1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1770 of 2016 Kiran Kumar Soni S/o Shri B.P. Soni, Aged About 52 Years Presently Working As Sub Engineer, In Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, R/o Ring Road No.2, Near Rani Sati Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban And Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Through Its Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate For Respondent No.1/State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Deputy G.A. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board 16/02/2026 1. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who is presently working as a VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.01 20:24:30 +0530 2 Sub-Engineer in the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, has called in question the action of the respondents in allegedly denying him the benefit of the 4th Kramonnati pay scale of Rs. 10,000–15,200/-, to which he claims entitlement upon completion of 25 years of service in terms of the State Government circular dated 31.07.2008. It is the case of the petitioner that despite discharging duties akin to those of a Sub-Engineer since his initial appointment as Draftsman in the year 1986, and despite similarly situated employees having been extended the said benefit, the respondents have arbitrarily and discriminatorily excluded him from such upgradation, thereby violating his rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, thus, seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, inter alia, directing the respondents to grant him the aforesaid pay scale with effect from 17.07.2011 along with all consequential benefits, and also to set aside the communication dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure-R/1), which is alleged to be illegal and unsustainable in law. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents authority to given the benefits of the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-15,200/- to the petitioner as per ANNEXURE-P/2, from 17.07.2011 along with all the consequential services benefits including interest. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authority to extend all the service 3 benefit upon the petitioner at par with other similar situated person. 10.3 The Hon’ble court may be pleased to issue writ /writs / order / orders / direction/ directions/ relief/relief’s, which this Hon’ble Court may think fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble High Court may kindly be pleased to declared that, the letter dated 22.11.2018 (Annexure-R/1) is arbitrary, discriminatory and against the article 14,16 of the constitution of India and same is quash /set- aside, accordingly.” 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as a Draftsman in the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur vide order dated 09.07.1986, and his services are presently governed by the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2007. It is the case of the petitioner that under Schedule–III of the said Rules, the posts of Draftsman and Sub-Engineer are treated as equivalent and constitute feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. According to the petitioner, he has been continuously discharging duties akin to those of a Sub-Engineer since his initial appointment and has completed more than 25 years of service. The State Government, vide circular dated 31.07.2008, introduced a scheme for grant of Kramonnati (time-bound) pay scales, whereunder an employee becomes entitled to the 4th Kramonnati pay scale upon completion of 25 years of service. The petitioner asserts that he was granted earlier higher pay scales on completion of 12 and 20 years of service, but upon completion of 25 years on 17.07.2011, 4 he was denied the 4th Kramonnati pay scale of Rs. 10,000–15,200/-, despite being otherwise eligible. ******* It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent Corporation, vide order dated 01.12.2011, extended the benefit of the 4th Kramonnati pay scale to other similarly situated Sub-Engineers, but arbitrarily excluded the petitioner without assigning any justifiable reason. The petitioner claims to have made several representations to the authorities seeking redressal of his grievance; however, no action was taken. Aggrieved by such inaction and alleged discriminatory treatment, the petitioner has approached this Court contending that the denial of the said benefit is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him the 4th Kramonnati pay scale with effect from 17.07.2011 along with all consequential benefits, and to quash the communication dated 22.11.2018 rejecting his claim. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, having been appointed in the year 1986 and having rendered more than 25 years of continuous service, is squarely entitled to the benefit of the 4th Kramonnati pay scale in terms of the State Government circular dated 31.07.2008. It is contended that under Schedule–III of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Appointment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Servants) Rules, 2007, the posts of Draftsman and Sub-Engineer are treated as equivalent and constitute feeder cadres for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. Despite this, and notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner has been discharging duties of a Sub-Engineer for a considerable period, the respondents 5 have arbitrarily denied him the benefit of the 4th Kramonnati pay scale, even though similarly situated employees have been granted such benefit. It is thus urged that the action of the respondents is ex facie discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ******* It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier been granted the benefit of higher pay scales upon completion of 12 and 20 years of service, and therefore, there exists no justification for denying him the benefit due upon completion of 25 years. Learned counsel argues that the petitioner has made repeated representations before the competent authorities, but the same have been rejected in a mechanical and arbitrary manner without assigning cogent reasons. Placing reliance upon the settled principle that a government servant does not forfeit his fundamental rights upon entering public service, it is contended that the respondents are under a constitutional obligation to treat similarly situated employees equally and to extend legitimate service benefits in a fair and non-discriminatory manner. On these grounds, it is prayed that this Court may issue appropriate directions to the respondents to grant the petitioner the 4th Kramonnati pay scale with effect from 17.07.2011 along with all consequential benefits, and to set aside the impugned communication dated 22.11.2018. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State submits that the claim of the petitioner is wholly misconceived and is not tenable either on facts or in law. It is contended that the petitioner was substantively appointed as a Draftsman in the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur, and 6 continues to hold the said post. The benefit of the 4th Kramonnati pay scale, as envisaged under the Government circular dated 31.07.2008, has been specifically made applicable to the cadre of Sub-Engineers, and not to the post of Draftsman. It is further submitted that the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur had sought clarification from the State Government in this regard, and the State Government, vide communication dated 22.11.2018, has categorically clarified that the said scheme is not applicable to Draftsmen. Therefore, the petitioner, not being a member of the eligible cadre, cannot claim parity or extension of the said benefit as a matter of right. ******* It is further argued that merely because the petitioner alleges that he has been discharging duties akin to those of a Sub-Engineer, the same would not ipso facto entitle him to claim the pay scale or benefits attached to a different cadre, in absence of any formal appointment or promotion to the said post in accordance with law. Learned counsel submits that the classification made by the State in extending the benefit to a specific cadre is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and therefore, does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the clear policy decision and the specific clarification issued by the State Government, it is contended that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur submits that the claim raised by the petitioner is wholly untenable in law and misconceived on facts. It is contended that the 7 petitioner was initially appointed on the substantive post of Draftsman vide order dated 09.07.1986, and continues to hold the said post. The benefit of the 4th Kramonnati pay scale of Rs. 10,000–15,200/- flows from the State Government circular dated 31.07.2008, which has been specifically made applicable only to the cadre of Sub-Engineers. Since the petitioner does not belong to the cadre of Sub-Engineer, the said policy is not applicable to him, and therefore, no right accrues in his favour to claim the said benefit. It is further submitted that the action of the respondent Corporation is strictly in consonance with the policy decision of the State Government and does not suffer from any illegality or arbitrariness. ******* It is further argued that the reliance placed by the petitioner on Schedule provisions relating to eligibility for promotion is wholly misplaced, as those provisions operate only in the context of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer and cannot be invoked for claiming parity in pay scale or financial upgradation. Learned counsel submits that mere allegation of performing duties similar to that of a Sub-Engineer would not entitle the petitioner to claim benefits attached to a different cadre in absence of any formal promotion or appointment in accordance with the prescribed rules. It is thus contended that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal or enforceable right, and the present writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submits that the stand taken by the respondents is misconceived both on facts and in law. It is contended that the petitioner, having been appointed in 1986 and 8 already granted time-bound upgradations on completion of 12 and 20 years of service, became entitled to the 4th Kramonnati pay scale upon completion of 25 years on 17.07.2011 in terms of the circular dated 31.07.2008. It is further urged that similarly situated employees have been granted the said benefit by counting service from the initial date of appointment, as clarified by the Finance Department vide circular dated 13.06.2012, and denial of the same to the petitioner has resulted in pay anomaly and hostile discrimination. Learned counsel submits that the distinction sought to be drawn on the basis of the petitioner’s substantive post as Draftsman is untenable, as the posts of Draftsman and Sub-Engineer are equivalent and form a common feeder cadre for promotion to Assistant Engineer, which is evident from the petitioner’s subsequent promotions to Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer. It is also contended that the communication dated 22.11.2018 is merely an inter-departmental clarification and does not constitute a reasoned decision. Therefore, denial of the benefit, despite similarity in duties, qualifications and length of service, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, entitling the petitioner to the 4th Kramonnati pay scale with consequential benefits. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and pleadings annexed with the petition. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the core issue for consideration is whether the petitioner, who was initially appointed as Draftsman but claims parity with Sub-Engineers on account of alleged 9 equivalence of posts and subsequent promotional avenues, is entitled to the benefit of the 4th Kramonnati pay scale in terms of the Government circular dated 31.07.2008. It is not in dispute that the said circular specifically extends the benefit of the four-tier Kramonnati scheme to the cadre of Sub-Engineers. The stand of the State, fortified by communication dated 22.11.2018, clearly indicates that the benefit was never intended to be extended to the post of Draftsman. In service jurisprudence, it is well settled that pay scales and financial upgradations are matters of policy, and the Court would not ordinarily interfere unless the classification is shown to be arbitrary or violative of constitutional guarantees. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72, and Union of India v. P.V. Hariharan, (1997) 3 SCC 568, has held that equation of posts and determination of pay scales fall within the exclusive domain of the executive, and the Court should exercise restraint in such matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association” (supra) has held in paragraphs 9 and 10 as under: “9. This Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Ors., [1993] Supp I SCC 153, dealing with the question of equation of posts and equation of salaries of government employees, made the following observations : 12. "We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the 10 appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the ask of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts must, however, realize that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability of the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/ limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate 11 with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalization of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of the duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc, Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it 12 may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. (emphasis supplied) 10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay, It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts 13 under the prevailing policies of the State Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the State Government. In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the far reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration :of the State Government courts have taken the view that ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the government. The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the government is patently irrational unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the State Government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the government to implement the same. As noted earlier, in the present case 'the High Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two sections of the employees, one in the State Secretariat and the other in the Central Secretariat. It has also ignored the basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and 14 executive instructions issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre.” 10. Further, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be mechanically applied unless there is complete identity in all relevant factors, as reiterated in State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh, (2017) 1 SCC 148. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in para 42 of the said judgment has held that: “42. All the judgments noticed in paragraphs 7 to 24 hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them, were against the same post for which a higher pay-scale was being allowed, in other Government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were the same, as of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale. Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ was invoked and considered, it would be just and appropriate, to delineate the parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the said parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to express the legal position with reference to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions:- 15 42.1 The ‘onus of proof’, of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see – the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur, the Steel Authority of India Limited case, and the National Aluminum Company Limited case). 42.2 The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant, is in a “different department” vis- a-vis the reference post, does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Persons discharging identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of Government (see – the Randhir Singh case, and the D.S. Nakara case). 42.3 The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification (see – the Randhir Singh case). For equal pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity (see – the Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) case, the Mewa Ram Kanojia case, the Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union case and the S.C. Chandra case). 16 42.4 Persons holding the same rank/designation (in different departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ (see – the Randhir Singh case1, State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, and the Hukum Chand Gupta case). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked, merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature. 42.5 In determining equality of functions and responsibilities, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, it is necessary to keep in mind, that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible (see – the Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) case and the State Bank of India case). The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ (see - State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, and the Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union case). 17 42.6 For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale (see – the Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case). 42.7 Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay-scales. Such as - ‘selection grade’, in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as – merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see - State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia ). 42.8 If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or comparable (see – the Mewa Ram Kanojia case , and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy). In such a cause, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, cannot be invoked. 42.9 The reference post, with which parity is claimed, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, has to be at the same hierarchy in the service, as the subject post. Pay-scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a 18 promotional post (see - Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey , and the Hukum Chand Gupta case). 42.10 A comparison between the subject post and the reference post, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, cannot be made, where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see – the Harbans Lal case). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see - Official Liquidator v. Dayanand). 42.11 Different pay-scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not be applicable. And also when, the reference post includes the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post (see – the State Bank of India case). 42.12 The priority given to different types of posts, under the prevailing policies of the Government, can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay-scales. Herein also, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not be applicable (see - State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association). 19 42.13 The parity in pay, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, cannot be claimed, merely on the ground, that at an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay-scale. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities (see - State of West Bengal v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association ). 42.14 For parity in pay-scales, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, equation in the nature of duties, is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non- teaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality control, the principle would not be applicable (see - Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh v. Manju Mathur). 42.15 There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay-scales, between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e., between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office level (see – the Hukum Chand Gupta case17), when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar. 20 42.16 The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay-scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues (see – the Hukum Chand Gupta case ). 42.17 Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a different organization, there can be no question of equation of pay-scales, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, even if two organizations have a common employer. Likewise, if the management and control of two organizations, is with different entities, which are independent of one another, the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would not apply (see – the S.C. Chandra case, and the National Aluminum Company Limited case).” 11. In the present case, the petitioner admittedly held the substantive post of Draftsman and was never granted formal appointment to the cadre of Sub-Engineer prior to his promotions. Mere similarity in certain duties or a common promotional channel would not ipso facto obliterate the distinction between two separate cadres for the purpose of financial benefits. The classification made by the State in confining the benefit of the Kramonnati scheme to Sub-Engineers cannot be said to be devoid of intelligible differentia or lacking rational nexus. Moreover, the impugned communication dated 22.11.2018 reflects the policy position of the State and cannot be termed arbitrary in absence 21 of any enforceable legal right in favour of the petitioner. In view of the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Finance Department v. West Bengal Registration Service Association, (1993) Supp (1) SCC 153, and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish any legal entitlement to the claimed benefit. 12. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved