By the Court.—We have heard Sri Vivek Shadilya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of the State and Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, Advocate assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel, Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 7 in the present appeal.

2. This Intra-Court Appeal has been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.4.2013 passed in writ petition No. 53510 of 2008.

3. Facts in short relevant for deciding the present appeal are as under :

Writ petitioners-respondents before this Court were appointed as Collection Amin in the Revenue Department of State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners were admittedly sent on deputation for working as Collection Amin in the Trade Tax Department of the State of U.P.

4. The exact date on which each of the petitioner was sent on deputation has specifically been taken note of in the order of the learned Single Judge and it is between December, 1976 to August 1991. While the petitioners were still on deputation in Trade Tax Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The State Government in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of India framed U.P. Trade Tax Collection Amin Service Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 1995’).

5. Rules 18(1) of the Rules, 1995 provided for absorption of the Collection Amin, who were substantively appointed under the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974 and were on deputation in Trade Tax Department.

6. This Rule 18 was amended as U.P. Trade Tax Collection Amins Service (Second Amendment) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 2007’) and the cut off date mentioned in Rule 18(1) in respect of date of appointment under the Collection Amin Rules, 1974 was deleted. Therefore, irrespective of the date of appointment under the U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 1974, all such Collection Amins on deputation in the Trade Tax Department were absorbed.

7. After all this has taken place the petitioners approach the Hon’ble High Court by means of writ petition No. 53510 of 2008 raising a grievance that they should be provided a pay-scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- after completing 14 years of service and by means of amendment application they prayed for quashing of the order dated 21st June, 2007 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Trade Tax Department, Allahabad whereby the representation made by the petitioners for the same relief had been rejected.

8. The learned Single Judge under the order impugned after noticing the provision of 1995, Rules and the amendment made in the year, 2007 has returned a finding that the petitioners were absorbed in Trade Tax Department under notification dated 20th June, 2007 and, therefore, having regard to the Provisions of Fundamental Rules 22 of U.P. Fundamental Rules, 1973 they are entitled to the same salary since revised from time to time in respect of Collection Amins working in the Revenue Department.

9. It has been then recorded that since revision in the pay-scale was affected under Government Order dated 3rd June, 1989 and dated 3rd December, 1994, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefits of such revision both in the matter of grant of selection grade as well as promotional pay-scale.

10. The learned Single Judge has thereafter gone on hold that even otherwise on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the petitioners were entitled to the same pay-scale as selection grade and promotional pay-scale as has been made available to the Collection Amins of the Revenue Department.

11. The State not being satisfied with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge has approached this Court by means of this intra-Court appeal.

12. In order to appreciate the controversy raised by means of the present appeal, it would be worthwhile to reproduce Rule 18 of the 1995 Rules which reads as follows:

“(18) Absorption in