P. B. Bajanthri, J.—Heard learned counsels for the respective parties.

2. In the instant appeal, appellants have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4501 of 2014.

3. The appellants are in the cadre of Personal Assistants and they were appointed during the intervening period from the year 1978 to 1986.

4. On 01.03.1977 holders of the post of Stenographers Grade I and Grade II had the benefit of passing certain examination. Such of those Stenographers Grade I and Grade II who have passed their examination, their services were merged with Personal Assistants with effect from 01.03.1977. The second class of persons are those who were directly recruited to the post of Personal Assistants (petitioners/appellants). Third class of persons are such of those who were initially appointed as Steno Typist were required to pass certain examination in order to have the benefit of merger with the Personal Assistants’ cadre. The Steno Typist who have not passed examination in order to have the benefit of merger with the Personal Assistants’ cadre were given upgradation on 07.08.1987. Therefore, source of recruitment to the post of Personal Assistants are from three categories. In this backdrop, it is to be noted that appellants who were directly recruited to the post of Personal Assistants during the period from the year 1978 to 1986, they form a class of persons and they are claiming pay fixation on par with Personal Assistants who were initially appointed to the post of Steno Typist and who were given upgradation.

5. Respondents/ State have introduced A.C.P. Scheme. The third category of persons namely Steno Typist whose services have been upgraded on 07.08.1987 have been extended initially 2nd A.C.P and thereafter, they have been extended 1st A.C.P. Similar benefit has not been extended to class of persons like appellants who were directly recruited to the post of Personal Assistants during the year 1978 to 1986. In other words, there was alleged to be pay anomaly among appellants who were directly recruited to the post of Personal Assistants and such of those Steno Typist whose services have been upgraded to the post of Personal Assistants on 07.08.1987. In other words, Steno Typist who entered the cadre of Personal Assistants after awarding 1st and 2nd A.C.P., they have drawn more pay than the pay of the appellants who were directly recruited to the post of Personal Assistants. In this backdrop, whether the appellants are entitled to claim stepping up of pay on par with such of those persons namely Steno Typist whose services were upgraded to that of Personal Assistants on 07.08.1987 or not?

6. Learned counsel for the appellants cited two decisions. One is Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and Ors vs. Ram Swarup Ganda and Ors. decided on 02.08.2006, paragraph Nos. 10, 14 and 15 are reads as under:—

“10. In the cases before us, most of the Respondents joined the service as Group 'D" employees. They were later promoted to Group "C" posts and when the ACP scales were introduced on 01.01.1996, they had a total service of 20 years. They had also got two upgradations during that period. Since all these Respondents had started their career as Group "D" employees, they were given the benefit of ACP scales which were applicable to Group "D" employees. This is evident from the judgment rendered in Suraj Bhan's case (supra). For Group "D" post, the first ACP scale was Rs. 3050-75-3950-EB-80-4350 and second ACP scale, on completion of 20 years, was 4000-100-4800-EB-100- 6000, whereas the ACP scales for Group "C" post was 4000-100-4800-EB100-6000 and second ACP scale was 5000-150-7100-EB-150-7850. As noted above, the Respondents herein were given the ACP scales which were applicable to Group "D" posts. For example, Suraj Bhan, referred to in the impugned judgment, joined service as Group "D" employee on 7.12.1972. He became a Group "C" employee on promotion to the post of Clerk on 1.2.198