of the Petitioner Association.' 3. In the judgment and order challenged herein by the State, the writ court has primarily referred to an industrial award of the year 1971 which, more or less, granted the same pay facilities and benefits, with some minor exceptions, to the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board at par with the State government employees. The writ court held that since such award had not been challenged before any appropriate forum and further since the benefits under the Third Pay Commission in the State had been unilaterally extended by the State to the Shillong Municipal Board employees, 'there appears to be no reason as to why the benefit of the 5th Meghalaya Pay Commission should not be extended to the employees of the Shillong Municipality ...' 4. It is, thus, that the industrial award of July 21, 1971, which was perceived to have binding effect by the writ court, needs to be seen. The order passed by the Tribunal framed the following questions: '1. (a) Whether the demands of the workmen appearing hereinunder under the caption of Charter of Demands are justified? (b) If not, to what relief are the workmen are entitled?' The charter of demands runs into the first five pages of the order before the rival submissions, including as to the maintainability of the proceedings, are recorded over the next page and a half. (b) If not, to what relief are the workmen are entitled?' The charter of demands runs into the first five pages of the order before the rival submissions, including as to the maintainability of the proceedings, are recorded over the next page and a half. There is no opinion as such which is rendered by the Tribunal as it was unnecessary to do so since the parties reported to the Tribunal that on July 16, 1971, the disputes were settled by way of a memorandum of settlement. The solitary aspect on which there was no agreement pertained to the ad hoc dearness allowance of Rs. 20/- per month. However, the Tribunal held that the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board were entitled to such ad hoc dearness allowance from the date it was given effect to in the case of the employees of the government. 5. On the main aspect of whether the duties of the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board were the same as the duties of the employees of the State government, such issue was not gone into, particularly in the light of the settlement and it was the entirety of the settlement executed between the Board and its employees that was set out as a part of the award. Indeed, even the most fundamental issue as to whether all the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board could be regarded as workmen for the Industrial Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over all such employees, was also not addressed. Thus, the award of July 21, 1971 merely recorded the settlement between the parties while it decided the only aspect that was left for its consideration that since dearness allowance at a particular rate had been extended to government employees, the same benefit should be made available to the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board. The consideration of dearness allowance is quite different from the consideration as to whether groups of persons employed under different employers discharging similar or comparable duties are entitled to the same scale of pay or the same level of benefits. Dearness allowance, ordinarily, should be uniform for everyone since the consideration that goes into assessing the rate of dearness allowance is, in simple terms, how the cost of living has become more expensive at the time that the dearness allowance is being given than when the pay scale had been originally fixed. 6. Dearness allowance, ordinarily, should be uniform for everyone since the consideration that goes into assessing the rate of dearness allowance is, in simple terms, how the cost of living has become more expensive at the time that the dearness allowance is being given than when the pay scale had been originally fixed. 6. What is important is that in course of the award of July 21, 1971, the Industrial Tribunal had no occasion to go into the parity or otherwise of the duties discharged by the employees of the State government and the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board. The fact that the Tribunal agreed to extend the same dearness allowance to the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board as had been afforded to the State government employees, is of no relevance in the present context. 7. Implicit in the prayer made in the writ petition is an assertion that the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board discharge the same duties and functions as the State government employees, and, as such, upon the scales of pay of the State government employees having increased pursuant to the latest pay commission, the same increase should be effected in the pay scales of the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board. 8. Such aspect of the matter does not appear to have come up for discussion in course of the writ petition being allowed and the prayer being acceded to. 9. The second aspect that weighed with the writ court was that the revised pay scales under the Third Meghalaya Pay Commission (ROP) Rules, 1997, were extended to the Municipal Boards in the State, including the Shillong Municipal Board, with effect from January 1, 1996. Upon noticing such fact, the writ court held that 'if this has been the case, then without any plausible explanation, there appears to be no reason as to why the benefit of the 5th Meghalaya Pay Commission should not be extended to the employees of the Shillong Municipality ...' 10. Upon noticing such fact, the writ court held that 'if this has been the case, then without any plausible explanation, there appears to be no reason as to why the benefit of the 5th Meghalaya Pay Commission should not be extended to the employees of the Shillong Municipality ...' 10. The considerations that weighed with the writ court, both as to the finality of the industrial award of 1971 and the extension of the benefits under the Third Pay Commission to employees of the Shillong Municipal Board, would have been appropriate, if, in course of the award of 1971 or the extension of the Third Pay Commission benefits in 1996, it was held or observed or conceded that the duties and functions of the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board were the same as the duties and functions of the State government employees in similar or comparable posts. 11. There is no doubt that the pay scales at various levels need to be periodically revised. That is not in issue. What is in issue is whether and to what extent would the revision of pay of the State government employees impact the revision of the pay of the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board. If it is found, as a matter of fact, that the duties and functions of the two classes of employees are the same, the revision effected in the pay of the State government employees would fasten to the pay of the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board. But in neither case, whether upon the award being passed in 1971 or the Third Pay Commission benefits being extended to the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board in 1996, did the State government accept or concede that the duties and functions of the employees of the State government and the Municipality Board were identical. 12. It is one thing to agree to extend certain benefits upon a settlement being recorded and without indicating any reasons for such settlement; and quite another to extend the same benefits on a parity of the duties performed. What would not follow from such agreement is that the mere acceptance of the demand implies that the duties and functions discharged by two sets of employees may be the same. What would not follow from such agreement is that the mere acceptance of the demand implies that the duties and functions discharged by two sets of employees may be the same. Indeed, it may be discovered as a matter of fact that the duties and functions discharged by the members of the Municipality Board are more. 13. A judgment reported at (2002) 10 SCC 319 (State of Maharashtra v. R.N. Gangwani) was noticed by the writ court in course of the impugned judgment. Such judgment was rendered in the context of a notification issued in Maharashtra in 1984 under the Municipality Act in that State providing that the pay scales of the municipal employees should not exceed the pay scales prescribed by the Maharashtra Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1978. What fell for consideration before the Supreme Court was whether such notification implied that the fixation and revision of the pay scales of the municipal employees should be the same as that of the civil service employees in the State. In such context, the Supreme Court held that the benefit of any pay scale or similar revision would be available only if the Municipal employees discharged the same duties in respect of the posts of the corresponding government employees. The court went on to observe that a parity could be granted, but only upon determination of the relevant facts and not ipso facto by reason of the wording of the notification. It is the same principle which will apply in the present case. 14. The mere fact that the State government had settled with the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board in 1971 to accede to the same revision as applied to government employees in the State and the further fact that in 1996, the benefits under the Third Pay Commission were unilaterally extended by the State to, inter alia, the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board would not amount to any acceptance by the State government that the duties and functions discharged by the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board were or are the same as those discharged by the State government employees. 15. Even now, it is open to the State to extend the benefits of the Fifth Pay Commission to various classes of employees in employment under other authorities. 15. Even now, it is open to the State to extend the benefits of the Fifth Pay Commission to various classes of employees in employment under other authorities. Administrative exigencies may prompt such a decision, but unless the decision to extend the same benefits is expressly founded on the ground that the duties and functions discharged by the other set of employees are the same as those discharged by the State government employees, the other set of employees cannot demand the corresponding rise in future. 16. A ground has been urged on behalf of the first respondent association that the entire difficulty arises since no election has been held in the Shillong Municipal Board - or , indeed, in any other municipal body in the State - despite the introduction of Part IXA to the Constitution with effect from the year 1993. It is submitted on behalf of the State that in view of the anomalous situation in the State as to whether the municipal boards in urban areas exercising a decree of superintendence over the land owned by the District Councils would be subject to the same rules, in view of Article 243ZC of the Constitution read with the Sixth Schedule thereto, the matter is still pending consideration and a clarificatory bill is under consideration of the Parliament. 17. As to whether elections have been held to the municipal bodies in the State or to the Shillong Municipal Board in this case, is quite irrelevant for the present purpose. Even if it is assumed that it is the State government which calls the shots at the Shillong Municipal Board, it does not follow that the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board are entitled to the same pay scales as regular State government employees. The distinction, as always, will be based on the duties and functions discharged by a set of employees and unless it can be said, upon a fact-finding exercise being undertaken, that the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board have the same work as the employees of the State government, the simultaneous or automatic extension of the benefits conferred on the State government employees cannot be claimed by the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board. 18. Accordingly, the judgment and order impugned, insofar as it extends all benefits under the Fifth Meghalaya Pay Commission to employees of the Shillong Municipal Board stand set aside. 18. Accordingly, the judgment and order impugned, insofar as it extends all benefits under the Fifth Meghalaya Pay Commission to employees of the Shillong Municipal Board stand set aside. However, since the State government is the ultimate employer, the State is directed to set up an appropriate body within three months from date to look into the revision of pay scales and benefits of the employees of the Shillong Municipal Board - whether as a part of all the municipal bodies or independently - so that such commission or expert body renders an appropriate report within six months from the date of the constitution thereof. It is also made clear that the appropriate date for implementation of the revision will be decided upon by the State in accordance with law and it does not follow from this order that such date may be prospective and not retrospective. 19. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 20. WA No.12 of 2021 along with MC (WA) No. 60 of 2021 are disposed of. 21. There will, however, be no order as to costs.