WP(C) 1843/2005 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. The respo ndents are represented by M. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel, Education. 2. The petitioners are serving as headmasters in different provincialised M.E. Schools and have approached the court for the second time, seeking a direct ion for getting salary in the pay scale of Rs. 620 - 1315/- P.M. (subsequently r evised to Rs.1375 - Rs.3375/-) being headmasters with graduate qualification. C urrently the petitioners are being paid salary of Rs.1255- Rs.2635/- (pre-revise d Rs.560 - 1035/-). 3. Initially the petitioners were appointed at the venture stage of their respective schools and the M.E. schools where the petitioners were serving, were provincialised between 1.1.1984 to 1.1.1986. The petitioners aver that although they were appointed in the scale of pay of Rs.580 -Rs.1165/-, but by a subseque nt order, their pay scale was reduced to Rs.560 - Rs.1035/-. 4. The existing scale of pay of headmasters of M.E. Schools of Rs.560 - Rs. 1035/- was revised to Rs.1375 - Rs.3375 P.M., in pursuant to the notification da ted 26.4.1995 under the Revision of Pay Rules( hereinafter referred to as the R OP Rules ), 1990. Accordingly the petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1375 - Rs.3375/- in pursuant to the notification dated 26.4.1995 (Annexure - 10A). 5. The petitioners saw that similarly situated headmasters of M.E. Schools were getting the benefit of higher scale of pay and accordingly the petitioners had earlier approached the Court seeking a direction for consideration of their claim for higher pay scale as being enjoyed by few similarly situated headmaster s. This Court by order dated 10.1.2000 disposed of W.P.(C) No. 1953/99, directin g consideration of the petitioner’s claim for higher scale. But since the requis ite consideration was not done, they have filed a second writ petition. 6. Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioners are not entitled to any higher pay scale then what they are getting, since under ROP Rules, 1990, scale of graduate headmasters is admissible only from provinci alisation of service. The counsel submits further that since services of all the nine petitioners were provincialised between 1984 to 1986, the liability of the Govt. to pay the appropriate salary to the petitioners would accrue, only after the petitioners’ services are provincialised. It is also submitted that the pay scale of Rs.620 - Rs.1315/-(pre-revised) is applicable only for those graduate headmasters, whose services were provincialised prior to 1981. 7. It appears from the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Dire ctor of Secondary, Assam on 2.9.2008 that before pay was revised through Govt. n otification dated 26.4.1995(Annexure - 10A) there were two sets of pay scale of headmasters of M.E. Schools. They are :- (i) Rs. 1255/- to 2635 for those H.M. who were enjoying the pre-revised scale of Rs. 560/- to 1035/-. (ii) Rs.1375/- to 3375/- for those H.M. of M.E. Schools, who were drawing pre-re vised pay scale of Rs. 620/- to 1315/-. 8. It is further averred that the scale of pay of Rs. 620 - Rs.1315/- was applicable to those graduate headmasters, who have been draw ing pre-revised scale of Rs.325- Rs.650/- as per ROP Rules, 1983. Similarly, the headmasters who are drawing pay scale of Rs.560 -Rs.1035/- under the 1983 ROP, Rules, were given the pay scale of Rs. 1255 - Rs. 2365/- under the ROP Rules, 19 90. Thus prior to revision of pay scale in 1983, pay scale of Rs.260- Rs 425/- was being paid to non graduate headmasters and Rs.325 -Rs.650/- was be ing paid to graduate headmasters of M.E. Schools. 9. The subsequent upward revision of the pay scale is also contended by the respondents, to be on the basis of the aforesaid two sets of pay scale for the serving headmasters of the M.E. schools, depending upon their respective qualifi cations. Some headmasters were in the pay scale of Rs.260- Rs.425/- and are cont inuing in the pay scale of Rs.560 - Rs.1035/- including the graduate headmasters appointed after 1.1.1981 as per the ROP Rules, 1983. These headmasters whose se rvices were provincialised after 1981, are not entitled to the scale of pay of R s.620 - Rs.1315/-(pre-revised) which was subsequently revised through ROP Rules, 1990 to Rs.1375 - Rs.3375/-. After ROP Rules, 1990 came into effect from 1.1.1 989, the common pay scale of Rs.1375/- to Rs.3375/- is applicable for all the he admasters of M.E. Schools as provided under the ROP Rules, 1990. 10. Considering the fact that the services of the petitioners were provincia lised in between 1984 to 1986 and not before 1981, they may not be entitled to t he higher pay scale, considering the fact that, two sets of pay scales were appl icable for headmasters of M.E. schools under the earlier ROP Rules. It may also be noted that the two sets of pay scale of headmasters was consolidated into a s ingle pay scale of Rs. 1375 - Rs. 3375/- for all the headmasters only with effec t from 1.1.1989 under the ROP Rules, 1990. Thus prior to the merging of the two sets of pay scale into a single one after 1.1.1989, notwithstanding the apparent disharmony, the headmasters of the M.E. schools, depending upon the dates of th eir provincilisation, and qualification were getting different pay scales. 11. Considering the above, I see no justification to declare that the petiti oners are entitled to any higher pay scale, merely because some Headmasters of M .E. schools were granted higher pay scale during the relevant period. 12. But Mr. S. Choudhury, learned counsel submits that at least a fresh dire ction should be issued to the competent authority to examine the specific grieva nce of the nine petitioners, since such similar directions have been issued by t his Court for other aggrieved headmasters of the M.E. schools. This prayer of th e petitioners is not being opposed by Mr. M. Khataniar, learned Standing Counsel . 13. Accordingly notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition, I direct that, if the petitioners file a representation for higher pay scale as headmast ers of M.E. schools, the same be considered in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Rules, on the merit of their claim. 14. The case is disposed of accordingly without any order of cost.