ORDER 1. The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred assailing non grant or sanction of pay scale to the Industries' Inspectors equal to that of similarly situated persons of other departments of the State of M.P., who had been granted the said benefit w.e.f. year 1981 in the light of Brahamswaroop Samiti's report and further had sought quashment of letter dated 17.2.2006 issued by the State Government, whereby the claim of the petitioner in the garb of said Brahamswaroop Samiti's report was refused. 2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner/Association had preferred the present petition alleging itself to be representing Inspectors of Industries of the State of M.P. and had preferred the present petition on behalf of all the Inspectors of the Industries. The allegations, which are levelled on behalf of petitioner/Association is that their members have been made to suffer a hostile and discriminatory treatment in the matter of fixation and payment of salary to them and this discrimination started in the year 1981 with the Brahamswaroop Samiti's report. Initially pay scales of the Inspectors of the Industries were at par with the Assistant Inspectors of pre Schools, Head Master of Middle Schools and Rangers of Forest Department and this similarity in pay scale continued till the report of Pandey Pay Commission (280-480). In the year 1981, the report of Chaudhary Pay Commission came to be implemented and pay scales of Inspectors of Industries were settled at Rs.740-1180/- and while implementing the Chaudhary Pay Commission the pay scales of the Inspectors of the Industries were fixed at lower side. This resulted in great hostile discriminatory treatment in the matter of payment of salary to the members of the petitioner/Association, though, in fact, the duties of the Inspectors of Industries were of much higher responsibility as against the Head Master of the Education Department and Assistant Inspector of the Schools. This resulted in great hostile discriminatory treatment in the matter of payment of salary to the members of the petitioner/Association, though, in fact, the duties of the Inspectors of Industries were of much higher responsibility as against the Head Master of the Education Department and Assistant Inspector of the Schools. The Inspectors of Industries were required to undergo training and various field activities, have to be attended by them in remote areas of the villages and sometimes, they were required to be sent on deputation either to the Gramin Vikas Adhikaran or to several other Institutions or autonomous bodies by the Government and in those cases, Inspectors of Industries were required to live in the remote rural areas and if some new Industries were to be established in the undeveloped area or in the developed area or under developed area, in those cases also the Inspector of Industries were required to take great pains and sufferings in the course of establishing such units and as such, the work of Inspectors of Industries is of much higher responsibility and looking to such job of Inspectors, their pay scales were required to be fixed on a higher side to the persons of similarly situated posts like Head Masters, Assistant Inspectors of Schools, Ranger in the Forest Department and Statistical Officer and also the Sub-Engineers in other departments. The pay scale of SubEngineers and the Statistical Officer had been revised and fixed at Rs.860-1410 in the year 1981, then 1350-2200 in the year 1987, 1600-2720 in the year 1990. Similarly, the pay scale Statistical Officers, who were drawing much lesser salary than that of the Inspectors of Industries, were fixed at a higher side, whereas their only duties were just of data compilation in the office and they were not required to go out for field work. This clearly demonstrated that the responsibility of members of the petitioner/Association were ignored and they were given lower pay scale and as on date the equivalent cadres are getting a pay scale of 5500-9000 as per the recommendations of Brahamswaroop Samiti from the year 1999 but the Inspectors of Industries are only getting pay scale of Rs.4500-7000, which is a pay anomaly detrimental to the members of petitioner/Association. 3. Since, no steps were taken by respondents to remove the discrimination of pay scale, the petitioner filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal bearing O.A. No.1378/1997. 3. Since, no steps were taken by respondents to remove the discrimination of pay scale, the petitioner filed an application before the State Administrative Tribunal bearing O.A. No.1378/1997. The Tribunal vide order dated 21.1.2000 had disposed of the application in view of the certain averments made by the respondents in their reply that the matter was pending before a Pay Commission appointed by the State Government in the year 1997. Since the aforesaid reply was not as per the record, a review petition by way of MCC No.472/2003 was filed before this Court since the earst-while SAT was abolished by that time and it was prayed that the order dated 21.1.2000 passed in O.A. No.1378/1997 be recalled. The said review petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.3.2004 with a modification in the order dated 21.1.2000 to the extent that the State Government would expedite the finalization of the decision to be taken in accordance with the report of Commission and take a final call in the matter at the earliest. 4. In-spite of the order of this Court, since no steps were taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed a contempt petition, which was registered at No.795/2005. In the said contempt petition, the respondents filed report of the Commission with service conditions, revision of pay scales,1999 etc. and on the basis of the said compliance report the said contempt petition was dismissed observing that the petitioner, if so advised may seek remedy or challenge the said discrimination of the report. 5. Prior to the said order, the matter was scrutinized by the Principal Secretary of the Commerce and Industries Department, State of Madhya Pradesh. Vide letter dated 3.7.2004, it was consented that the Inspectors of the Industries can be given the pay scale akin to the pay scales given to the Forest Rangers and Assistant Accounts Officers (Department of Planning, Economics and Statistics) and the said letter was forwarded to the State. 6. In compliance of the order of this Court in M.C.C. No.472/2003 dated 16.3.2004, the petitioner/Association made a representation before the respondents to seek the remedy. The respondent No.2 agreed with the petitioner's demand and accordingly issued a letter dated 30.7.2005 but the State of M.P. vide order dated 17.2.2006 refused to grant benefit without assigning any reasons. 7. 6. In compliance of the order of this Court in M.C.C. No.472/2003 dated 16.3.2004, the petitioner/Association made a representation before the respondents to seek the remedy. The respondent No.2 agreed with the petitioner's demand and accordingly issued a letter dated 30.7.2005 but the State of M.P. vide order dated 17.2.2006 refused to grant benefit without assigning any reasons. 7. Thus, contending that the action of respondents in relying on the report of Brahamswaroop Samiti is totally illegal, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and alleging that the members of petitioner/Association are entitled to get pay scale from the year 1981 had prayed for quashment of the said order and to consider the case of the members of petitioner/Association in the light of letter dated 30.7.2004 issued by Principal Secretary, Accounts Officers (Department of Planning, Economics and Statistics). ARGUMENTS 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the action of respondent/State is against the settled principle of law that State Governments is required to see that equal pay scales are granted to the similarly situated persons even though they are in different departments and there should not be any discrimination between two similarly situated posts with regard to their pay scales but on some extraneous grounds the committee and even earlier the Brahamswaroop Samiti has overlooked this aspect and pay scale of the members of petitioner/Association are disturbed without any reason and basis. 9. It was further argued that where all the considerations are same between the employees or the persons holding identical posts, there cannot be any discrimination in the matter of their pay scales because, they belong to different departments. As in the present case, the members of petitioner/Association, who were working in the Commerce and Industries Department, have been given a lesser pay than the similarly situated persons of other departments like Forest Rangers and Sub Engineers etc., thus, there is a clear discrimination of the members of petitioner/association and the very act of the respondents/State can be said to be against the principles of equality. 10. 10. It was also argued that the Committee has overlooked the very work of the petitioners and their roll to play, the nature of their duties and functions, which included both office and field work and has held that since they have rather a limited roll to play in promoting the industrialization of the State, their pay scale should be in tune with their job responsibility and, therefore, there seems to be no justification for upgradation of the pay scales of the Inspectors, which is a total perverse and illegal approach. 11. Learned counsel has further argued that the members of the petitioner/Association were compared with the Inspectors in the Police and Excise Departments, which was not the proper consideration, as in the chart appended to the Brahmaswaroop Samiti's report the comparison of the Inspectors of the Industries was made with the Assistant District Education Inspector (Education Department), Principle, Middle School (Education Department), Sub Engineer (Personnel Department/ dkfed foHkkx½ , Principal, Rajkiya Vidhya Peeth, Librarian Engineering College (Higher Education), Artist (Department of Culture/ laLÑfr foHkkx ), Ranger (Forest Department), Superintendent (PHE Department), District Small Savings Officer (Finance Department), Assistant Medical Officer, Homeo (Department of Public Health), Assistant Statistical Officer (Accounts Department), Geology / Geophysics / Earth Assistant (Water Resources Department), as their pay scales initially were similar to the Inspectors of Industries but since 1981 vide Choudhry Pay Commission, then Bhora Pay Commission, then Madhya Pradesh Pay Revision Rules, 1990 with effect from 01.01.1996 and lastly, vide Brahamswaroop Samiti's report 1999, the pay anomaly consistently featured and vide Bhahamswaroop Samiti though the pay scales of the aforementioned categories were fixed in between 5500-9000 but that of Inspectors of the Industries was fixed only at 4500-7000, which is highly discriminatory. 12. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of respondent/State that in the light of various decisions of the apex Court, that the petition on behalf of petitioner/Association is not legally maintainable and no writ of mandamus can be issued in favour of any Association because the grievance is personal in nature but has been raised by the petitioner/Association, therefore, the relief to all the employees or the members of the Association cannot be granted. Thus, the petition is not maintainable. 13. Thus, the petition is not maintainable. 13. The second objection, which has been raised is that the Brahmaswaroop Samiti's report was placed before the State Government in the year 1999, thereafter the present petition has been filed after a lapse of more than seven years and since the petitioner/Association has not assigned any reason why they have not challenged the said report within reasonable time, the petition being filed belatedly is liable to be dismissed. 14. It has further been argued that since Brahmaswaroop Samiti did not recommend to enhance pay scales of Inspectors of Industries or employees and as it is a policy decision of the State Government, which had been accepted and the said report is not alleged by the petitioner to be contrary to any constitutional scheme cannot be interfered in the writ jurisdiction. 15. It was further argued that the scope of judicial review in the matter of policy decision is very limited and unless the decision is shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or the constitution, the Court should not interfere with that and further wisdom and advisability of the economic policy are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy is contrary to any statutory provisions of the Constitution. In other words, it is not for the Courts to consider relative merits of different economic policies and to consider which is wiser or better one. Thus, when the Brahmaswaroop Samiti's report, which has already been accepted by the State Government as a policy decision, in absence of any material to hold it to be contrary to law is not liable to be interfered. 16. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner is demanding higher pay scale on the basis of a fact that the employee of other equating post are being paid/granted higher pay scale and at one point of time they were getting equal pay to that of the others but in subsequent revision of pay scales this equation was disturbed but when this aspect was sent for further scrutiny, it was found that there was no anomaly in consideration of grant of pay scale to the members of petitioner/Association, therefore, once the said fact has already been considered then again agitating the similar ground is of no consequence and thus, the present petition being devoid of merits is required to be dismissed. 17. 17. A rejoinder has been filed in the matter on behalf of petitioner/Association and it has been contended that the petitioner/Association is a registered body having its registration No.25365 and since several identical petitions have already been decided by the Apex Court and this Court filed by the Association, the present petition is also maintainable. In the said rejoinder it has been averred that since the litigation is continuing since 5.10.1997, there is no delay in filing the present petition and thus, it cannot be said that the petition is barred by limitation. 18. Further, it is averred that the present petition has not been filed against any policy decision of the State but the question involved herein is that the report of Brahamswaroop Samiti challenged by the petitioner/Association is arbitrary, unreasonable and is based on no material and the said Samiti had not functioned as per the notification dated 28.8.1997 issued by GAD and even the Samiti had not considered the recommendations as directed by the Govt. of M.P. through Director, Department of Commerce and Industries, Bhopal dated 8.4.1998 and no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner/Association prior to publishing the report of the Samiti neither any grievance of petitioner/Association was considered by the Samiti, hence the report of Brahamswaroop Samiti being violative of the Constitutional mandate cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, therefore, the present petition is very well maintainable. 19. It has also been averred therein that there is a discriminatory treatment with the members of petitioner/Association, as is evident from the record that at one stage Industries Inspector/Survey Inspectors of Industries department were equated to Sub-Engineers and Forest Rangers but later on the subsequent revision of pay was disturbed, which is in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution. 20. An additional return has been filed on behalf of State, wherein it has been averred that merely registration of a body will not create any right to file petition to petitioner/Association, therefore, petition is not legally maintainable. Again it is reiterated that the challenge to the Brahamswaroop Samiti has been made in the year 2006 after lapse of more than seven years and it was denied that there was a continuity of litigation since 5.10.1997, therefore, petition was within limitation. 21. Again it is reiterated that the challenge to the Brahamswaroop Samiti has been made in the year 2006 after lapse of more than seven years and it was denied that there was a continuity of litigation since 5.10.1997, therefore, petition was within limitation. 21. Further it was averred that so far as giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/Association was concerned, the demand of the petitioner/Association in the guise of memorandum was placed before the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary before passing of the order dated 17.02.2006 (Annexure P/2), thus, the said contention is wholly misconceived and as the Committee has considered the cases of the category of persons on the basis of recommendations and factual facet, therefore, the entire contention in this regard is spurious and against the record and as the very function of the Committee was in accordance of notification dated 28.06.1997, hence the contention of the petitioner/Association is baseless. 22. Lastly, it has been averred that since a policy decision has been taken by the State Government, it cannot be interfered in absence of any violation of the statutory Rules or the Constitutional mandate by invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus had prayed for dismissal of the petition. 23. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. 24. So far as the question of maintainability of the present petition raised on behalf of Respondent/State in the light of various decisions of the apex Court, one of them being in the matter of Mohinder Kumar Gupta (supra), is concerned, this Court deems it necessary to address the said issue first as to whether the writ petition filed by the Association is maintainable or not ? 25. 25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the matters of State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Dev & Other reported in AIR 1964 SC 685 , Gadde Venkateswara Rao v. Government of Andra Pradesh reported in AIR 1966 SC 828 , Vinoy Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 2001 SC 1739 has held that the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is based on the existence of a right in favour of the person and the exception is given only in the matters of habeas corpus or quo warranto or filed in public interest and even assuming that the members of an association are affected by the act of the respondents, for the purpose of enforcing the right of the members, the writ petition at the instance of Association is not maintainable. 26. The Hon'ble apex Court has consistently held that unless the person is affected personally, he cannot file the writ or the writ cannot be filed by an Association to indicate the rights of its members. It is only when the fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India is affected, he can invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but admittedly, the petitioner is not a citizen and it cannot claim itself to be a person, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner association according to this Court is not maintainable on this ground. 27. In one of its decision in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. S.U.T.N.I. Sangam & Others reported in 2009 (16) SCC 1 , the Hon'ble apex Court has held that the Association can file petition representing its members having regard to the facts of that case. In that case, lands of poor agriculturists were acquired and the cause of the owners of the land was purported to have been espoused by Association. The persons whose lands were acquired were poor and illiterate and they were not aware of their rights. In that case, lands of poor agriculturists were acquired and the cause of the owners of the land was purported to have been espoused by Association. The persons whose lands were acquired were poor and illiterate and they were not aware of their rights. In such circumstances, the case and having regard to the person interested in section 3(b), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the Association can file a writ petition representing its members, but it could not have filed any application in terms of section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, therefore, the aforesaid judgment also cannot come to the rescue of the present petitioner. 28. Similarly in para 62 of the judgment in the matter of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari….. v. Union Of India And Ors. reported in (1981)1 SCC 246 ; it has been held that unrecognised association can file writ petition having regards to the facts of the case. The facts in that case were that ten directives were issued by the Railway Board, which disclosed 'benign discrimination' in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and with a challenge by the petitioners as 'reverse discrimination', gross discrimination was alleged in the several Circulars of the Railway Board and in that context it was held that the writ petition filed by the unrecognised association is maintainable, as discrimination was focused in that writ petition, which is not the case herein. 29. Therefore, having regard to the various judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court wherein it has been held that when the fundamental rights of a person is affected, he can maintain writ petition but the writ petition filed at the instance of the association representing that the fundamental rights of its members are affected cannot be said to be maintainable, thus, this Court is of the view that the present petition is not maintainable. 30. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable. 31. As this Court has dismissed the present petition on the ground of its maintainability, the merits of the matter are not gone into. However, individual members if aggrieved can pursue their respective remedies before appropriate forum. 32. The judgments cited by counsel for the petitioners since are based on some different facts are not applicable to the present matter.