JUDGMENT : VIVEK SINGH THAKUR, J. 1. Petitioners have approached this Court against rejection of their request to grant pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 1994, assailing decision dated 19.2.2011 of Service Committee of H.P. Tourism Development Corporation and seeking directions to respondents to grant the petitioners re-revised pay, scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 1994 with all consequential benefits including arrears of salary and interest on delayed payments. 2. Petitioners, serving in respondent No. 1 H.P. Tourism Development Corporation Limited (respondent Corporation), were promoted as Traffic Supervisors [subsequently re-designated as Manager (Transport)] on 30.9.1983 in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200/-. Feeder category to the post of Traffic Supervisors was Traffic Assistant [subsequently re-designated as Assistant Manager (Transport)] with pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 prior to 1.1.1986. 3. Prior to 1.1.1986 pay scale of posts Deputy TDO (subsequently designated as Assistant Manager), Accountant [subsequently designated as Senior Assistant (Account)], Assistant (subsequently designated as Senior Assistant) was also 570-1080/- i.e. equal to that of Traffic Assistants. 4. Pay scales of all aforesaid posts, including Traffic Assistant and Traffic Supervisors, were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Deputy TDO, Accountant, Assistant and Senior Assistant, on revision of pay scale from 1.1.1986, were granted pay scale at the rate of Rs. 1500-2640/- whereas Traffic Supervisor was granted pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925/-. 5. Later on, pay scale of Deputy TDO, Accountant, Assistant and Senior Assistant were re-revised to Rs. 1800-3200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986. 6. Pay scales of Traffic Assistant and Traffic Supervisor were also re-revised from Rs. 1500-2640/- to 1800-3200/- and Rs. 1640-2925 to 2000-3500/- but w.e.f. 1.1.1994 instead of 1.1.1986 and this re-revision was communicated by Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Tourism) to the Government of HP to the Managing Director of respondent Corporation vide communication dated 19th July, 1994 (Annexure P-1). 7. As revision of pay scale of Traffic Supervisor created an anomaly because the posts having pay scale of Rs. 570-2080/- on 1.1.1986 were assigned pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 but Traffic Assistants, working on equal pay scale like Deputy TDO, Accountant and Assistant i.e. Rs. 570-1080/- were discriminated because Deputy TDO, Accountant and Assistant were granted re-revised pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- from 1.1.1986 whereas Traffic Assistant were granted re-revised pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1994 instead of 1.1.1986. Traffic Supervisors having higher pay scale of Rs. 570-1080/- were discriminated because Deputy TDO, Accountant and Assistant were granted re-revised pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- from 1.1.1986 whereas Traffic Assistant were granted re-revised pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1994 instead of 1.1.1986. Traffic Supervisors having higher pay scale of Rs. 700-1200/- on 1.1.1986 than to these posts were granted pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925/- from 1.1.1986 to 1.1.1994 and thereafter, they were granted re-revised higher pay scale Rs. 2000-3500/-. 8. Petitioners' representation, for rectifying the aforesaid anomaly and to grant them re-revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986, was rejected by respondents and communicated vide communication dated 22nd May, 1995 (Annexure P-2) assigning the reason that Government had expressed inability to grant re-revised pay scale retrospectively from 1.1.1986. 9. Petitioner No. 1 represented against the decision communicated vide communication dated 22.5.1995 by submitting a representation dated 31.8.1995. In furtherance thereto, on 27.9.1995, Managing Director of respondent Corporation requested the respondent/State through Finance Commissioner-cum-Secretary (Tourism) to the Government of HP to reconsider the matter and to grant re-revised pay scale to various categories of posts from 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1994. 10. On 3.12.1996, respondent Corporation submitted a memorandum for removing anomalies in pay scales of employees of the Corporation for consideration and approval, which is placed before the Service Committee with the following positions: S. No. Name/Category of Post Pre-revised pay scale (prior to 1986) Revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 Scale re-revised on 1.1.1994 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 1.1.1994 1. Dy. TDO (Designated as Assistant Manager) 570-1080 1500-2640 1800-3200 2. Accountant [Designated as Sr. Assistant (Account)] 570-1080 1500-2640 1800-3200 3. Assistant (designated as Sr. Assistant) 570-1080 1500-2640 1800-3200 4. Traffic Assistant [designated as Assistant Manager (TPT)] 570-1080 1500-2640 1500-2640 1800-3200 5. Traffic Supervisor [designated as Manager (TPT)] 700-1200 1640-2925 1640-2925 2000-3500 11. Matter remained pending consideration with respondents. In the meanwhile, petitioners amongst others filed OA No. 2570 of 1999 for redressal of their grievances, which, on abolition of H.P. State Administrative Tribunal was transferred to this Court and was re-registered as CWP-T No. 6053 of 2008 and was disposed of on 28.5.2010 directing the Service Committee to consider the case of petitioners and to take a final decision within 10 weeks. 12. 12. On filing an application under Right to Information Act on 8.3.2011, respondent Corporation supplied the information on 1.4.2011 by providing copy of memorandum submitted for consideration of Service Committee (Annexure P-11) and decision of Service Committee rejecting the claim of petitioners in its meeting held on 19.2.2011 (Annexure P-12). 13. Thereafter, petitioners preferred present petition on 20th April, 2011 in this Court as CWP No. 2863 of 2011. On re-creation of Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, it was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as TA No. 6168 of 2015. Thereafter, on abolition of the Tribunal again, it has been transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWPOA No. 4690 of 2019. 14. To substantiate the claim of petitioners, it has also been submitted on their behalf that posts having pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- prior to 1.1.1996, on revision of pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1996 were granted revised pay scale of Rs. 5800-9200/- and, as such, all posts including Traffic Supervisors (Manager Transport) having pay scale of Rs. 570-1080/- prior to 1.1.1986 were allowed the same revised pay scale of Rs. 5800-9200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996. Except the category of Traffic Assistant, all other posts having the same pay scale were assigned pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1995 and Rs. 5800-9200/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996, whereas Traffic Assistants were allowed pay scale of Rs. 570-1080/- before 1.1.1986 and Rs. 1500-2640/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1993 and Rs. 1800-3200/- from 1.1.1994 to 1.1.1996 and after 1.1.1996 like others pay scale of Rs. 5800-9200/-. Further that category of Traffic Supervisor was also treated similarly like Traffic Assistant, by providing pay scale of Rs. 700-1200/- prior to 1.1.1986 and Rs. 1640- 2925/- from 1.1.1986 to 31.12.1993 and Rs. 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1994 to 31.12.1995 and as such, during the span of 1.1.986 to 1.1.1996 they were also discriminated like Traffic Assistants by granting pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- from a later date than 1.1.1986 i.e. 1.1.1994. 15. Claim of petitioners has been contested by respondents on the basis of reply filed by respondent No. 1 as it was communicated on 3.3.2022 that no reply is intended to be filed on behalf of respondent No. 2/State. 16. 2000-3500/- from a later date than 1.1.1986 i.e. 1.1.1994. 15. Claim of petitioners has been contested by respondents on the basis of reply filed by respondent No. 1 as it was communicated on 3.3.2022 that no reply is intended to be filed on behalf of respondent No. 2/State. 16. It has been contended on behalf of respondents that request of Traffic Assistant and Traffic Supervisor along with other categories was taken up with the Finance Department to the Government of HP and case was examined in depth by Finance Department and in view of Finance Department, there was no anomaly in this case and instead it was a demand of upward revision which was allowed to these categories w.e.f. 1.1.1994. Further that matter was placed before the Service Committee of respondent Corporation and decision of Service Committee was communicated to petitioners vide communication dated 21.4.2011. Lastly it has been contended on behalf of respondent Corporation that grant of higher pay scale does not fall within domain of Court as it is for employer to decide the pay scale of particular post and entitlement of an employee therefor at given point of time and matter stands considered and rejected by employer Corporation, after taking into consideration the material placed before it and therefore, it has been contended that present petition deserves to be dismissed. 17. Perusal of record placed before me depicts that respondent Corporation had submitted the matter to Government for consideration with positive observation that there exists an anomaly in granting the pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with request to reconsider the grant of pay scale to Traffic Supervisors and Traffic Assistants, as prayed by them, w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The rejection communicated vide communication dated 22nd May, 1995, (Annexure P-2), does not assign any reason for not granting the re-revised pay scale retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1986 in case of Traffic Supervisor/Traffic Assistant serving in respondent Corporation whereas it is a matter of fact that in furtherance to communications dated 10.8.1990 as well as 31.10.1992 and 10.2.1995, respondent/State had granted an approval for re-revised the pay scale at the rate of Rs. 1800-3200/- to the posts of Deputy TDO, Accountant, Assistant retrospectively from 1.1.1986, whose pay scales were identical to Traffic Assistant on 1.1.1986 and were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 identically to Rs. 1500-2640/- along with Traffic Assistant. 1800-3200/- to the posts of Deputy TDO, Accountant, Assistant retrospectively from 1.1.1986, whose pay scales were identical to Traffic Assistant on 1.1.1986 and were revised w.e.f. 1.1.1986 identically to Rs. 1500-2640/- along with Traffic Assistant. No reason has been assigned to grant re-revised pay scale to certain categories with retrospective effect and to restrict the same in case of Traffic Assistant and Traffic Supervisor w.e.f. 1.1.1994. No rational reasoning or justification has been disclosed in this communication or in reply and, therefore, this communication is arbitrary for lacking valid reasons for arriving at decision taken. 18. Similarly, minutes of meeting dated 19.2.2011 rejecting the case of petitioners by stating that all posts are promotional and, therefore, upward revision was allowed by Finance Department w.e.f. 1.1.1994 and, therefore, it was recommended by Service Committee to reject the request of petitioners for grant of higher pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1994. With respect to Traffic Assistant and Traffic Supervisor, no other reason except stating that pay scales were granted to these posts by considering Promotional Rules with respect to the said category prevailing in HPTDC along with pay scales so that upward promotional channel would not get disrupted in the pay scale, resulting into creation of administrative problem. This reason does also not appear to be justifiable for the reason that in case of similar situation in case of Deputy TDO and TDO which posts were also promotional, re-revised pay scale was given from retrospective effect w.e.f. 1.1.1986 but in identical situation it was denied in case of Traffic Assistant and Traffic Supervisor. Therefore, conclusion arrived at by Service Committee in its meeting dated 19.2.2011 with respect to claim of petitioners is also arbitrary, irrational, unreasonable and unjustifiable. 19. There is no nexus between grant of pay scale to certain categories from 1.1.1986 but to similarly situated persons having the same pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1994. No reason has been assigned for picking up certain categories for granting re-revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and to deny the same to Traffic Assistant and Traffic Supervisor. State as well as its instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily to grant pay scale to certain categories in ‘pick and choose manner’ and to deprive other similarly situated employees for no reason. Arbitrariness is an anti-thesis of doctrine of equality envisaged under Article 14 of Constitution of India. State as well as its instrumentalities cannot act arbitrarily to grant pay scale to certain categories in ‘pick and choose manner’ and to deprive other similarly situated employees for no reason. Arbitrariness is an anti-thesis of doctrine of equality envisaged under Article 14 of Constitution of India. Therefore, a case is made out for judicial review warranting interference in the omission and commission of respondents and, therefore, general principle, that it is prerogative of employer to grant pay scale and to determine the entitlement of an employee for that at a particular given point of time, is of no help to respondent in present case as employer has failed to act rationally, reasonably and in consonance with mandate of the Constitution, and, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case for interference by Court by invoking its power on judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 20. It is also apt to record here that a Traffic Assistant Roop Ram with identical facts had approached the Court and his petition CWP-T No. 7727 of 2008 was allowed by a Single Bench of this High Court vide judgment dated 16.6.2010 directing the respondent Corporation to release pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200/- to him w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1994 along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 21. Respondent Corporation had preferred LPA No. 260 of 2010 against the said judgment which was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30th May, 2017. 22. Therefore, in view of above, petition is allowed, directing the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- to petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1986 instead of 1.1.1994 along with other consequential benefits including the arrears of salary and to pay arrears on or before 30th June, 2023 along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum and in case of non-payment of arrears by 30th June, 2023, the interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum shall be payable.