A.P. High Court Junior Officers Association and Others vs The Government of A.P. and Others

N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.—The identical question involved in all the three writ petition is: Whether Section Officers, Scrutiny Officers and Court Officers as also Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon''ble Judges in the High Court and Section Officers in the Lokayukta are entitled for special pay of Rs. 175/- per month on par with Section Officers of A.P. State Secretariat, Legislature and Raj Bhavan Secretariat Hence all these petitions are clubbed and disposed of by a common order.

A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these petitions are as follows: The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 21308 of 1994 are working as Section Officers, Scrutiny Officers and Court Officers in the High Court whereas the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 21362 of 1994 are working as Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon''ble Judges. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2552 of 1996 are working as Section Officers in Lokayukta. The conditions relating to payment of salary in respect of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 21038 and 21362 of 1994 are governed by Rule 2(2) of C.C. A. (sic.) Rules which were framed after approval of the Government as required under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. The pay conditions of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2552 of 1996 are governed by Rule 17 of the A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Rules 1984 (sic. Rule 17(1) of A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Officers and Employees) Service Rules, 1986) which were framed by the Government. In the year 1993 the Pay Revision Commission submitted its recommendations to the Government revising the pay scales of various officers and officials in the State including the Section Officers in the Secretariat, High Court, Lokayukta etc. Regarding this there is no dispute. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by its G.O.Ms.No. 363, Finance and Planning, dated 29-10-1994 extended granting of special pay of Rs. 175/- to the Section Officers working in the Secretariat, A.P. Legislature and Raj Bhavan Secretariat by giving following reasons:

"The Government have carefully examined the request and have decided to give some relief by way of special pay to the Section Officers working . in the Secretariat considering the arduous nature of duties performed by them. Accordingly Government hereby order that a special pay of Rs. 175/- (rupees one hundred and seventy five only) per month, be sanctioned to the Section Officers working in the A.P. Secretariat including Legislature and Raj Bhavan Secretariat with effect from 1-10-1994.

The above special pay shall not be admissible to S.C. Section Officers working in the Department of A.P. Secretariat".

Coming to know of the discrimination in not extending the similar benefit of extending special pay to them some attempts were made by both the Association of the Section Officers and Court Masters on administrative side. After satisfying with the nature of work discharging by these officers in the High Court, the Chief Justice recommended that the Section Officers, Court Masters etc., are also entitled for special pay as their brethern getting in the State Secretariat and Raj Bhavan. In the case of Section Officers in the Lokayukta, they gave a representation requesting to extend the said benefit to them but their request was turned down by the Government by an order dated 10-1-1996.

In spite of the recommendations made by the Hon''ble the Chief Justice and Lokayukta respectively no action was taken or if taken only an incorrect stand by the Government. Hence the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Special pay of Rs. 175/- to them on par with the Section Officers in the Secretariat in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 363 dated 29-10-1994.

The petitioners are working in various capacities as Court Officers, Scrutiny Officers, Section Officers, Court Masters, Personal Secretaries to the Hon''ble Judges of the High Court. The duties of all these officers are more onerous than the Section Officers working in the Secretariat, Legislature and Raj Bhavan. The scrutiny officer completes his scrutiny and endorses as "may be filed" again written (sic. or may be) "rejected"; in effect it becomes final subject only to the orders of the Hon''ble judges after hearing the advocates. In the case of Court Officers the entire work in the Court is virtually subject to "no appeals" or (sic.) by any superior authority. The Section Officers in the High Court are functioning under much more tension whereas in the Secretariat they are in hierarchical level. A Section Officer in the Secretariat has to initiate a file by way of note but does not decide anything like Court officers. In the case of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon''ble Judges again their duties when compared to the Section Officers in the Secretariat are more onerous and responsible. As per standing order of the A.P. High Court of 1992 the duties of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon''ble Judges, they have to take dictation in various types of cases in open courts for hours together. Final orders and interim orders shall be transcribed then and there itself. These officers are possessing graduation (only) in addition to their technical qualifications which enable them to transcribe the orders and judgments in a proper manner and to facilitate the work of the Hon''ble Judges. The Personal Secretaries to the Hon''ble Judges have to attend the residence of the Hon''ble Judges whenever called upon to take down judgments in important cases. Apart from carrying on judicial work the Personal Secretaries have to attend the work of Hon''ble Judges in administration which are all confidential in nature. While preparing judgments these officers will be assisting the judges in taking out important decisions, Acts and provisions of law. By way of amendment dated 26-4-1988 issued in Notification No. 90-B/Spl. to the A.P. High Court Officers and Staff Scales of Pay Rules 1979 these officers of the High Court are entitled for payment of special pay on par with Section Officers of the Secretariat. In case of Section Officers in Lokayukta it is averred that they are working as Section Officers, Accounts Officer and Personal Assistants to Registrar Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. Their services are governed by A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Officers and Employees) Service Rules, 1986. As per the said rules the categories mentioned in column (1) of Schedule II shall correspond to the posts in the Secretariat. These officers are discharging more arduous nature of work. Their representation seeking special pay of Rs. 175/- on par with the Section Officers of the Secretariat'' was rejected arbitrarily by the Government by its order No. 1653/SCE/94-7, dated 10-1-1996.

It is also averred in all the three petitions that denial of special pay to these officers working in these institutions on the ground that their category is not specified in the Government order is quite incorrect.

The State has filed its counter in Writ Petition No. 21038 of 1994. Its stand is one of denial both on the status of the officers of these two institutions and the Secretariat and the nature of work they are turning down. According to the State, denial of special pay to the Section Officers in the two institutions is neither arbitrary, nor deliberate. According to the State, Section Officers in the Secretariat are placed in a pivotal role in the administration as they have to deal with formulation of policy, new schemes, preparation of cabinet cases. They have to analyse various proposals submitted by the Heads of Departments and they will assist the Government in taking final decisions. They will also analyse the issues in formulating various policies of the Government. They will deal with all confidential nature of duties and they will attend to Assembly and also to the Court cases. They have to approve Various bills. A section officer in the Secretariat is a first category Gazetted Officer and he co-ordinates between lower and Higher officers in the Secretariat. He has to attend the office in early hours and leave office in late hours. They have to bring Government Pleaders as well as senior officers in day to-day business in disposing of the cases. They are answerable to the higher officers as well as to the visitors, namely, non-official members of various committees who visit in large number to the Secretariat on every day to make enquiries about the release of funds for the developments in their areas. In order to carry out work entrusted to them they have to attend the Court, Assembly, residence of Government Pleader and senior officers along with files for which they have to incur expenditure from their pockets. They have not been paid any conveyance allowance nor they have been provided with any vehicle. This work they have to do in addition to their desk work in the Section. In case of emergencies the Section Officers are also attending to the work of typing of circulation notes, memorandum to the council of Ministers, etc. The post of Section Officer in Secretariat has become an Executive job as well as desk job. While the duties of the writ petitioners are limited only to the desk work. Thus there is no justification to seek for special pay. It is also stated that the writ petitioners of High Court association have sought relief without making representation to the Government. Thus (it is) contended that the petitions be dismissed.

No counter has been filed for the respondents 1 to 3, in W.P. 2552/96. But the fourth respondent filed counter supporting the case of the petitioners therein. Its stand is that Section Officers in the Lokayukta are under category 5 Gazetted Under Rule 17(1) of the A.P. Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta (Officers and Employees) Service Rules, 1986. The posts of gazetted categories 1 to 5 are equated with the posts specified in column 2 of Schedule (II) for purpose of pay, allowances, leave, encashment of leave, leave travel concession and other benefits as received (sic. revised) from time to time. It is stated that denial of similar benefits of special pay of Rs. 175/- to these officers is quite incorrect.

In support of the stand taken in the writ petitions and the counter filed the learned counsel appearing on both sides contended as follows: The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Sri M. Adinarayana and Sri J.R. Manohar Rao in the three Writ petitions is that in view of Rule 2(2) of the A.P. High Court Officers and Staff Scales of Pay Rules 1979 and Rule 17 of A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Rules 1984 which were framed after following the constitutional requirements, that too, they are either approved or framed by the Government, it is not open for the Government now to say that the petitioners are not entitled for special pay when pay itsfelf includes special pay but excludes other, items like compensatory allowance and other concessions. In spite of their entitlement not extending of similar benefit to the petitioners, who are similarly placed is a clear case of discrimination and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu v. K.V. Seshadri, 1988 (2) SLR 52 to show that under similar circumstances the decision of Madras High Court extending the benefit of special pay to the Personal Assistants and Judgment Writers was affirmed by the Supreme Court. They also placed reliance on the decision in P.P. Mastanrao and Others Vs. The Govt. of A.P. and Others, in support of their contention that the petitioners are entitled for special pay.

Sri Gulam Ahmed, the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning contended that extending benefit of special pay to the Section Officers working in the Secretariat, Raj Bhavan and Legislature Secretariat is a mistake and unless the petitioners establish a right vested in them to request for such a relief, this court cannot issue a writ of Mandamus to do an illegal act merely because it was done in some other case. Sri Ahmed contended that concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right and a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued commanding an authority to show indulgence. The rules referred to by the petitioners do not bind the Government. Equation would have arisen if the Pay Revision Commission had recommended as to the nature of the duties discharging by the officers of these institutions and Secretariat as similar. He also contended that special pay is given exclusively taking into consideration the arduous nature of the work turning out by the Section Officers of the Secretariat. It is something like compensatory allowance given out of grace, as such there is no compulsion or binding nature on the part of the Government to extend the similar benefit to the petitioners herein. To support this contention he placed reliance on the decisions in Rajalakshmaiah v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993 and The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. G.C. Mandawar, contended that the recommendations made by the Hon''ble the Chief Justice of this court equating the posts of Section Officers in the High Court with that of the Section Officers in the Secretariat on administrative side are not binding on the Government.

To appreciate the rival contentions it is proper once again to refer to the orders under challenge and relevant provisions of the rules which govern service conditions with reference to special pay. G.O.Ms.No. 363 dated 29-10-1994 which granted special pay to Section Officers of Secretariat is extracted hereunder:

"Government of Andhra Pradesh Abstract

Public Services - A.P. General Service-Section Officers - Sanction of special pay to the Section Officers - Orders - issued.

Finance and Planning (FW.TA) Department

G.O.Ms.No. 363 dated 29-10-1994. ORDER:

The Co-ordination Committee of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariat Employees has represented to the Government that the Secretariat as the seat of the Government is responsible for laying down the policies, formulating schemes etc., and mat the section officer in the Secretariat plays a pivotal role in the administration as he has to deal with the formulation of policies, new schemes, preparation of cabinet cases, apart from work relating to the Legislative Assembly questions, Legislation and several other items of work. They have therefore requested the Government to sanction a special allowance of Rs. 200/- per month, considering the arduous nature of duties discharged by the section officers.

Government have carefully examined the above request and have decided to give some relief by way of special pay to the section officers working in the secretariat considering the arduous nature of duties performed by them. Accordingly Government hereby order that a special pay of Rs. 175/- (rupees one hundred and seventy five only) per month be sanctioned to the Section Officers working in the A.P. Secretariat, including Legislature and Raj Bhavan Secretariat with effect from 1-10-1994.

The above special pay shall not be admissible to the S.C. Section Officers working in the departments of A.P. Secretariat.

The special pay now sanctioned shall not be treated as pay for purposes of calculation of dearness allowance, House rent allowance, City compensatory allowance etc., and shall not be treated as pay for the purpose of pension.

All the departments of Secretariat are requested to implement the above orders with immediate effect.

(By Order and in the name of the Governor of Andhra Pradesh)

A.R. Jaya Prakash, Special Secretary to Government

The request of the Section Officers in Lokayukta is extracted hereunder.

"It is submitted that though we are discharging more arduous nature of details (sic. duties) we were left (sic.) to the grant of special pay. Be that as it may, by virtue of Rule 17 of A.P. Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta (Service) Rules 1984 (sic. 1986) we are entitled for payment of special pay on par with the Section Officers of the Secretariat. But however, the members of our association are not being paid special pay on the ground that our category was not specified in the Government order".

Denying equal pay of special pay of Rs. 175/- to the Officers working in the High Court and Lokayukta laid much stress on the role of Pay Revision Commission and the powers of the Executive who have to fix special pay for different categories and their acts cannot be questioned.

Regarding this proposition there cannot be any dispute. The words ''pay'' and ''special pay'' as defined under Fundamental Rules: Rule 9 (21)(i) defines ''pay'' as follows:

"21. Pay means the amount drawn monthly by a Government servant as

(i) the pay, other than special pay or pay granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity, or to which he is entitled by reasons of his position in a cadre; and (ii) special pay and personal pay; and (iii) any other emoluments which may be specially classified as pay by Government".

Rule 9 (25) defines ''special pay'' as under:

"Special pay" means an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post or of a Government servant granted in consideration of------

(a) the specially arduous nature of the duties; or

(b) a specific addition to the work of responsibility.

Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules deals with compensatory allowance which reads as follows:

Compensatory allowances include--

(a) House rent Allowances;

(b) Local allowances granted on account of the expensiveness or unattractiveness of a locality;

(c) Other miscellaneous allowances such as uniform allowances, ration allowances, etc.;

(d) Travelling allowances;

(e) Exchange compensation allowance;

(f) Bad climate allowance.

Rule 2(2) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court Officers, and Staff Scales of Pay Rules 1979 reads as follows:

"2(2) For the purposes of pay and allowances, the posts in the Andhra Pradesh High Court service shall correspond to the posts in the Secretariat as shown in Schedule II to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Officers and Staff Scales of Pay Rules 1975 except that the posts of Bailiff and Dafedar in the Andhra Pradesh High Court service shall correspond to the posts of Motor cycle Messenger and Defedar in the Secretariat of the Government of Andhra Pradesh respectively".

Rule 17(1) of the Lokayukta Rules (sic. Section 17(1) of A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act) reads as follows:

"No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta or against any officer, employee, agency or person referred to in Section 14 in respect of anything which is in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act".

The role of the Pay Revision Commission is to rationalise the pay structure and to rectify the anomalies if any, of the employees placed under similar circumstances and to see that emoluments, are fixed taking into consideration the price index and other attendant circumstances including nature of duties and other similar circumstances. The Pay Revision Commission will be normally headed by experts. When once recommendation is made, it is open for the Government which constituted the committee, either to accept the same in toto or with modifications and then to implement it. Thus pay fixation is the concern of either the Pay Revision Commission or the Executive and the Court cannot substitute its own opinion in respect of pay fixation or equation of posts as held by the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, AIR 1989 SC 19, Secretary, Finance Department and others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, and K. Vasudevan Nair and others Vs. Union of India and others, . Thus equation of posts and determination of pay scales are the primary functions of the Executive and not the Judiciary and therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like Pay Commission 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.

The act to fix or revise pay scale is an administrative or Executive action and not of the court, then the point will be whether the Government is justified in not extending the benefit of giving special pay to the Section Officers etc.,of the High Court and the Lokayukta when the Government itself approved or framed rules governing the similar conditions of those officers. Having once accepted that the nature of the duties which these Section Officers are discharging in these institutions vis-a-vis Secretariat are arduous in nature and they are similar and equal, there is no justification for the Government to keep silent in not extending the similar benefit to the petitioners.

If the Officers of different Sections are carrying on similar work with similar responsibilities there shall not be any discrimination in the matter of fixing pay scales or granting special pay; otherwise it amounts to discrimination and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Though at the outset looks correct but (sic. that) the officials cannot request the court to compel the Government to extend such a concession as the concession or allowance given is in the nature of compensatory one and there cannot be a writ of Mandamus to claim for such allowances as held by the Supreme Court in the case (4 supra) and in Purshottam Lal and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, . While dealing with non-implementation of the report of the Pay Revision Commission the Supreme Court observed that when the Government accepts the recommendations of the report or observations made by the Pay Revision Commission in respect of different employees the Government shall implement the same. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees but it implements in respect of others it amounts to committing breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In Chaurasia Case (5 supra) the Supreme Court while dealing with the question of equation of posts whether such posts shall carry equal pay held that such a question is administrative in nature and courts should not normally interfere with the opinion of Pay Commission. While dealing with the posts of Bench Secretaries and Section Officers of Allahabad High Court the Supreme Court took a view that the said posts are not equivalent posts and not entitled to similar pay scale. It further held that it is the concern of Pay Commission to evaluate the posts and its equation shall be determined either by the Pay Commission or the Expert Bodies and normally there shall not be any interference by the Courts. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

"The answer to the question whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like pay commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.

Prior to 1965 Bench Secretaries in Allahabad High Court were paid more emoluments than Section Officers. But it is not known on what basis they were paid in higher pay scale and treated as a superior class to Section Officers. The successive Pay Commissions and even Pay Rationalisation Committee, however, found no support to their superior claim. The Commissions and committee have evaluated the respective duties and responsibilities of the two posts. It was found that the Section Officers perform onerous duties and bear greater responsibilities than Bench Secretaries. In the circumstances the Courts would not interfere with the opinion of the Pay Commissions. The Bench Secretaries, therefore could not claim as of right the Pay scale admissible to Section Officers.

Equal pay for equal work for both men and women has been accepted as a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims equal pay for equal work. This article and other like provisions in the Directive Principles are conscience of our Constitution. They are rooted in Social Justice. They were. intended to bring about a socio-economic transformation in our society."

From the above it is clear that there can be two scales of pay to the persons belonging to the same category performing similar work subject to observations as mentioned in paragraph.. Similar view was taken in the case of K. Vasudevan (7 supra) while dealing with the question relating to equal pay for equal work for Section Officers working in Indian Audit Accounts Department vis-a-vis Section Officers in Central Secretariat held not entitled. Subsequently in the case of Secretary, Finance Department (6 supra) the Supreme Court took a similar view as it had taken in Rajalakshmaiah''s case (3 supra). The relevant portion is extracted hereunder.

"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 task 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. Court must however realise 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 releyant 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. 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 may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. In the instant case 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.

Merely because the Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted status and the Registration Service was included in the State Service did not entitle the Sub-Registrars to be placed in the higher scale if their duties and responsibilities did not justify the same. One of the basic principles for pay fixation is that the salary must reflect the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the post, meaning thereby that the pay scale must be commensurate with the task to be performed and the responsibility to be undertaken by the holder of the post. Merely because of conferment of gazetted status or placement in State service, no qualitative change was brought about in the job performance of the Sub-Registrars and their superiors.

Educational qualification is only one of the many factors which has relevance to pay fixation. The complexity of the job to be performed and the responsibilities attached thereto are entitled to great weight in determining the appropriate pay scale for the job. The mere fact that for direct recruitment the educational qualifications was raised to a degree in law from a recognised University/Institute or equivalent qualification and experience of three years at the bar and this revised educational requirement is the same as required,for Munsiffs, would not entitle the Sub-Registrars'' to pay equal to the Munsiffs. The Sub-Registrar''s duties are relatively simple-namely to receive, examine and register the document-whereas the duties of a Judicial Officer at the floor level as to hear cases, examine witnesses, interpret and construe different laws, hear oral arguments and deliver reasoned judgments. He has to keep abreast with a host of laws unlike a Sub-Registrar who is expected to study only a couple of laws connected with the registration of documents like the Registration Act, the Stamp Act etc. The responsibilities Of a Judicial Officer are also greater than those of Sub-Registrars. Therefore to compare the Sub-Registrars with Judicial Magistrates-Munsiffs is to compare unequals. It would therefore be wholly arbitrary to place them in the same pay scale."

The learned single Judge also took a similar view in the case of Masthan Rao (2 supra).

The decisions cited supra suggest that fixation of pay is the concern of the Pay Revision Commission or the Expert body. When once it is recommended by the Government it is the duty of the Government to implement it and while implementing it cannot choose officers of its style. The equation of posts again is the concern of the Pay Commission. Under the circumstances there need not be equal pay for equal pay(sic. work). At the same time the Supreme Court cautioned in the case of Secretary, Finance Department (6 supra) that ordinarily the courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation, equation of posts and fixing of pay scales as generally such task is left to the Expert bodies like pay commission. 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.

The rules referred to earlier (which) govern the pay conditions of the employees working in two institutions followed by recommendations made by the Heads of the Institutions which rules were approved by the Government. It is clear that the Government approved the pay scales, the status of the Officers on par with the Section Officers of the Secretariat. The reasons to give special pay of Rs. 175/- to the Section Officers of the Secretariat are that the work of the Section Officers of the Secretariat is very onerous, responsible and sometimes they have to do both executive and desk work but not so that (of) the Officers of the High Court and the Lokayukta. This stand of the State looks arbitrary and unreasonable. If we compare the duties of the Officers of the High Court and the Lokayukta with the Secretariat Section Officers, the duties are almost equal, as far as the responsibility and risk are concerned. When responsibility and risk is a factor to extend benefit of special pay to the Section Officers of the Secretariat, (there is) no justification to deny Section Officers and Court Masters of High Court and Lokayukta and it is stated that pursuant to interim orders passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 21038 of 1994 special pay of Rs. 175/- per month (is) being (paid) to the petitioners therein. When once rules governing service conditions of these employees approved by the Government followed by recommendations of the Heads of Institutions treated the same as equal as far as the nature of the duties, the responsibility and the risk concern the same. Denial of benefits to others while granting the same to its preferred officers amount to a clear case of discrimination and thus violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the case of these petitioners discrimination on the part of the State is Writ large since the stand of the State is arbitrary and unreasonable; the courts shall not under such circumstances rise its hand and say that it cannot set right such illegality or hostile treatment in extending benefits to Section Officers of two different wings. Under similar circumstances the Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu v. K. V. Seshadri case (1 supra) approved the recommendation of the Chief Justice of Madras High Court suggesting the State Government to put Personal Assistants and Judgment Writers attached to Judges at par with the Reporters in the Legislative Assembly in regard to payability of Special Pay of Rs. 100/- in addition to pay. As such, denial of special pay of Rs. 175/- to these petitioners is quite arbitrary and illegal.

From the information furnished it is clear that the petitioners in all the three writ petitions have not sought for relief (either) on the basis of any Pay Revision Commission but they are claiming special pay on the basis of State''s action treating the Section Officers, Court Masters, Personal Secretaries to Hon''ble Judges and Court Officers of High Court and Section Officers of Lokayukta on par with the Section Officers of Secretariat. When the duties and responsibilities are similar (there is) no justification to deny their request. When once the State accepted the status of these officers on par with the officers of the Secretariat it is not now fair for the State to refuse to extend similar benefit. Such refusal amounts to arbitrariness. When an act of the State is an arbitrary one, the court can decide it and direct the concerned to set right such an arbitrariness.

For the reasons given above, we feel that the petitioners are also entitled for the same benefit which the Section Officers of the Secretariat received in getting Special pay of Rs. 175/- per month at least from the date of this order if the said benefit is not extended to them so far.

Accordingly all the three writ petitions are allowed. The respondents in all the three petitions are directed to consider the case of the petitioners to get benefit of special pay of Rs. 175/- on par with" the Section Officers of A.P. State Secretariat, A.P. State Legislature and Raj Bhavan Secretariat, in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 363, Fin. & Plg. Department dated 29-10-1994.

Compliance should be done within three months from this date. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.