NARAYANA PAI, CJ. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who is an employee working under the Kolar Gold undertakings, complains that he has not been given the benefit of a certain revision of pay scales and asks for the issue of an appropriate writ to secure the said benefit to him. ( 2 ) THE petitioner had joined service when the Gold Fields were being worked by a concern called John Tayler and Sons and continued to work even after the taking over of the Undertaking by the Government. ( 3 ) THE employees of the Undertaking were originally classified or as daily rated and monthly rated employees. The: petitioner as among the monthly rated employees. The monthly rated employees were divided into three groups, Works Establishment (underground) works Establishment (Service) and Office Establishment. The petitioner belongs to the third group. The Office Establishment had seven different grades of pay distinguished as 'a' Grade, 'b' Grade, etc. , up to 'g' Grade. The petitioner was in the 'a' Grade, working as a Head Clerk. ( 4 ) BY an order dated 28th April 1961, the petitioner was appointed to work as storekeeper in the Electricity Department in the vacancy caused by the resignation of one David. By certain orders issued by the President of India, the scales of pay applicable to what are called the covenanted posts were revised. One of the covenanted posts listed in the Annexure to the order goes by the name of Storekeeper. The revised pay scale applicable thereto is higher than the pay scale attached to the post in which the petitioner was working. His claim is that he is entitled to be placed on the said higher scale of pay. ( 5 ) THE answer to the petitioner's claim made by the respondent, viz. , indian Union which now operates the Mines, is that the revision of pay scales relied upon by the petitioner applies exclusively to what are called the covenanted posts held by officers also called the covenanted officers and not to monthly rated employees like the petitioner or other daily rated employees. ( 6 ) THE covenanted officers are -officers who are engaged on a contract entered into by the Undertaking and the officers with a specified term of employment liable to be terminated or renewed under conditions and circumstances set out in each of the contracts. ( 6 ) THE covenanted officers are -officers who are engaged on a contract entered into by the Undertaking and the officers with a specified term of employment liable to be terminated or renewed under conditions and circumstances set out in each of the contracts. As against the said category, the regular employees are called daily rated or monthly rated employees according to the mode of payment of salary prescribed to them. As already stated, the petitioner is a monthly rated employee. ( 7 ) THE papers produced relating to the revision of pay scales by the president make it clear that the revision was to apply to covenanted posts only. Unless therefore the petitioner's post of Storekeeper may be regarded as a covenanted post, the petitioner cannot take advantage of it. ( 8 ) THE argument on behalf of the petitioner is that the order dated 28th April 1961 appointing him as a Storekeeper does not say that the post is not a covenanted post and that while enumerating the grades of pay in respect of monthly rated employees, the post going by the name of Storekeeper is not mentioned at all. ( 9 ) WHILE conceding that the post of Storekeeper is not a post mentioned with reference to grades applicable to monthly rated employees, the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent states that the right to receive pay of the monthly rated employees depends upon the grade or the scale of pay applicable to them and not upon the designation of the posts in which they are for the time being asked to work. With reference to 'a' grade employees it is stated that they may be asked to work as Head clerk, personal assistant, Storekeeper or in any other similar clerical capacity. ( 10 ) THAT such must be the position or at any rate, that the omission to name the post of Storekeeper with reference to pay scale prescribed for monthly rated employees makes no difference to the case of the petitioner, is clear from the fact that the petitioner who originally entered service as an employee continues to be so and has not entered into a specific contract of service with the undertaking as is the case with the covenanted employees or officers. ( 11 ) WE are therefore unable to accept the petitioner's case that for reason only of the fact that he is called upon to work as a Storekeeper, he becomes entitled to the pay scale applicable to a covenanted post. ( 12 ) THE petitioner has also complained that another monthly rated employee called Ramachandran has been given a higher pay scale on promotion and that therefore there is some violation or infringement of Art. 16 of the Constitution. It is pointed out in the counter affidavit that Ramachandran was not working as a Storekeeper but as an Assistant Cashier and Accountant in one of the Mines having been promoted thereto on a selection made by a promotion committee. It is not possible to say that the two posts are of the same category as to involve or permit of suggesting any violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .