1. Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing for all the official respondents.

2. Feeling aggrieved by not being promoted to higher post, stagnated at a particular post for a long period of time and denied financial benefit under Assured Career Progression Scheme (‘ACP Scheme') at a higher scale of pay, the petitioners are before this court.

3. The backdrop, in which the petitioners claim such higher scale of pay, as stated by them, may be underlined first. The petitioner No.1 Jaishil Taba was initially appointed as Superintendent of Fisheries on 17.3.1989 and was promoted to the post of Deputy Director on 8.8.2007, on officiating basis, on his own scale of pay attached to the post of Superintendent of Fisheries, without any financial benefit for more than 20 years. The petitioner No. 2 Rakesh Chandra, initially appointed as Fisheries Officer on 21.8.1978 and promoted to the post of Assistant Director/Fishery Instructor, has been serving in the said post for a period of 30 years. Similarly, petitioner No. 3 Sorum Pul, initially appointed as Fishery Inspector on 8.2.1988 was allowed to serve as Deputy Director, on officiating basis, on his own scale of pay attached to the post of Fishery Instructor, without any financial benefit for a period of 21 years. The post of Fisheries Inspector, Superintendent of Fisheries (later on re-designated as D.F.D.O.), Farm Manager and Assistant Director in the Fisheries Department carry the same scale of pay of Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. These are the feeder posts for promotion to Deputy Director of Fisheries which also carry the same pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m.

4. The Government of Arunachal Pradesh adopted the ACP Scheme on the pattern of Government of India for the benefit of its employees. It is alleged that while extending such benefits to the eligible Group-B(Tech) in the Directorate of Fisheries w.e.f. 21.11.2003, the respondent authorities have provided the petitioners with the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. which is non-existent in the said Department and which is also not the next higher scale of pay that existed as on 21.11.2003. The next higher grade above the scale of pay of Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. is Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. but the State Government vide Order No. FISH/E(G)220/2003 dated 29.4.2008 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) under the ACP Scheme, granted pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. only. The petitioners made representations before the respondent authorities claiming scale of pay of Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. but the same has been denied to them.

5. Mr. Tony Pertin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the so-called higher scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. as granted to them vide impugned order dated 29.4.2008 is a non-existent scale of pay inasmuch as there is no post higher to the post held by the petitioners carrying Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. According to him, the next higher scale of pay is Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. attached to the post of Joint Director. The petitioners also strongly contends that one Sri H.K. Dutta who retired as Deputy Director of Fisheries, was given the pay scale of Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. and as such, the petitioners are also equally entitled to the said scale of pay and denial of such pay scale would amount to unjust discrimination. The petitioners also contends that there are only 2(two) pay scales in the. Fishery Department, viz., Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. and Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. and, hence, they are entitled to get the benefit of pay scale of Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. as per the ACP scheme which has been adopted by the State Government as they have completed more than 24 years.

6. Ms. G. Deka, Addl. Senior Government Advocate appearing on behalf of all the respondent authorities, referring to the statements made in the affidavit-in-opposition, countered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It has been contended by her, as follows:

(1) A duly constituted Screening Committee/Departmental Promotion Committee considered the petitioners' cases and accordingly, they were provided benefit under the ACP Scheme, as per their entitlement.

(2) The pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. was in existence at the relevant point of time for the post of Deputy Director of all the Government Departments in the State.

(3) On 7.6.2007, the Cabinet decided to provide uniform pay scale in respect of the following State Government officials:

For Directors-14300-18300

For Jt. Directors-Rs.12000-16500

For Dy. Directors-Rs.10000-15200

And, hence, after December 2007, their pay scale was enhanced to Rs.10000-15200 p.m.

The petitioners' claim for pay scale at Rs.12000-16500 p.m. was the pay scale of the Directors at that relevant time.

(4) The petitioners' claim for entitlement of pay scale of Rs.12000-16500 p.m. in the same manner as was granted to Sri H.K. Dutta is baseless as because Sri Dutta, retired Deputy Director (Fisheries), served more than 24 years regular service in one grade and he became eligible for the second benefit under the ACP Scheme in the scale of Rs.12000-16500 p.m. But in the case of the writ petitioners, they got at least one promotion and they being not stagnated at one post, would not be entitled to two benefits under the ACP Scheme. For illustration:

Petitioner No. 1-J. Taba-initially appointed as Superintendent

Petitioner No. 3-S. Pul-Initially appointed as Fishery Instructor

They have completed 12 years only on 21.11.2003 and hence, they are entitled to the first benefit under the ACP Scheme as Deputy Director and at that relevant time, pay scale of Deputy Directors of all Departments was Rs.8000-13500 p.m.

Similarly, petitioner No. 2, initially appointed as Fishery Officer in Group (C) post, was promoted to Group (B) post. Thus, he did not complete 24 years in the same post and he was not entitled to the second benefit under the ACP Scheme, however, all of them are entitled to the first benefit under the said Scheme in the pay scale of Deputy Director, i.e., Rs.8000-13500 p.m.

7. Ms. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, in her oral submissions, questions the very maintainability of the writ petition inasmuch as the higher pay scale was granted to the petitioners in the scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. on the basis of a policy decision of the State Government and there is no scope for judicial interference in such matters. The learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate makes an endeavour to establish her submissions by placing decisions in Ramesh Singh v. Union of India, (2008) 5 SCC 173 and Sri Kamal Chandra Sarma and Ors. v. State of Assam, 1997 (3) GLT 604.

8. Against the affidavit-in-opposition, the petitioners by filing an affidavit-in-reply, contended that although the petitioners discharged their duties as Deputy Director in an isolated centrally sponsored scheme, they were not provided the pay scale of Rs.8000-Rs.13500 p.m. at that relevant time. By this submission, on the one hand, the petitioners admit that there was a post of Deputy Director from Centrally Sponsored Scheme for whom the pay scale was fixed at Rs.8000-13,500 p.m. which implies the existence of such scale.

9. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner No. 1 was promoted to the post of Deputy Director only on 8.8.2007 on ad hoc basis and in the appointment order itself, it was specifically mentioned that his ad hoc promotion would not confer any right to claim regular promotion.

10. The emerging undisputed facts in this case are that the State Government took a policy decision to adopt the ACP Scheme formulated by the Government of India vide O.M. dated 9.8.1999 and accordingly, issued its O.M. on 21.11.2003 (Annexure P/2 to the writ petition) to extend the benefit to its employees with immediate effect. The said decision was taken on the basis of recommendation of the Expert Committee. There is no doubt that such decision is a matter of public policy of the State Government. The petitioners are before this court questioning the manner in which the said policy has been followed and as to whether any discrimination has been made against them.

11. The basic facts regarding the initial appointment and the scale of pay at the entry level in the service of the petitioners have not been disputed by the State respondents. The length of service rendered by the petitioners, which ranges from 20 years to 29 years by now, is also not disputed. As per the provision made in paragraph 3.1 of the O.M. dated 9.8.1999 issued by the Government of India, the Group ‘B', ‘C' and ‘D' employees, on completion of 12 years and 24 years of regular service, who have no promotional avenues, shall be eligible for two financial up-gradations to mitigate the hardship caused due to stagnation either in a cadre or in an isolated post. For better appreciation, the said provision needs reproduction:

"3.1. While in respect of these categories also promotion shall continue to be duly earned, it is proposed to adopt the ACP Scheme in a modified form to mitigate hardship in cases of acute stagnation either in a cadre or in an isolated post. Keeping in view all relevant factors, it has, therefore, been decided to grant two financial upgradations (as recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and also in accordance with the Agreed Settlement dated September 11, 1997 (in relation to group C and D employees) entered into with the Staff Side of the National Council (JCM) under the ACP Scheme to Groups B, C and D employees on completion of 12 years and 24 years (subject to condition No. 4 in Annexure 1) of regular service respectively. Isolated posts in Groups A, B, C and D categories which have no promotional avenues shall also qualify for similar benefits on the pattern indicated above. Certain categories of employees such as casual employees (including those with temporary Status), ad hoc and contract employees shall not qualify for benefits under the aforesaid scheme. Grant of financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall, however, be subject to the conditions mentioned in Annexure 1.

12. The petitioners have been subjected to acute stagnation as they have been made to serve in the same pay scale although they were allowed to officiate in the post of Deputy Director/Assistant Director without any higher scale of pay for the last 20-29 years. All the petitioners have completed 12 years of service, long back. The petitioner No. 1 has completed 20 years of service at the time of filing the writ petition but he was not eligible for the second benefit under the ACP Scheme as he was yet to complete 24 years of service. In respect of petitioner No. 2, he has completed more than 24 years of service at the time of filing the writ petition and he was entitled to get the full benefit under the ACP Scheme. As regards petitioner No. 3, he completed more than 21 years at the time of filing the writ petition but he is not entitled to get the full benefit under the ACP Scheme as he is yet to complete 24 years of service. It appears that the basis on which the petitioners are claiming the scale of pay of Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. is not for completion of more than 24 years of service but for the simple reason that the next higher scale of pay in the Department concerned is Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. This claim needs examination and consideration on the basis of materials placed before this court.

13. To the rejoinder filed by the petitioners, the Notification No. FIN/E-II/08/2005 dated 6.12.2007 (Annexure R/1) has been appended, whereby the State Government declared up-gradation of the scale of pay in categories of post in various departments under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, showing the existing scale of pay and the revised up-graded scale of pay with remarks. In this notification, the existing and revised/up-graded scale of pay in respect of Director, Joint Director and equivalent posts, Deputy Director and equivalent posts, have been shown as under:

(i) Director : Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. to Rs.14300-400-18300 p.m. The Department of Fisheries have been included at serial No. 5.

(ii) Joint Director and equivalent : Rs.10000-325-15200 p.m. to Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. The Department of Fisheries does not find place in the list of Departments. It appears, therefore, that there is no sanctioned post of Joint Director in the Fisheries Department.

(iii) Deputy Director and equivalent : Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. to Rs.10000-325-15200 p.m.

The Department of Fisheries finds place at serial no. 8 but different pay scale has been shown against it, viz., Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. to Rs.10000-325-15200 p.m. It means that the post of Deputy Director in the Fisheries Department carried pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. before the revision/up-gradation of scale of pay vide notification date 6.12.2007. It, therefore, appears that the contention of the petitioners to the effect that the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. was non-existent, is correct.

(iv) DFDO/AD/FM : These posts carried the scale of pay of Rs.Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. which is equal to the scale of pay attached to the D.S.O. in Civil Supplies Department and APFS-II in Environment and Forests Department. The pay scale of the said posts were up-graded to Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m.

14. From the above notification, it is found that although the post of Deputy Director was shown in the Fishery Department, the pay scale was shown at Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. only unlike the other departments and as such, the contention of the petitioners that some of them were allowed to officiate as Deputy Director in the pay scale of D.F.D.O/A.D./F.M. which carried the pay scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. is true. This also reaffirms the fact that there was, in fact, no separate pay scale for the Deputy Director in the Fisheries Department in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. The petitioners, in Annexure 5 series to the aforesaid rejoinder, furnished the salary statement in respect of one Sri Tage Moda who was allowed to work as Deputy Director (Statistics) but he was allowed to draw salary in the scale of Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. only in the month of March, 2001.

15. On a careful perusal of notification dated 6.12.2007, it is found that there was no post of Joint Director or equivalent thereto in the Fishery Department, at the same time, as stated earlier, there was no pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. for the post of Deputy Director in the Fishery Department. The position may be reconciled by providing the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. to the petitioners after they had completed 12 years. On calculation, the petitioner No.1 completed 12 years service on 17.3.2001 and he may be given the first benefit under the ACP Scheme w.e.f. 21.11.2003, i.e., the date on which the relevant O.M. was issued by allowing him to draw salary in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. The petitioner No. 2 has completed his 12 years of service on 21.8.1990 while the petitioner No. 3 completed 12 years of service on 8.2.2001 and accordingly, they may also be allowed the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. with effect from 21.11.2003. The petitioner No. 1 is yet to complete 24 years of service if his service period is counted from his initial appointment, i.e., from 17.3.1989 and as such, he is not entitled to the second benefit under the ACP Scheme. Similarly, the petitioner No. 3 is also yet to complete 24 years of service as he joined his service initially on 8.2.1988 and he is also not entitled to the second benefit under the said Scheme. The petitioner No. 2 Rakesh Chandra, if his service is counted from his initial appointment on 21.8.1978, has completed 24 years of service on 21.8.2002 and as such, he is entitled to second benefit under the said Scheme. The petitioner no. 2 should have been given further higher pay scale w.e.f. 22.8.2002 but the same can be granted to him only from the date of issuance of the O.M. dated 21.11.2003.

16. The question now posed is as to whether after completion of 12 years of service, the petitioner should have been allowed the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. instead of Rs.10000-325-15200 p.m. as prescribed for the Deputy Director and equivalent posts by the State Government in the notification dated 6.12.2007 with retrospective effect from the dates on which the petitioners have completed 12 years of service as indicated above. The pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 p.m. as prescribed vide notification dated 6.12.2007, in my considered view, cannot be provided to the petitioners inasmuch as it did not come into existence or given effect to, from the date on which they have completed 12 years of service. While upgrading the pay scale of the petitioners as per the aforesaid ACP Scheme, the Government vide impugned order dated 29.4.2008 initially provided the play scale of Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. w.e.f. 21.11.2003 and subsequently, further up-graded/provided the pay scale of Rs.10000-325-15200 p.m. w.e.f. 11.2.2008, although, except petitioner No. 1, Rakesh Chandra, they are yet to complete 24 years of service. There is justification in the claim of the respondent authorities that the petitioners have been allowed two benefits under the existing ACP Scheme during their service careers; one by raising the pay scale from Rs.6500-200-10500 p.m. to Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. and the other, from Rs.8000-275-13500 p.m. to Rs.10000-325-15200 p.m. The next higher pay scale is Rs.12000-375-16500 p.m. which is prescribed for the post of Joint Director and equivalent posts and which is non-existent in the Fisheries Department. The ACP Scheme does not provide for further up-gradation of pay scale and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to claim such up-gradation in pay scale even after completion of more than 24 years of service.

17. The decisions referred to above by Ms. G. Deka, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, are not relevant/appropriate for the purpose of adjudication of

this matter. In Ramesh Singh (supra), the Apex Court dealt with a case where no recommendation was made by the Pay Commission providing parity in employment in respect of General Reserve Engineering Force vis-a-vis Army Personnel and in the said case, no challenge was made to recommendation of the Pay Commission. It was held in the said case that the scope of interference is extremely limited because the court does not normally substitute its own views for those of expert bodies like the Pay Commission unless glaring infirmities are established. In Kamal Chandra's case (supra), this court dealt with a case pertaining to grant of equal pay for equal work where the petitioners' claim for parity in pay scale was rejected by one-man anomaly committee and the Government did not receive the recommendation of the Pay Commission. In that case also, this court refused to interfere in exercise of power under judicial review. 18. The present case differs from the above cited cases in facts and circumstances as well as the issues involved. The aforesaid discussion and consideration lead to logical conclusion that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh has fulfilled the assurance of financial up-gradation in respect of the petitioners by way of providing two up-gradations in their pay scales under the aforesaid ACP Scheme even before completion of 24 years of service in respect of petitioner Nos. 1 and 3 and no further up-gradation could be allowed unless the ACP Scheme is amended further to give the additional benefit to them. The petitioners have failed to make out any case for providing them further financial up-gradation under the aforesaid scheme and as such, no fault could be attributed to the respondent authorities in issuing the impugned notification dated 29.4.2008 and the same would not be liable to be set aside or quashed. The petition is found to be lacking in merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. 19. There shall be no order as to costs.