JUDGMENT : (Ajit Kumar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 2. By means of above writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners who were selected for Constable GD in U.P. Civil Police 2018 are aggrieved for the discriminatary stand taken by respondents in not awarding them pay protection in terms of last pay drawn by them as ex-army personnel. All the petitioners were selected and appointed in the category of ex- army men and submit that if as a result of the same selection, selectees are sent in four batches for training at different point of time, the State is not justified in awarding pay protection to first batch of trainees and denying the same to other trainees only on the ground that Government Order decided for not giving a pay protection to ex-servicemen with effect from a subsequent date. 3. It is submitted that after selection was held selected candidates were required to be sent for training, but due to the then prevailing circumstances for Pandemic Covid-19 the U.P. Directorate Police Training vide its order dated 25 th July, 2020 divided selectees in four batches to be sent for training on different dates for different period. The first batch was sent for training in August, 2020 for the period of six months, second batch was sent for training in March, 2021 for the period of six months, the third batch was sent for training in October 2021 for six months and last and fourth batch was sent for training in May, 2022 for six months. 4. The petitioners before this Court claim to have been sent for training in second batch, which started from March, 2021 and lasted for six months till September, 2021. While first batch was completing its training appointment order got issued in their respect prior to the Government order dated 23 rd December, 2020, the date when Government Order got issued, in which it was decided that no more pay protection shall be granted to the selectees, who are ex army personnel. The Government Order provided further that it will come into force with immediate effect. The relevant paragraph of the Government Order as contained in paragraph 22 is reproduced hereunder: 5. The Government Order provided further that it will come into force with immediate effect. The relevant paragraph of the Government Order as contained in paragraph 22 is reproduced hereunder: 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that after first batch completed its training in January, 2021, it was accorded with pay protection and for example pay fixation of Kuldeep Singh newly selected constable bearing pno no. 202641386 dated 24 th January, 2024 has been brought on record. It is argued that after benefit was accorded to the first batch, the candidates selected in second, third and fourth batch who were also ex- army personnel, were not accorded with this benefit. 6. These above pleadings have come to be raised in paragraph 14 of the writ petition, in which details of various other constables who were benefited with last pay protection, that they were claiming as ex-army men. In the counter affidavit in reply to paragraph 14. Vide paragraph 16, it has been averred thus: “ That the contents of paragraph no. 14 of the writ petition are admitted to the extent that at the time of appointment of the constable Kuldeep Singh PNO No. 202641386 in the police department on 11.10.2020 the government order dated 26.8.1977 and 18.5.1983 were effective, currently, the government order dated 23.12.2020 for the reappointment of the ex-serviceman in the service of state government is effective, in which it is clearly mentioned that the above order will be implemented with immediate effect i.e. in the cases of the ex-serviceman who have been appointed in services of the state government on or after the date of issue of the Government Order will be covered by this order” 7. From a bare reading of the averments made in paragraph 14 of the Counter affidavit as quoted above, it transpires that Kuldeep Singh though was sent for training in first batch was was offered appointment on 11.10.2020 when the Government Order dated 26.8.1977 and 18.5.1983 were in force and hence he was accorded this benefit of pay protection. However, coming into force of government order dated 23.12.2020 in respect of re-appointment of ex servicemen they were held not entitled for pay protection of their previous establishment and hence no such benefit could be given to the present petitioner. However, coming into force of government order dated 23.12.2020 in respect of re-appointment of ex servicemen they were held not entitled for pay protection of their previous establishment and hence no such benefit could be given to the present petitioner. Thus, it is admitted position of fact that petitioners have been denied pay protection only on account of their training getting completed subsequently to the first batch of training though the petitioners were also trainees like first batch who later on became constables. Thus all appointees were selected pursuant to selection and recruitment held in the year 2018 and hence claimed pay parity. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has sought to defend the stand taken under the Government Order deyning pay protection, relying upon an authority of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Anil Prasad 2022 5 SCC 461 wherein Central Government rules denying benefit of pay protection to ex army men had been upheld. It is submitted, therefore thatno flaw can be found in the action of government in denying pay protection benefit so as to hold it to be perverse or otherwise discriminatory or arbitrary. Learned Standing Counsel has relied upon paragraph 4.5 of the judgment, which runs hereunder: “5.4 Therefore, the pay fixation of the respondent in the government service was absolutely in consonance with para 8 of the CCS Order 1986. Para 8 does not provide that on reemployment in Government Services a retired Armed Force personnel would be entitled to his basic pay being fixed at par with his last drawn pay. Holding so will violate para 8 of the CCS Order. Under the circumstances the High Court has committed a grave error in observing and holding that the retired Armed Forces personnel on reappointment in the government service would be entitled to the last drawn pay as Armed Forces personnel. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is unsustainable being contrary to para 8 of the CCS Order, 1986.” 9. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that in this petition there is more challenge to the discrimination being meted out to the petitioners than the relevant provision contained in the Government Order denying benefit of pay protection to ex-army personnel while getting re-employment in government non-defence establishment. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records, I find that in this petition there is more challenge to the discrimination being meted out to the petitioners than the relevant provision contained in the Government Order denying benefit of pay protection to ex-army personnel while getting re-employment in government non-defence establishment. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed emphasis upon judgment in the case of Manilal v. The State of Rajasthan and Others , 2024 0 SC 764 , and has contended that merely if counselling was not held and got delayed the teachers being similarly and identically placed pursuant to same selection could not have been discriminated against. He has placed reliance upon paragraph 15 of the Judgment, that runs as under: “The appellant’s case was more akin to the case of Rakesh Gaur (supra), who had taken admission on 05.11.2009. We are clearly of the opinion on the special facts of this case that the Division Bench erred in applying the case of Dinesh Chandra Damor (supra) instead of applying the reasoning in the judgment in Ankul Singhal (supra) and Rakesh Gaur (supra) to the facts of this case. As was held in Ankul Singhal (supra), it will be improper to discriminate inter se among a homogenous group of students admitted for the academic session 2009-10. As was pointed out therein, it could not be that those students admitted in the first round of counselling would be eligible, even with less than 50% marks in graduation, while the others admitted in the subsequent rounds of counselling would not be. It was on this reasoning that Rakesh Gaur (supra) was given relief. Rakesh Gaur (supra) was a case identically situated with the case of the appellant. What is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander too.” 11. Thus only question that requires determination by this Court in this petition is whether pay protection granted to the selected candidates of the same selection while they were sent for training in earlier point of time could be denied to the petitioners who got training subsequently as training was being organized in four different batches on account of impact of pandemic Covid- 19. There is no denial at the end of respondents that all petitioners who were sent in second batch for training and subsequently were selected for the post of constable (GD) U.P Police under the same selection pursuant to the same advertisement. The training is part-exercise undertaken for giving appointment to such selected candidates and once the candidate is selected training takes place as a result of consideration being placed in select list finally published and declared. Thus no more any stage of selection remained to be attended once selected list was prepared for the candidate to be sent for training for appointment purposes. It is, therefore, part and parcel of exercise to offer appointment to the selected candidates, and therefore, in the considered view of the Court, respondents on their own in administrative exercise of power if decided to bifurcate trainess in different cluster and groups to be sent on different dates for training and upon completion of training successfully such trainees were being offered appointment, they should definited not be discriminated against in the matter of service benefits, like pay- scale, allowance and other emoluments that are admissible to post in question. Even in the matter of seniority, the select list is only to be followed. The judgment that has been cited in the case of Manilal (supra) squarely covers the case of petitioners’. The Court therein had held that discrimination inter se amongst homogeneous group cannot be approved. Thus all the selectees pursuant to the same selection would form a homogeneous group and their appointment is only a consequential result of training course subject to their rejection during training. Once a homogeneous group is sent for training, all the members are to be treated alike. 12. Any classification on the basis of cluster or groups being sent for training would hit Article 14 of the constitution as it would not form a reasonable classification for the purposes of giving benefit to identically placed employees. A well settled rule of equality is that unlike cannot be treate alike and identically placed are to be treated alike for pay parity and to be offered service benefits. 13. In the matter of Firangi Prasadh v. State of U.P and Others (2011) 2 UPLBEC 987 , this Court has held that for the fault of appointing authority in issuing appointment letter, petitioners cannot be put to a disadvantageous position. 13. In the matter of Firangi Prasadh v. State of U.P and Others (2011) 2 UPLBEC 987 , this Court has held that for the fault of appointing authority in issuing appointment letter, petitioners cannot be put to a disadvantageous position. Although this matter related to regularization but since management had issued delayed appointment orders and even beyond cut off date of regularization rules, all were treated alike to be given benefit of regularization. This judgment has further been followed in the case of Mahesh Naryan and Others v. State of U.p. and Others (Writ A No. 55606 of 2008) , decided on 19.12.2019, in which all the applicants of one advertisement upon being selected were taken to form a homogeneous group to give benefitof old pension scheme for the reason that advertisement and selection took place prior to scrapping off the old pension scheme even though appointment orders issued subsequently. 14. In such above view of the matter while I do no find any thing discriminatory in government order in its application so far as denial of pay protection is concerned to ex-army men, but government order would apply only to those cases where candidates were selected after its issuance. All those who have been sent for training to be ultimately given appointment will form one homogeneous group to be privileged with all such benefits including pay protection and their claim will not yet hit by the government order. 15. In so far as judgment cited by learned standing counsel, I do not find any quarrel about the same, qua the law laid down therein because I am also of the view that government order need not be set aside in special circumstances of this case, rather it is held to be not applicable to the present case. 16. In view of above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents no. 3 is directed to surrender benefit of last pay protection to the petitioners as has been given to the first batch of trainees pursuant to U.P. Police Constable Recruitment 2018.Appropriate order shall be passed and consequential benefit will be accorded to the petitioners within maximum period of thirty days from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.