JUDGMENT Asthana, C.J. - This petition unfortunately has been pending in this Court for several years. It appears that at one stage it was considered as the points involved in the petition related to policy matters of the Government as regards the services of the State and All India Services the matter assumed grave importance. Directions were given for service on all persons interested and calling any one interested in the subject matter of the petition to make submission before the Court. Meanwhile, of the learned Judges constituting the Bench, three of them retired after hearing the writ petition partly. The petition is now placed before us for final hearing. 2. At the outset, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the parties that the petitioner were invoking their right under Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, the proceedings should remain pending in view of the proclamation of Emergency. We heard the learned counsel for the parties on this point. We came to the conclusion that Article 14 was not involved at all in the matter raised in this petition. The grievance of the petitioners seems to be that as Government servants of the State they have been discriminated in the matter of payment of dearness allowance as compared to the members of the All India Services serving in the State. In our opinion such a matter will be covered under Article 16 only. In General Manager Southern Railway and another v. Rangachari, AIR 1962 SC 36, it was held by the Supreme Court that "the initial employment or appointment is only one of the matters relating to employment or appointment. The other matters relating to employment would be the provision as to the salary and periodical increments there in terms as to leave as to gratuity, as to pension and as to the age of superannuation. Similarly. In respect of appointment such matter would include all the terms and conditions of service pertaining to the said office. All those matters are included in the expression "matters relating to employment or appointment" in Article 16(i)." 3. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court there cannot be any doubt that question of payment of dearness allowance to Government servants will be a matter relating to employment or appointment. This is covered by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court there cannot be any doubt that question of payment of dearness allowance to Government servants will be a matter relating to employment or appointment. This is covered by Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The reference to Article 14, therefore, in the petition appears to have been made by way of abundant caution. Article 14 enshrines the right of equality in as general form. Article 16 enshrines right of equality in the matters of employment or appointment of Government servants. Once the subject-matter is covered entirely by Article 16 no question of reference of Article 14 will arise. Moreover, if the petitioners fail to show that in the matter of their employment or appointment Article 16(i) has been violated they cannot take recourse to Article 14 and shall that under Article 14 they have been discriminated. Since the petitioners are not invoking their right in this petition under Article 14 of the Constitution the proclamation of Emergency and the consequential Presidential Order does not affect the hearing of the present petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner firstly contended that the payment of dearness allowance to a Government servant is not a matter of bounty or charity but is a condition of their service. We assume to be so and proceed with the case that it is a condition of their service. The first submission was that there cannot be in the matter of payment of dearness allowance any discrimination between the members of the All India Services serving in the State and the members of the State services when they are in the same scale of pay and getting same salary. It was submitted that the dearness allowance is linked to the salary and scales of pay and its quantum is fixed according to the price index. Theoretically this argument appears to be a good argument. But it has been held by the Supreme Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 that equality of opportunity under Article 16 (i) does not prevent the State from creation of different grades in the Government Services and we think also cannot prevent the Government from creating different classes of services. It is not disputed at the bar on behalf of the petitioners that All India Services stand as a different class from the State Services. It is not disputed at the bar on behalf of the petitioners that All India Services stand as a different class from the State Services. But what has been emphasised is that as regards the payment of dearness allowance the mere classification of the grades of All India and State Services will not have relevancy object of payment of the dearness allowances being to argument the economic resources' of the Government servants for procuring the necessities of life at the time of distress and as far as the need of a civil servant,, to whatever class he may belong, is concerned the dearness allowance also will be the same. 5. We have perused the affidavits exchanged between the parties and we are not in a position to find out as to what are the fundamental and basic concepts on which the structure of the dearness allowance rests. What has been contended on behalf of the petitioners again may be ideally and theoretically justified but the question that we are faced with is whether we can give any relief in the nature of mandamus to the petitioners in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Unless some rule of law has been violated or the State Government has failed to perform its duty imposed upon it by some rule of law, which it has refused on demand, no writ by way of mandamus can be issued by this Court. Assuming that there has been some kind of discrimination in the payment of dearness allowance amongst the various classes of civil servants we have yet to find out that the State Government was under a duty to pay the dearness allowance at a particular rate equally to all the civil servants. No such case has been made out before us. For the purposes of determining and fixing the terms and conditions of service there can always be a classification of the civil servants and different grades and different conditions can be fixed fora particular class of service according to the needs and exigencies for which the service is created by the State. Since we have proceeded on the footing that the payment of dearness allowance is a term or condition of service different rates of dearness allowance can be fixed for different classes of services. 6. Since we have proceeded on the footing that the payment of dearness allowance is a term or condition of service different rates of dearness allowance can be fixed for different classes of services. 6. It was next contended that the directives by the Central Government to the State Government for payment of dearness allowance to the servants belonging to the All India Service, serving in the State, having been issued in the breach of the relevant rules, the State Government was not bound in law to pay from its own funds dearness allowance to the members of All India Services even if he received salary of more than one thousand, will be unauthorised. We do not think we are called upon to examine the legality of this condition. Even assuming that the State Government was not bound in law to carry out the directives of the Central Government in this regard but alt the same if it did carry out the directives we fail to appreciate how the legal rights of the petitioners have been affected or prejudiced. The petitioners cannot get a mandamus from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution restraining the State Government to pay the dearness allowance to the members of the All India Services serving in the State in accordance with the directives of the Central Government. The foundation is lacking as the petitioners' rights have not been affected pre-judicially, even assuming that the payment of dearness allowance at a higher rate to All India Service Officer, getting higher salary, is under some directives of the Central Government which is not supported by an authority in law. 7. We are constrained to observe that the petitioners, who are Government servants, would have been well advised not to have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in a matter of this nature. Howsoever one may feel sympathetic to their cause, they should have taken their grievance before an appropriate authority of the State Government for equalisation in payment of dearness allowance. The machinery of the courts should not be resorted to in these matters. 8. As discussed above, we do not find that any right legal of the petitioners has been affected. We, therefore, dismiss this petition but in the circumstances of. the case make no order as to costs.