JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution the exclusion of the District and Sessions Judges, who were promoted as such before. April, 1958, from the benefit of the pay fixation of the District and Sessions judges in the I. A. S. (Senior) Scale. ( 2. ) (a) The petitioner was in the judicial service of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat which merged in the New State of Madhya Pradesh on its formation on November 1, 1956. On that date the petitioner was officiating as District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain, by virtue of an order dated October 23, 1955 (Annexure A ). Under that order the petitioner who was on that date an Additional District and Sessions Judge was temporarily appointed as the district and Sessions Judge and was asked to assume the charge of that office immediately at Ujjain and to continue to officiate until Shri Surajbhan (who was then Registrar, High Court, and was under orders of posting to Ujjain) assumed the charge of his office as District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain. (b) On the formation of the New State of Madhya Pradesh the petitioner was absorbed in the judicial service of the New Sate. In February 1957 shri Surajbhan was posted as District and Sessions Judge, Indore, instead of ujjain and the petitioner continued to work as officiating District and Sessions judge at Ujjain. Later on he was transferred from Ujjain to Guna in the same capacity. (c) On February 21, 1959, a provisional gradation list of the M. P. Judicial Services was published in the M. P. Extra-ordinary Gazette. The petitioner was ranked among the Civil Judges (Category III) though he was also shown a permanent Additional District and Sessions Judge and Offg. District and Sessions Judge. (d) The petitioner was then transferred from Guna to Bhind as Offg. temporary District and Sessions Judge. By order dated June 6, 1961 (An-nexure 3) he was provisionally confirmed as District and Sessions Judge w. e. f. November 1, 1956. District and Sessions Judge. (d) The petitioner was then transferred from Guna to Bhind as Offg. temporary District and Sessions Judge. By order dated June 6, 1961 (An-nexure 3) he was provisionally confirmed as District and Sessions Judge w. e. f. November 1, 1956. By an order of the State Government dated June 30, 1961 the petitioner was absorbed provisionally against the post of District and Sessions Judge and included in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge w. e. f. November 1, 1956, and this post was directed to be for the purposes of Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption rules, 1959, the "post of absorption" in respect of the petitioner within the meaning of Clause (g) of rule 2 of the said rules. (e) On September 21, 1961 the final gradation list of the Judiciary was published in the M. P. Gazette. The petitioner was shown in Category III of the "permanent Civil Judges". He was also shown in Category II as "offg. Temporary Additional District and Sessions Judge" and was also shown in Category No. I as "offg. Temporary District and Sessions Judge" (Annexure 5 ) (f) By an order dated April 6, 1962 the petitioner was confirmed on the post of District and Sessions Judge w. e. f. from November 1, 1956 (Annexure 6.) Eventually the petitioner retired in 1966. ( 3. ) THE officers constituting the judicial services of the new Madhya Pradesh state have been drawn from the old Madhya Pradesh (Mahakaushal) and from other units which constituted the new State of Madhya Pradesh. The district and Ses-ions Judges drawn from the old Madhya Pradesh were already getting their pay in the I A. S. (Senior) Scale in accordance with Illustration II below Schedule II to the I. A. S. (pay) rules 1954, By memorandum no. 25065-3048/xxi-B dated July 13, 1964, the Government of Madhya pradesh ordered that the judicial officers drawn from the units other than old madhya Pradesh who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after April 1, 1958, were also allowed the benefit of pay fixation in the I. A. S. (Senior) Scale. It will be useful to reproduce here the memorandum :- "government of Madhya Pradesh, law Department, memorandum no 25065-3048/xxi-B, Bhopal, dated the 13th July, 1964 to, the Registrar, high Court of Madhya Pradesh, jabalpur. It will be useful to reproduce here the memorandum :- "government of Madhya Pradesh, law Department, memorandum no 25065-3048/xxi-B, Bhopal, dated the 13th July, 1964 to, the Registrar, high Court of Madhya Pradesh, jabalpur. Sub: Unification of system of pay fixation of the Judicial Officers promoted as District and sessions Judges. Reference correspondence resting with your D. C. Letter No. 110/iv-12-63/69-11, dated 2-6-64 on the above subject. The State Government are pleased to order that the Judicial officers drawn from units other than old Madhya Pradesh who were promoted as District and sessions Judges on or after 1-4-58 and are hereinafter promoted as District and Sessions Judges, be allowed the benefit of pay fixation in the I. A. S. (Senior) Scale in accordance with the Illustration II below Schedule II to the I. A. S (Pay) rules, 1954, which benefit is permissible to Officers of the Old Madhya Pradesh by virtue of rule 7 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh judicial Service Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Service) rules, 1965 by order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh, sd/- N. C. Dwivedi, dy. Secretary to the Government. " The effect of this order was that all the District and Sessions Judges were allowed the benefit of pay fixation in I. A. S. (Senior) Scale except those District and Sessions Judges who had been drawn from units other than the Old madhya Pradesh and who had been promoted as such before April 1, 1958. Besides the petitioner, only seven more officers were excluded They all belonged to the Madhya Bharat region; 1. Shri V K. Dongre, 2. Shri Surajbhan. 3. Shri K B. Patil, 4. shri S. M. Pagnis, 5 Shri M. K. Kaul, 6. Shri R. B. Kotesthane, 7. Shri S. R. Vyas. The petitioner challenges the validity of this exclusion and claims for himself the benefit of the order dated July 13, 1964 w. e. f. April 1, 1958, the same pay fixation in the I. A. S. (Senior) Scale as all other District and Sessions judges not so excluded. ( 4. Shri R. B. Kotesthane, 7. Shri S. R. Vyas. The petitioner challenges the validity of this exclusion and claims for himself the benefit of the order dated July 13, 1964 w. e. f. April 1, 1958, the same pay fixation in the I. A. S. (Senior) Scale as all other District and Sessions judges not so excluded. ( 4. ) THE petitioners contention is twofold :- (i) It was on April 6, 1962 that he was confirmed as a District and sessions Judge and that must be taken to be the date of his promotion as district and Sessions Judge in the "real sense" of the word although he had been allowed earlier to work as a temporary and officiating District and sessions Judge; (ii) The order dated July 13, 1964, in so far as it excludes him from the benefit of that order is discriminatory and ultra vires the Article 14 of the Constitution. ( 5. ) THE first contention must be rejected. Prior to November 1, 1956, when the new Scale of Madhya Pradesh came into being the petitioner had been working as District and Sessions Judge, Ujjain in the former State of madhya Bharat. Later on he was first provisionally confirmed as District and sessions Judge ,on June 16, 1961) and finally on April 6, 1962, he was confirmed as District and Sessions Judge w. e. f. from November 1, 1956 Thus the petitioner must be deemed to have been promoted and confirmed as District and Sessions Judge as on November 1, 1956 He cannot, therefore, claim to have been promoted as District and Sessions Judge on or after April 1, 1958. ( 6. ) WE shall now advert to the second contention. The case for the state Government is that the Rules governing the pay of the District and sessions Judges drawn from the various cadres of the integrating States was governed by I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954. The pay was fixed in accordance with the M. P. Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959. In the old Mahakaushal region the pay scale of the District and Sessions judges was senior scale in I. A. S. cadre i. e. Rs. 800-1,800 as governed by the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of service) Rules, 1955. In the Madhya Bharat region the pay scale was rs. 800-1,200 (ordinary), Rs. In the old Mahakaushal region the pay scale of the District and Sessions judges was senior scale in I. A. S. cadre i. e. Rs. 800-1,800 as governed by the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of service) Rules, 1955. In the Madhya Bharat region the pay scale was rs. 800-1,200 (ordinary), Rs. 1,250-1,500 (Select ). The Senior I. A. S. scale of pay was applicable only to the District and Sessions Judges drawn from mahakaushal region. After the formation of the new State of Madhya Pradesh it was co side red essential to have one cadre of the Judicial Officers with identical scales of pay. Accordingly, Unified Scale of pay was evolved and published vide Notification dated October 5, 1960 (Gazettee October 7, 1960 ). Unification scale of the cadre of the District and Sessions Judges therefore came to be fixed as "i A. S. (Senior) Scale". However, the benefit of I. A. S. (Senior) Scale was extended to all the District and Sessions Judges drawn from other units, who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after april 1, 1958. As the petitioner had been confirmed on his promoted post of the. District and Sessions Judge w. e. f. November 1, 1956, he could not get the benefit. ( 7. ) IT is contended for the respondents that where the State Government frames or applies any rules it has discretion to fix a date for such rules to come into force or to apply. In the present case the Government decided that i. A. S. Pay Rules should be applied to the persons who were promoted to the post of District and Sessions Judge on or after April 1, 1953. The petitioner cannot grudge the application of the said rules to the promotees after April 1, 1958, only. Reliance is placed on Ramchand Rao Kotasthane v. State of M. P (1967 M P L J 685-1968 J L J 17.) ( 8. ) IT seems to us patent enough that the resultant position which emerged from the Government order dated July 13, 1964, was that the petitioners juniors who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after April 1, 1958, got a higher pay than the petitioner. ) IT seems to us patent enough that the resultant position which emerged from the Government order dated July 13, 1964, was that the petitioners juniors who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after April 1, 1958, got a higher pay than the petitioner. This discrimination was sought to be justified on the ground that the District and Sessions Judges drawn from the old Mahakaushal had already been admitted to the benefit of the I. A. S. (Senior) Scale even before the formation of the New State of Madhya Pradesh, so that the District and Sessions Judges who were drawn from other units could have no grievance. In our opinion, this argument which was advanced before us on behalf of the respondeat State cannot be accepted. Apart from other things, the argument ignores the discrimination between two District and sessions Judges who were both drawn from the same unit (say, Madhya Bharat), one of whom was promoted as such before and the other after April 1, 1958. It is not understandable that one who was promoted as District and Seisins judge before April 1, 1958, should even after April 1, 1958, draw less pay than another District. and Sessions Judge who was promoted on or after April 1, 1958, even if both were drawn from the same integrating unit (e g. Madhya Bharat ). It is incontestable that the former had been promoted before April l, 1950, either because they were senior to the latter or because they were found m re efficient than the latter. In either case their pay scale could no have been more disadvantageous than that of the latter who were subsequently promoted. It is not necessary to enter into the question of discrimination between a District and Sessions Judge drawn from the old Madhya Pradesh (Maha Klushal) and another District and Sessions Judge drawn from any other integrating unit. The impugned order is unjustifiably discriminatory when the cases of two district and Sessions Judges (drawn from the same integrating unit other than the old Mahakaushal) are compared one of whom was promoted as such) before april 1, 1958, while the other who was promoted as District and Sessions Judge on or after the date. No reason for this unequal treatment could be shown to us. Therefore, the classification is entirely arbitrary and must be struck down. ( 9. No reason for this unequal treatment could be shown to us. Therefore, the classification is entirely arbitrary and must be struck down. ( 9. ) THE view we take is fully fortified by the decision of the Supreme court in the State of U. P. v. K. C Dhaun (Civil Appeal No. 1832 of 1968, decided on December 12, 1968.) In that case the respondent joined the U. P. Civil (Judicial) Service as Munsiff in 1925. He was promoted to the post of a Civil and Sessions Judge on October 15. 1947, and confirm 1 in that post with effect from September 16, 1949. He was appointed as an officiating district and Sessions Judge on May 16, 1949 and confirmed in that post with effect from July 1, 1951. He retired from service on February 15, 1954 Prior to July 4, 193l, the pay scale of Civil and Sessions Judge was Rs 800/100-1300/50-1350 and that of the District and Sessions Judge was Rs. 1275/75-1500/100-2000/50-2250. The officers who were promoted as Civil and Sessions judges after July 4, 1931 were given a lower scale namely Rs. 600-1200. The pay scales of officers who joined service prior to July 4, 1931 and confirmed in the post of Civil and Sessions Judges prior to December 31, 1950 are regulated by rule 30 (a) whereas the officers who joined service prior to July 4, 1931 but confirmed in the post of Civil and Sessions Judges after December 31, 1950, are governed by rule 24 read with rule 30 (b ). In the case of the former class their old pay scales were retained but in the case of the latter class a new pay scale was fixed. Rule 24 as it stood at the relevant time reads :- "monthly rates of pay:-The scales of pay admissible to members of the service shall be as follows: (1) For Civil and Sessions Judges, the scale of pay shall be Rs. 500-50 800-50-1,200, per mensem, with an efficiency bar at the stage of Rs 800. (2) For District and Sessions Judges, the scale of pay shall be Rs. 800-50-1,000-75-1,750-50-1800, per mensem. 500-50 800-50-1,200, per mensem, with an efficiency bar at the stage of Rs 800. (2) For District and Sessions Judges, the scale of pay shall be Rs. 800-50-1,000-75-1,750-50-1800, per mensem. (3) Fixation of initial pay on appointment to the service in posts of Civil and Sessions judge shall be regulated as follows: - (a) Direct recruits will commence on the minimum of the time scale, namely, Rs 600 per mensem Such a recruit will, on satisfactory completing of the first year of his probation, draw Kb. G50 per mensem, and on confirmation, Its. 700 per- mensem. Note:-If the period of probation is extended in the case of a candidate appointed by direct recruitment, such extention shall not count for increment unless the appointing authority directs otherwise. (b) The initial pay of an officer of tl:e of the Pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch)promoted to the post of Civil and Sessions Judge, should be ri. ud at the stage in the scale for Civil and Sessions Judges next above the amount equal to the officers pay, or presumptive pay in the ordinary time scale as distinguished from pay in the selection grade) of the uttar Pradesh Civil Service Judicial Branch plus an increase at the rate of one increment in the time-scale for Civil and Sessions Judges for every three years of service in the Uttar pradesh Civil Service (Judicial Branch) subject to a minimum increase of Rs. 200 and a maximum increase of Rs 300. xxx xxx xxx xxx" Rule 30 (a) says: "notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the pay of an officer appointed or approved for appointment to the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) or before July 4, 1931, and confirmed as a Civil and Sessions Judge on or before December 31, 1950, shall, as a Civil and sessions Judge, be concerned by rule 12 of the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch) (Condition of Service) Rules, 1942. Such officers shall on appointment as a District and Sessions Judge craw pay in the time scale for District and Ses ions Judges mentioned under rule 24, and his initial pay in that time scale shall be fixed at the stage next above the amount equal to the officers pay, or presumptive pay in the ordinary time-scale of the IT. Such officers shall on appointment as a District and Sessions Judge craw pay in the time scale for District and Ses ions Judges mentioned under rule 24, and his initial pay in that time scale shall be fixed at the stage next above the amount equal to the officers pay, or presumptive pay in the ordinary time-scale of the IT. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch), plus an increase at the rate of one increment in the time-scale for the District and sessions Judges for every three years of his total service in the U. P. Civil Service (Judicial Branch and as Civil and Sessions Judge, subject to a minimum increase of Rs. 200 and a maximum increase of Rs. 800, as if this rule was in force on his first appointment as a District and sessions Judge in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity on or after March 6, 1948; provided that when with the increase calculated as aforesaid, the figure arrived at corresponds to a stage in the time-scale for District and Sessions Judge, the pay shall be fixed at that sta,e and not at the next higher stage; provided further that if the pay of an officer in the post of district and Sessions Judge and calculated under this Clause, is at any stage, less than the pay already allowed to him under the orders issued in this behalf by Government, the difference shall be treated as his personal pay and absorbed in his future increments. " Rule 30 b) reads :- "the pay of every officer who was a member of the U. P. Civil (Judicial liranch), on the 16th day of August,. 947, appointed to the post of District and Sessions Judge, or a post of Civil and sessions Judge, whether in a substantive, temporary or officiating capacity, shall be refixed in accordance with rule 24 as if that rule was in force on the date of his first appointment as aforesaid ; provided that if the pay of an officer in the post of District and Sessions Judge as calculated under this clause is, at any stage, less then the pay already allowed to him under the orders issued in this behalf by Government the difference shall be treated as his personal pay and absorbed in his future increments. " In view of these rules officers though recruited prior to July 4, 1931, but confirmed after December 31, 1950 got the benefit of a lift ranging from about Rs. 200 to Rs. 300 per month under rule 24 over their substantive pay on their appointment as Civil and Sessions judges but those officers who were appointed prior to July 4, 1931 but confirmed Before December 31, 1950 were not given the above benefit. Their pay scale was fixed as Civil and Sessions judges at the next stage of their substantive pay. The resulting position was that the respondents juniors confirmed as Civil and Sessions Jud;es after December 31, 1950 got an initial pay of about Rs. 1150 per month on their first appointment as Civil and Sessions Judges whereas the respondent got an initial pay of Rs. 900/- on his appointment as Civil and Sessions Judge. " ( 10. ) IN that case Mr. Justice Hegde speaking for the Court said :- "the object of rule 30, admittedly was to preserve to the officers who entered into service prior to July 4, 1931 their previous pay scale We have to examine the validity of the classification made under the said rule having in mind the object intended to be achieved. One can appreciate any difference made in service conditions between those officers who entered service prior to July 4, 1931 and those who entered service thereafter. But what is not understandable is why there should be any difference between those who ware confirmed as Civil and Sessions judges before December 31, 1950 and those confirmed thereafter. Among the officers appointed prior to July 4, 1931, some mi lit have been confirmed prior to December 31, 1950, either because they were seniors to those confirmed later or because they were found to be more efficient. In either case their pay scale should not have been more disadvantageous than that of the officers confirmed subsequent to December 31, 19-50. Voder rule KO generally speaking, officers who entered service prior to July 4, 1931 but confirmed as Civil and Sessions Judges after December 31, 1950, started with an initial salary of about Rs. 1150/- where as those confirmed before December 31, 1950, started with an initial salary of Rs 900/ -. In other words the former class had the advantage of getting about Rs. 250/- per month more than the latter. 1150/- where as those confirmed before December 31, 1950, started with an initial salary of Rs 900/ -. In other words the former class had the advantage of getting about Rs. 250/- per month more than the latter. We have not been shown any reason for this unequal treatment. Prima facie rule 30 is discriminatory the classification made under that rule appears to be an arbitrary one. The rule in question has adversely effected the respondent and officers similarly placed (Italic by us ). Their Lordships further laid down thus :- "a valid classification must be based on facts and not merely on theory. Further, a general classification cannot be justified on the basis of exceptional cases. " ( 11. ) IN Anandji Haridas and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. S. P. Kasture and others (AIR 1968 S. C. 565.) their Lordships held :- "to be a valid classification, the same must not only be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons, things that are grouped together from others left out of the group but that differentia must have a reasonable relation to the objects sought to be achieved. " ******** "it is true the State can by classification determine who should be rearmed a3 a class for the purpose of legislation and in relation to a Jaw enacted on a particular subject, but the classification must be based on some real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be attained and cannot be made arbitrarily and without any substantial basis. " Applying these dicta to the present case we are unable to see an intelligible differentia which distinguishes a District and Sessions Judge promoted before april 1, 1958, and another promoted on or after that date. The classification is intelligible between officers drawn from the different units to continue upto the stage of unification. Undoubtedly it was entirely in the discretion of the state Government to allow the benefit of the I. A. S. (Senior) scale to the district and Sessions Judges and it had also unfettered power to fix any particular date from which they would be allowed that benefit. Undoubtedly it was entirely in the discretion of the state Government to allow the benefit of the I. A. S. (Senior) scale to the district and Sessions Judges and it had also unfettered power to fix any particular date from which they would be allowed that benefit. But once a date is fixed, there is no real and substantial distinction bearing a just and reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved in fixing a higher salary to those who were either junior or less efficient, even though drawn from the same integrating unit. ( 12. ) IN Ramchandra Raj Kotasthane v State of M. P. (Supra) a Division bench of this Court held that the order dated July 13, 1964, which is under challenge in the present case was not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was observed that a differentiation arising from historical reasons, and geographical classification based on his historical reasons, could not be held to offend article 14. It was observed:- "equal protection under Article 14 means a right to equal treatment in similar circumstances. That article does not require things or persons of different type and nature in fact to be treated in law as though they were the same. " It was further observed :-"the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with article 14. " the Division Bench justified the discrimination as follows: - "the difference that arose after 1st April 1958 in the pay of allocated permanent District and Sessions Judge was not because of the 1959 Rules or the Notification dated 5th October 1969 but because of the fact that in the old Madhya Pradesh the pay scale of permanent District and sessions Judges was already the I. A. S. Senior scale, and therefore, the fixation of their initial pay was governed by rule 7 of the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1955. In the Madhya Bharat region from where the petitioner hailed the scale of pay was Rs. 800-1200 (ordinary) and Rs. 1250-1500 (Select Grade ). " *** *** *** if. In the Madhya Bharat region from where the petitioner hailed the scale of pay was Rs. 800-1200 (ordinary) and Rs. 1250-1500 (Select Grade ). " *** *** *** if. therefore, a person who was a permanent District and Sessions Judge in the old State of Madhya Pradesh before 1st November 1956 and who continued to serve in that capacity in the new State drew a higher salary than the petitioner even after the application of the unified scale of pay to the application on 1st April 1958, the petitioner cannot complain that there has been any discrimination as between him and the District and Sessions Judges from the old State of Madhya Pradesh. An allocated District and Sessions Judge from the old State of Madhya pradesh drew a higher salary because of the fact that in the old State of Madhya Pradesh the pay scale of District and Sessions Judges was already the I. A. S Senior Scale and the fixation of their pay was governed by the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955, and not because of any different application of the unified scale of pay. In regard to the difference in the petitioners salary after 1st April 1958 and the salary of a person under the unified scale promoted as District and Sessions Judge after 1st April 1958, the differentiation is not between persons similarly placed. The petitioner belonged to a class of persons who had already been promoted as District and Sessions Judge before the unified scale came into force. Equal protection under Article 14 means a right to equal treatment in similar circumstances. That article does not require things or persons of different type aud nature in fact to be treated in law as though they were the same. As an allocated permanent District and sessions Judge he could not claim that he should have been treated in the same way as a person who was promoted after 1st April 1958 as a District and Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true that the petitioner did the same kind of work as allocated permanent District and Sessions judges from the old State of Madhya Pradesh and the persons promoted as District and Sessions judges after 1st April 1958 did. It is no doubt true that the petitioner did the same kind of work as allocated permanent District and Sessions judges from the old State of Madhya Pradesh and the persons promoted as District and Sessions judges after 1st April 1958 did. " With great respect, it must be said that in Ramchandra Rao Kotasthane v. State of M. P. ( supra) a case of discrimination between two District and Sessions judges drawn from the same integrating unit (one promoted as such before; and the other promoted as such after April 1, 1958) docs not seem to have been considered. It appears that Division Bench concentrated its attention on the case of discrimination between a District and Sessions Judge drawn from old madhya Pradesh region and another drawn from the Madhya Bharat region. Moreover, that decision regards the District and Sessions Judge who had been promoted as District and Sessions Judge before the unified scale of pay came into force as one class while those promoted after that date as another class and holds that they are persons "of different type and nature in fact" and holds that they cannot be treated in law as though they were the same". These observations and the conclusion run counter to what their Lordships have expressed and held in the State of V. P. v. K. G. Dhaun (Supra ). The decision of this court in Ramchandras case (Supra) must, therefore, be taken as overruled and is no more good law. Ramehandra Kotasthanes case (Supra) was decided by this Court on July 4, 1967, while the State of U. P. v. K. G. Dhaun was decided on December 12, 1968. ( 13. ) IT remains to be said that the petitioner in the present case has not only prayed for declaring the impugned memorandum as void and repugnant to article 14 of the Constitution in so far as it withholds the benefit of initial pay fixation from the District and Sessions Judges promoted prior to April 1, 1958 but also claims a direction to get the pay and pension of the petitioner fixed in conformity with the principles and rules as are applicable to promotees to the post of District and Sessions Judges on or after April 1, 1958. As to the latter prayer we cannot do better than to reproduce what their Lordships said in the state of U P. v. K. C. Dhaun (supra) as follows :- "as seen earlier, the High Court has given a direction to the Government to pay to the respondent the arrears of salary due on the basis of the relaxation ordered. We do not think that on the facts of this case any such direction is either necessary or proper- Evidently the government had withheld the benefit of those rules to the respondent and other officers similarly placed as it thought it was bound by rule 30 (a ). Now that we have declared rule 30 (a) ultra vires the Constitution, we are sure the Government will immediately take necessary steps in accordance with law and justice. In this view it is not necessary to consider the contention advanced on behalf of the appellants that no mandamus should have been issued to the appellants as retards the arrears of salary in view of the delay in bringing the writ petition. Hence we set aside the direction given by the High Court as regards the arrears of pay. " The present writ petition was filed on July 9, 1969. ( 14. ) IN the result, this petition is partly allowed. It is declared that the memorandum No. 25065-3068/ XXI- B dated July 13, 1964, issued by the state of Madhya Pradesh in the Law Department, in so far as it excludes the district and Sessions Judges who were promoted as such before April I, 1958 from being allowed w. e. f. April 1, 1958, the benefit of pay fixation in the i. A. S. (Senior) scale was ultra vires article 14 of the Constitution. A mandamus shall issue to the State Government directing them to treat the petitioners pay as fixed with effect from April 1, l958, in accordance with the said memorandum dated July 13, 1964, after deleting the words "promoted as" (first occurring) i. e. after the words "who were" and before the words "district and sessions Judges on or after 1-4-58" in the memorandum. In the circumstances of the case, we direct that the parties shall bear their own costs. Security amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. Petition party allowed.