ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

(Through V.C.)

Dr. Nakul Modi who is the appellant in L.P.A. No. 288 of 2015 and Dr. Dharma Rakshit Vidyarthi who is the appellant in L.P.A. No. 325 of 2015 have challenged the common order dated 13th April 2015 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5991 of 2013 and analogous cases.

2. Out of four writ petitions which were decided by the aforesaid common order dated 13th April 2015, W.P.(S) No. 5995 of 2013 was filed by Dr. Nakul Modi and W.P.(S) No. 5993 of 2013 was filed by Dr. Dharma Rakshit Vidyarthi.

3. The appellants were appointed in the Department of Animal Husbandry in the basic entry grade in the pay scale of Rs.2,200-4,000/-which were revised after 5th Pay Revision and their pay scale was revised to Rs.8,000-13,500/-. On implementation of 6th Pay Revision with effect from 1st January 2006 the appellants were placed in the revised pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800/- with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. Thereafter, the appellants alongwith 286 other officers of the Department of Animal Husbandry were granted 1st MACP vide notification dated 30th April 2012 in the pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- in the grade pay of Rs.5400/-.

4. The grievance of the appellants is that even after financial upgradation in a higher pay scale by putting them in grade pay of Rs.5400/-the department put them under a different category as compared to the other officers working in the same department inasmuch as they were put in grade pay of Rs.6600/-in the same scale of pay which would amount to hostile discrimination against the appellants.

5. Before the writ Court, a specific plea was raised by the appellants and others that without any reasonable classification the co-employees who were senior by few years were given higher grade pay by the notification dated 30th April 2012. During pendency of the writ petitions, paragraph nos. 1(iii) and 2 of the corrigendum dated 22nd June 2012 which explained the notification dated 30th April 2012 were also challenged by the appellants as arbitrary and discriminatory.

6. The learned writ Court dealt with the issue with reference to the affidavit filed by the Under Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand whereunder the State of Jharkhand took a stand that the difference between ACP and MACP schemes is quite appreciable from a glance at both the schemes. Under the scheme of ACP an employee is entitled to the scale of pay and grade pay payable to the next “higher post”, provided there are atleast two promotional posts in the same cadre. Whereas under MACP scheme an employee gets the grade pay in the next higher pay in the pay band, irrespective of cadre and promotional avenues.

7. The learned writ Court referred to the judgments in “Govt. (NCT of Delhi) v. Grade-I Dass Officers’ Assn” (2014) 13 SCC 296 and “Union of India v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao” (2015) 3 SCC 653 to fortify the aforesaid opinion formed by him that classification of posts and determination of pay scale come within the exclusive domain of the executive and it would not be proper for the Court to modify the policy decision of the government in exercise of the powers of judicial review.

8. Before us, a similar stand has been taken by the State of Jharkhand and, therefore, we would extract paragraph nos. 7 and 8 of the affidavit dated 12th September 2014 filed by the Under Secretary, Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand before the writ Court, which read as under :

“7. That the petitioner has basically confused himself and has not been able to appreciate the difference between the scheme of ACP and the MACP. Under the scheme of ACP an employee was entitled to the grade pay payable to the next higher post provided that there are at least two promotional posts in the same cadre. However, under the scheme of MACP an employee is entitled to the next higher grade pay irrespective of their respective cadre and the promotional