The judgment established that employees of the same cadre and rank cannot be treated differently for pay and allowances, and any classification leading to such differentiation is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

S.K. GANGELE, J.

1. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is in regard to grant of second time scale of pay w.e.f. 01/04/2006 in the pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+5400.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Craft Instructor on 06.08.1974, he was promoted to the post of Training Officer Grade-II on 15.05.1997 thereafter, he was promoted as Training Superintendent on 21.10.2004 and retired from service in the month of July, 2013. The petitioner was granted two promotions he was not found eligible in regard to grant of benefit of second time scale on the ground that he was promoted on the post of training superintendent which is a 100% promotional post. Hence, the petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit of second time scale.

3. The General Administration Department issued a circular dated 24/02/2008 Annexure P/1 in regard to grant of benefit of time scale pay to the employees. It is mentioned in the circular that the time bound promotion scheme has been amended and the employees would be entitled to get the benefit of time bound promotion under the present scheme and those employees belonging to A & B class of service would be eligible to get the benefit of time scale after completion of eight years of service and class III employees would be eligible to get the benefit on completion of 10 years of service. The employees have to fulfill the criteria as per the scheme and the employees would be eligible to get the benefit w.e.f. 01/04/2006.

4. The petitioner has specifically taken a ground that after completing 33 years of service, he was getting the pay of Rs.9300-34800+3600 while 700 juniors to the petitioner including the persons who were appointed in the year 2002 were getting the higher pay scale of Rs. 15600-39100+5400/-. The petitioner further pleaded that the act of the respondents in not granting time scale to the petitioner is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. The respondents in their reply assigned the reasons in regard to non-grant of second time scale pay to the petitioner that in accordance with the Finance Department Circular/clarification dated 13.11.2009, if an employee was granted two promotions and if the second promotion was on the post which is to be filled up by partially direct recruitment and promotion, then he would be entitled to second time scale pay. However, if the second promotion on the post which is 100% promotional post, then the employee is not eligible to get the benefit of second time scale. The respondents further pleaded that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent and the aforesaid post is 100% promotional post in accordance with the rules named as M.P. Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class III Service Recruitment Rule 2009 hence, the petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of second time scale. The relevant Clause of the circular dated 13.11.2009 reads as under:-

6. The question for consideration before this Court is that whether the classification made by the Department in regard to second time scale pay on the ground that the second time scale pay would not be applicable to the employees who have been promoted on the post which is 100% by promotion and second time scale pay would be granted to the employee who has been promoted on the post which is a promotional post and also direct recruitment post is just and proper. By the aforesaid classification, the respondent has created two class of employees in regard to grant of second time scale pay. Its a benefit and affect the career of an employee. The respondents have not assigned any reason behind this classification. It is well settled principle of law that Article 14 permits reasonable classification. However, it forbids class legislation.

7. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another and Center for Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs. Union of