(delivering the Judgment of the Court): Sometime in 1972 the Ministry of Trade and Industry required the services of enforcement officers for the Ministry. Accordingly the Cabinet Committee on Establishment resolved on October 10, 1972 to authorise the Director-General of Public Services Department to establish and create a scheme of service for the officers on a temporary basis pending approval of a permanent scheme of service. Pursuant to this resolution a scheme of service was established provisionally consisting of—

(1) Enforcement Inspectors on a salary scale of $400 x 40 - $600; and

(2) Chief Enforcement Inspectors on a salary scale of $640 x 40 - $880.

This scheme of service was referred to by the judge in his judgment as the "ad hoc scheme of service." On December 2, 1974 the Director-General of Public Services Department then created and established a permanent scheme of service to replace the temporary or "ad hoc" scheme of service referred to earlier. The permanent scheme of service created two categories of posts and salaries as follows:

(1) Timescale Enforcement Inspectors, on a salary scale: $400 x 25 - 450/480 x 40 - 800/840 x 40 - 1000; and

(2) Enforcement Inspectors Special Grade, on a salary scale of $1000 x 50 - $1,250.

It should be noted immediately that apart from overall salary improvements the permanent scheme of service also changed the names of the posts in the provisional scheme from "Enforcement Inspectors" and "Chief Enforcement Inspectors" to "Timescale Enforcement Inspectors" and "Special Grade Enforcement Inspectors." The permanent scheme of service took effect from December 2, 1974 and has since been approved by the government.

Following the creation and establishment of the permanent scheme of service the Director-General of Public Services Department wrote to all the officers concerned to inform them of the permanent scheme of service and that all the officers then serving would automatically thenceforth be governed by the permanent scheme of service. A sample of this letter is shown as "Exhibit BA-2A" attached to the affidavit of one Badrul bin Ahmad affirmed on November 27, 1980 — pg. 231. All the officers then serving as enforcement officers and chief enforcement officers were then absorbed into the permanent scheme of service.

Subsequently nine officers among those affected took out an originating summons citing the Government of Malaysia, the Director-General of Public Services Department and the Chief Secretary of the Ministry of Trade and Industry as defendants. The third plaintiff withdrew his suit before the hearing in the High Court. They sought from the High Court, Kuala Lumpur, a declaration that the action of the defendants on May 23, 1975, to transfer or absorb the plaintiffs with effect from December 2, 1974, from the salary scheme for Chief Enforcement Inspector (Ketua Merinyu Penguatkuasa) viz: $640 x 40 - 720/760 x 40 - 880 to or into the new salary scheme for Timescale Enforcement Inspector (Merinyu Penguatkuasa Tingkatan Biaza) viz: $400 x 25 - 450/480 x 40/840 x 40 - 1,000, was unlawful and or unconstitutional or in any event unfair. They also sought for an order that the plaintiffs be transferred or absorbed instead into the salary scheme for Special Grade Enforcement Inspectors (Merinyu Penguatkuasa Tingkatan Khas) viz: $1,000 x 50 - 1,250.

All the plaintiffs had been appointed from amongst serving officers in the public service. It would appear that the rest of the plaintiffs were appointed as Chief Enforcement Inspectors except the first plaintiff who was appointed as Enforcement Inspector in the provisional scheme of service. They were, however, appointed at different points in the salary scale depending on their salaries in their previous service.

The grievances of the appellants may be summarised as follows. The absorption process from the temporary scheme to the permanent service would in effect amount to a reduction in rank without giving t