ORDER : By way of instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for following substantive reliefs:­ “(i) That the impugned cutoff date of 19.07.2013 fixed for Executive Engineer for the admissibility of pay band of Rs.37,400­67000+ 8600 GP on completing 14 years of regular service including service as Assistant Engineer vide Annexure A­4 dated 19.07.2013, may be declared to be unconstitutional and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That for the purpose of pay band of Rs.37,400­67000 + 8600 GP for Executive Engineers on completing 14 years of regular service including service as Assistant Engineer, the date of admissibility may be read down and treated at par with Assistant Engineers i.e., 27.8.2009 on notional basis and 9.8.2012 on actual basis, as prescribed in letter dated 26.8.2013, Annexure A­5 read with corrigendum dated 18.9.2013, A­6, with all consequential benefits. (iii) That the applicants may be held entitled to pay fixation at the initial pay of Rs.46,000/­ in the pay band of Rs.37,400­67000 + 8600 GP on completing 14 years of regular service including service as Assistant Engineer, with effect from 1.1.2011 on notional basis and 9.8.2012 on actual basis with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and interest at market rate on delayed payments.” 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of petition are that petitioners along with 9 others were directly recruited as Assistant Engineer in October, 1996. The State Government vide notification dated 01.09.1998 amended H.P. Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1998 (for short “1998 Rules”) and thereby allowed Assistant Engineers in HPPWD and IPH department four tier pay scales i.e. higher pay scales on completion of 4, 9 and 14 years of service as Assistant Engineers. The Executive Engineers in both the aforesaid departments were also granted the benefit of two tier pay scales i.e. entry scale 12000­15500 and scale of Rs.14,300­18150 after completing 14 years of regular service including service as Assistant Engineer. 3. The State Government revised pay scales of its employees vide notification dated 26.08.2009 and the revision was made applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006. Vide notification dated 31.08.2009, the benefit of ACPs, three/two tier pay structure, applicable under the pre-revised pay scales, was put in abeyance w.e.f. 26.08.2009 till further orders on the ground that no such scheme had been formulated/notified under the revised pay structure. 4. Vide notification dated 31.08.2009, the benefit of ACPs, three/two tier pay structure, applicable under the pre-revised pay scales, was put in abeyance w.e.f. 26.08.2009 till further orders on the ground that no such scheme had been formulated/notified under the revised pay structure. 4. Petitioners were promoted as Executive Engineers on different dates before completion of 14 years of service as Assistant Engineer. Rest of 9 Assistant Engineers recruited in the same process were promoted on different dates after completion of 14 years of service as Assistant Engineers. 5. Vide notification dated 19.07.2013, the State Government decided to re­introduce two tier pay structure in the case of Executive Engineers in HPPWD and IPH department which had been held in abeyance after 26.08.2009 as per letter dated 31.08.2009. Accordingly, the benefit was restored, but from prospective date i.e. 19.07.2013. As a result, petitioners became entitled to Rs.31,320/­ as initial pay in the pay band of Rs.15,600­39100+7600 GP. On completion of 14 years of regular service including service as Assistant Engineer, they were held entitled to pay band of Rs.37,400­67000 + 8600 Grade Pay with initial pay of Rs.46000/­. 6. On 26.08.2013, the State Government restored the benefit of granting four tier pay scales to the Assistant Engineers w.e.f. 27.08.2009 on notional basis and from 26.08.2013 on actual basis. Letter/corrigendum was issued on 18.09.2013 and the actual benefit to the beneficiaries of notification dated 26.08.2013 was made applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 09.08.2012. 7. Resultantly, petitioners were allowed initial pay of Rs.46,000/­ w.e.f. 19.07.2013, whereas other 9 Assistant Engineers, who were recruited along with the petitioners in the same selection process and were promoted after completion of 14 years service as Assistant Engineer, were allowed initial pay of Rs.46,000/­ w.e.f. 01.01.2011. On their promotion as Executive Engineer after completion of 14 years of service, the said 9 persons were given consequential benefits of pay fixation also. 8. Thus, the precise grievance of petitioners is that the above noticed fact situation has created anomaly in pay scale of category of Executive Engineers as against the Assistant Engineers. The Assistant Engineers, junior to the petitioners were granted benefit of higher pay scales earlier in time than the petitioners, which according to petitioners amount to hostile discrimination. The impugned action of the respondents has thus been challenged to be unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational, capricious and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Assistant Engineers, junior to the petitioners were granted benefit of higher pay scales earlier in time than the petitioners, which according to petitioners amount to hostile discrimination. The impugned action of the respondents has thus been challenged to be unreasonable, arbitrary, irrational, capricious and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. Respondents have contested the claim of petitioners on the ground that the State Government has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate or issue the executive instructions on State Public Services as per Entry 41 of State list of Schedule ­7 of the Constitution of India. The H.P. Civil Services Pay Rules are framed and notified by the State Government in exercise of its power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. On the strength of said empowerment, the respondents have sought to defend their action as being intra vires of Constitution. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that the cut off for releasing of any financial benefits to its employees is the prerogative of the State Government. It can specify the revision of pay scales or other benefits to be applicable from the dates prospectively or retrospectively. As per respondents, the State Government restored the pay scale structure prospectively with clarification that the benefit thereof will be measure personal to the employee and shall have not relevance to his seniority and would also not be admissible for stepping up of the pay. The claim of the petitioner has also been stated to be time barred. Non-impleadment of Assistant Engineers, who were benefited by the action of respondents was also taken as defence. 10. I have heard Mr. Dilip Sharma, Senior Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents and have also gone through the record carefully. 11. There is not much dispute as far as factual aspect of the matter is concerned. The question is whether the petitioners have been put to disadvantageous position by the administrative action of respondents? 12. Petitioners along with 9 others were recruited as Assistant Engineers by the State Government by same selection process. Petitioners being seniors were promoted as Executive Engineers prior to the other 9 incumbents. The question is whether the petitioners have been put to disadvantageous position by the administrative action of respondents? 12. Petitioners along with 9 others were recruited as Assistant Engineers by the State Government by same selection process. Petitioners being seniors were promoted as Executive Engineers prior to the other 9 incumbents. Petitioners, who were promoted as Executive Engineers from the cadre of Assistant Engineers were being paid less than their juniors only because they got a chance to be promoted by putting lesser years of service in the cadre of Assistant Engineers. They cannot be blamed for such situation. It was not in the hands of petitioners to get the promotion at their will. The promotions to the posts of Executive Engineers were regulated by relevant service Rules, therefore, their promotions obviously were dependent upon the availability of vacancies on the higher posts of Executive Engineers. 13. The State Government had kept in abeyance the benefits of ACPs, 3/2 tier pay structure vide letter dated 31.08.2009, according to which abeyance was to have effect from 26.08.2009. Meaning thereby, the benefits under the aforesaid schemes available to the petitioners as well as 9 others recruited Assistant Engineer by the same selection process were affected similarly by the same stroke. The benefits were only kept in abeyance and were not withdrawn. The reason for such administrative action was non formulation/notification of such beneficial scheme under the revised pay structure having come into effect from 0.1.01.2006. 14. The State Government, however, restored the benefits of ACPs, 3/2 tier pay structure from different dates for different categories. The petitioners had been promoted as Executive Engineers by then before rendering 14 years service as Assistant Engineers. For them, the date of restoration was prescribed as 26.08.2013, whereas, other 9 Assistant Engineers, who had not been able to get promotion as Executive Engineers before rendering 14 years of services as Assistant Engineers, were allowed benefit of restoration of scheme from retrospective date. Consequently, the other 9 persons, who were juniors to the petitioners got higher pay scale earlier in time as compared to the petitioners and as a result they got additional benefit when they got promoted as Executive Engineers. Undeniably, the anomalous situation as arisen where the juniors are paid higher pay than the seniors. 15. Consequently, the other 9 persons, who were juniors to the petitioners got higher pay scale earlier in time as compared to the petitioners and as a result they got additional benefit when they got promoted as Executive Engineers. Undeniably, the anomalous situation as arisen where the juniors are paid higher pay than the seniors. 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others, reported in (2009) 3 SCC 94, has observed that it is well settled principle of law that senior cannot be paid lesser salary than his junior and, in such circumstances, even if, there was difference in incremental benefits in the scale given to government servant, such anomaly should not have been allowed to continue and ought to have been rectified by fixing the pay in parity with the junior officers. 16. The respondents have not been able to justify their action. Merely, because the respondent is empowered under the Constitution to frame service Rules does not mean that the State Government can ignore the principle of equality. It is more than settled that the power of State to frame service Rules is circumscribed by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State Government cannot discriminate without showing the rationale of its administrative. In the facts of instant case, there is nothing to suggest as to what objective is sought to be achieved by discriminating the petitioner, vis­a­vis the other 9 incumbents selected in the same process and who admittedly are juniors to the petitioners. 17. As regards objection as to non­joinder of necessary parties, it is held to be misconceived. The petitioners have not prayed for any benefit over and above the benefits granted to 9 other incumbents recruited as Assistant Engineers in the same selection process, rather they have sought parity with such persons on the basis of rights vested in them. The outcome of the instant petition will not affect the rights of those 9 other persons adversely. 18. The respondents have also taken exception to the claim of petitioners being time barred. It is alleged that cause of action accrued to the petitioners on 26.8.2009 and as such the petition was beyond limitation. The instant petition is presently considered in exercise of powers under Article 226 and the claim therein can be defeated by delay and laches. 18. The respondents have also taken exception to the claim of petitioners being time barred. It is alleged that cause of action accrued to the petitioners on 26.8.2009 and as such the petition was beyond limitation. The instant petition is presently considered in exercise of powers under Article 226 and the claim therein can be defeated by delay and laches. The case of petitioners is that they were affected by the discriminatory administrative action of the respondents dated 18.9.2013 whereby the 9 other Assistant Engineers were allowed the benefits retrospectively and also the order dated 26.8.2013 whereby the petitioners were allowed the benefit of restoration of ACPs, 2/3 tier pay scale prospectively. Petitioners were also affected by the consequent pay fixation order issued on 23.8.2014. The petition was preferred by petitioners in January 2016 without much undue delay before erstwhile State Administrative Tribunal and therefore cannot be sad to be barred by delay and laches. 19. Resultantly, the petition deserves to be allowed. The cutoff date i.e. 19.07.2013 fixed for Executive Engineers for the admissibility of pay band of Rs. 37400­ 67000 + 86000 GP is declared to be discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Petitioners are held entitled to fixation at the initial pay of Rs.46,000/­ in the pay band of Rs. 37400­67000 + 8600 GP on completion of 14 years of regular service as Assistant Engineers w.e.f. 01.01.2011 on notional basis and on 09.08.2012 on actual basis with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary. The respondents are directed to do the needful including all payments of arrears, if any, to the petitions within two months from the day of passing of this judgment. The petition is accordingly disposed of, so also, the pending applications, if any.