JUDGMENT : (MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.) 1. Heard Mr. A. R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Vanneihsiami, the learned Government Counsel representing the State respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed by 18 numbers of the petitioners under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or any other appropriate directions or orders. 3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the minutes of meeting held under the chairmanship of the State Respondent No. 4 on 25.05.2022, whereby the claim of the petitioners for grant of 3-Tier Grade Pay, similar to that of Headmasters of Middle School and High School was rejected. 4. All the petitioners are working as the Principals of various Government Higher Secondary Schools promoted on different dates in the Higher Secondary Schools as shown in the Table herein below: Sl.No Name Present School Date of Promotion as Principal 1. Zolianlunga Govt. Republic HSS 21.09.2010 2. Lalnunzira Miller Govt. KM HSS 26.09.2013 3. K Pazawna Govt. Central HSS 06.06.2014 4. C Lalthangpuii Govt. Mizo HSS 06.06.2014 5. Grace Lalchhawntluangi Govt. JL HSS Aizawl 17.07.2015 6. Lalrinpuii Chhangte Govt. Zemabawk HSS 12.01.2021 7. Lalrinkima Mizoram Institute of Comprehensive Education 12.01.2021 8. Ramsangliani Hrangchal Govt. Mamawii HSS 08.09.2021 9. Lalrosangi Ralte Govt. Chaltlang HSS 08.09.2021 10. C.Lalhliapa Govt. HSS Lunglei 20.01.2022 11. C.Lalmuanpuii Govt. GM HSS Champhai 24.06.2022 12. Vanhmingliani Tochhawng Govt. Saitual HSS 24.06.2022 13. R Lalmuanpuii Govt. Mamit HSS 24.06.2022 14. Dr. Elizabeth Lalhmangaihzuali Govt. Hnahthial HSS 24.06.2022 15. Lalramengi Ralte Govt. Leitlangpui HSS 24.06.2022 16. Lalbiakkunga Joute Govt. Kawrthah HSS 24.08.2022 17. VL Felfamkima Govt. Region HSS Lawngtlai 24.08.2022 18. PC Thanhranga Govt. HSS Serchhip 24.08.2022 5. The claim of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 4 on 14.12.2015 had issued a notification bearing Memo No. G.11013/2011-FIN (PRU) dated 25.01.2016, whereby the 3-Tier Grade Pay was introduced in respect of the Headmasters of High School and Middle School under the School Education Department. The three different grades were Entry Grade, Senior Grade and Selection Grade. 6. The claim of the petitioners is that the respondent No. 4 on 14.12.2015 had issued a notification bearing Memo No. G.11013/2011-FIN (PRU) dated 25.01.2016, whereby the 3-Tier Grade Pay was introduced in respect of the Headmasters of High School and Middle School under the School Education Department. The three different grades were Entry Grade, Senior Grade and Selection Grade. 6. Thereafter, on 03.09.2018, the Government Higher Secondary Schools Principal Committee had submitted a representation to the respondent No. 4 requesting grant of 3-Tier Grade Pay in respect of the Principals, Government Higher Secondary Schools similar to that granted to Headmasters of Middle Schools and High Schools on the ground that the duties and responsibilities of the Principals of the Government Higher Secondary Schools and that of Headmasters of Middle Schools and High Schools are similar. 7. As no response was received from the respondents in respect of the aforesaid representation, the Government Higher Secondary Schools Principal Council again submitted a representation on 06.05.2022 reiterating the demand which was made in the earlier representation dated 03.09.2018. 8. However, in the meeting held on 25.05.2022, the respondent No. 4 dismissed the representation dated 06.05.2022 filed by the Government Higher Secondary Schools Principal Council on the ground that the Middle School Headmasters were granted 3-Tier Grade Pay system to remove some administrative anomalies like the entry scale salary of a Middle School Headmaster was lower than Selection Grade Teacher which caused some administrative inconvenience. Such anomalies are not there in the case of Higher Secondary School lecturer vis-à-vis Higher Secondary School principals. 9. Mr. A. R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are seeking 3-Tier Grade Pay mainly on the ground of uniformity in the pay structure to the members of the teaching community. He submits that for all other members of the teaching community, except the principals of higher secondary schools, there is now a 3-Tier Grade Pay system. Whereas, the salary of a Principal of a Higher Secondary School remains at the same grade pay from the date of joining of the incumbent till his retirement without any scope of further promotion or other financial benefits. 10. Whereas, the salary of a Principal of a Higher Secondary School remains at the same grade pay from the date of joining of the incumbent till his retirement without any scope of further promotion or other financial benefits. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have obtained the copy of the Memorandum for consideration of the Council of Ministers in its meeting which was held on 14.12.2015 at 2.30 pm which indicates that the proposal for 3-Tier Pay Scale to the Headmasters of the Middle Schools as well as the Headmasters of the High Schools were submitted to maintain uniformity in the pay structure and also to be a part of incentive to the head masters. However, he submits that in the case of Principals of Higher Secondary School, no such scope is there to provide any incentive. 11. He also submits that though the Principals of Higher Secondary School are also functioning in a manner similar to that of their counter-part in the Middle School and Higher School, however, they have been unjustly treated by the Government by not providing any incentive in their entire service tenure as the Principal of Higher Secondary Schools. 12. He also submits that by treating the petitioners differently from the Head Masters of Middle School and High School in not providing a 3-Tier system of Grade Pay, they were deprived of equal treatment and also incentive which were given to other members of the teaching community. He, therefore, submits that the fundamental rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India has been violated in this case. 13. He, however, fairly submits that, though the matters of pay fixation and granting of incentives to the employees on the basis of duties and responsibilities performed by them is purely an executive function, however, Courts may interfere when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational or unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government, while taking a decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for taking decision in such matters. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "State of Haryana and Another vs. Haryana Personnel Association" reported in (2002) 6 SCC 72 . 14. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of "State of Haryana and Another vs. Haryana Personnel Association" reported in (2002) 6 SCC 72 . 14. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, therefore, prayed for setting aside the minutes of the meeting held on 25.05.2022 by the respondent No. 4, whereby the prayer of the petitioners for grant of 3-Tier Grade Pay to them was rejected. 15. On the other hand, Ms. Vanneihsiami, the learned Government Counsel representing the State respondent has submitted that the case of the petitioners is different from that of the Principals of High School and Middle School. 16. She submits the restructuring of the grade pay given to the Headmasters of Middle School and High School was required due to some administrative anomalies which was noticed in their existing pay structure by the authorities. However, she submits that the Principal of Higher Secondary School gets a higher entry level pay i.e. @ Rs. 7,100/- (Level 11-A), which is much higher than the Middle School Headmasters and High School Headmasters. Hence, she submits that the petitioners do not fall in the same class as that of the Headmasters of Middle Schools and High Schools. 17. Ms. Vanneihsiami, the learned Government Counsel also submits that for fixation of salary and giving incentive to the employees is in the sphere of policy decision by the Government and Court should refrain from interfering in such policy decision matters as it might have a cascading effect and serious financial implications. 18. In support of her submission, she has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in “ The State Of Maharashtra Vs. Bhagwan ” reported in (2022) 4 SCC 193 , wherein it has been observed as follows: “28. As per the settled proposition of law, the Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications. Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences.” 19. The learned Government Counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the power of judicial review over administrative decisions of State is limited and may be exercised only under certain circumstances. 20. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences.” 19. The learned Government Counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the power of judicial review over administrative decisions of State is limited and may be exercised only under certain circumstances. 20. She has submitted that in the instant case, the respondent No. 4 has correctly rejected the representation filed by the petitioners clearly stating that the case of the petitioners is different from that of Headmasters of Middle Schools and High Schools and therefore, they cannot seek parity with them. 21. She submits that the said decision does not leave any room for judicial review as there was no illegality in the impugned decision of the respondent No. 4. In support of her submissions, the learned Government Counsel has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of “ Punjab State Co-Op Milk Prod.Fed.Ltd vs Balbir Kumar Walia” reported in ( 2021) 8 SCC 784 wherein it has been observed as follows: “43. The power of judicial review over the administrative decisions of the State was examined by a judgment of this Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India [Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651 ]. Though, that is a case of grant of contract, but the principles of law are very well applicable to the exercise of power of judicial review by the High Court in the administrative decisions of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Court held as under : (SCC pp. 677-78 & 687-88, paras 77 & 94) “77. The duty of the court is to confine itself to the question of legality. Its concern should be: 1. whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers, 2. committed an error of law, 3. committed a breach of the rules of natural justice, 4. reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds in course of time. As a matter of fact, in R. v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt., ex p Brind [R. v. Secy. of State for the Home Deptt., ex p Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696 : (1991) 2 WLR 588 (HL)] , Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the court should, „consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention?. *** 94. The principles deducible from the above are: (1) The modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Based on these principles we will examine the facts of this case since they commend to us as the correct principles.” 22. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for both sides in support of their submissions. 23. It appears that the basis of seeking 3-Tier Grade Pay by the petitioners in the representation filed by them before the Respondent Authorities is that all other members of teaching community are given 3-Tier Grade Pay except the Principals of the Higher Secondary Schools. It also appears that Headmasters of Middle Schools and High Schools were granted 3-Tier Grade Pay by the Government to maintain uniformity in the pay structure and as a part of incentive to the Principals of Middle School and High Schools. Whereas, the Principals of the Higher Secondary Schools were not given any incentive during their entire service career as the Principals of the Higher Secondary Schools. 24. It also appears that while rejecting the representation filed by the petitioners by the impugned minutes of the meeting held on 25.05.2022, it was informed to them that their case is different from the case of Headmasters of Middle Schools and High Schools as their 3-Tier Grade Pay was granted to them for administrative convenience to do away with some administrative anomalies in the existing pay structure of Middle Schools and High Schools Principals. 25. 25. However, if we peruse the Cabinet Memorandum for consideration of Council of Ministers in its meeting which was held on 14.12.2015 at 2.30 pm, prepared by the Finance Department (PRU), a different reasoning was given for proposing the grant of 3-Tier Grade Pay to the Middle School and High School Headmasters, i.e., to maintain uniformity in the pay structure and also to be part of incentive to Headmasters. 26. Thus, it appears that while rejecting the representation of the petitioners for grant of 3-Tier Grade Pay, the respondent No.4 failed to consider the facts that no incentive has been provided to the Principals of Higher Secondary School after their initial appointment, whereas, incentive of 3-Tier Grade Pay is there for Headmasters of Middle Schools and High Schools which appears to be irrational. 27. This Court is conscious about the limitations of judicial review in the policy matters, more so, in the matters concerning the fixation of pay and the determination of parity in duties and responsibilities of the employees which should be left to the exclusive domain of executive. However, in this case, it appears that the denial of any incentive to the Principals of the Higher Secondary Schools during their entire service tenure, when such incentives are given to the other members of the teaching community, prima facie, appears to be a disadvantageous differential treatment to the petitioners vis- à-vis the other members of teaching community without any reasonable justification for the same. 28. As to what kind of incentive is to be given to the Principals of the Higher Secondary Schools is a decision which is in the exclusive domain of the Government. However, in view of the fact that the Government has consciously granted such incentive to the other members of the teaching community, it is required to take a decision regarding grant of some incentive in respect of the petitioners also on the basis of same principles, which it had applied for giving incentive to the other members of the teaching community. 29. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, mainly to the respondent No.4, to reconsider the representation dated 06.05.2022 filed by the petitioners and take a decision, after considering all the relevant factors as to whether the Principals of Higher Secondary Schools are entitled to get any incentive in their pay structures. 29. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, mainly to the respondent No.4, to reconsider the representation dated 06.05.2022 filed by the petitioners and take a decision, after considering all the relevant factors as to whether the Principals of Higher Secondary Schools are entitled to get any incentive in their pay structures. More so, in the light of the fact that incentive in the pay structure have already been granted to the other members of teaching community. 30. The respondent authorities shall complete this exercise within a period of four months from the date of this order. 31. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.