JUDGMENT K. S. Varma, J. - The petitioners are at present working in Class I as Assistant Directors/Deputy Directors in the Research, Designs and Standards Organisation, Lucknow (hereinafter to be referred to as R.D.S.O.). The petitioners case is that in the matter of grant of special pay of Rs. 200/- over and above the revised scale of pay for the said post, the opposite parties have adopted discriminatory treatment as, between the officers belonging to one and the same class, namely, Class I posts of Assistant Directors and Deputy Directors in the R.D.S.O. Special pay of Rs. 200/- is payable to officers drafted from the Zonal Railways to work against the posts of Assistant Director/Deputy Director in the R.D.S.O. (hereinafter to be referred to as the transferees) while the petitioners who have been promoted from Class II in the R.D.S.O. to the said Class I posts of Assistant Director/Deputy Director are being denied the said special pay (hereinafter to be referred to as the promotees). 2. It is not disputed that R.D.S.O. is an attached office to the Railway Board and is treated as Head Quarters Organisation. The posts of Assistant Directors/Deputy Directors are filled up by the promotees to the extent of 20% of the vacancies while the remaining posts are filled by transferee officers working in the Zonal Railways. Sometime in the year 1947 the prescribed scale of pay was introduced and the post of Assistant Director in the R.D.S.O. carried a special pay of Rs. 150/- while the post of Deputy Director carried special pay of Rs. 200/- in addition to the prescribed scale of pay. With effect from 1-7-1959 the authorised scale of pay was introduced and in the schedule issued under the Railway Services Authorised Pay Rules, 1960, the two posts continued to have the special pay in addition to the authorised scale of pay at the same rate as the prescribed scale, namely, Rs. 150/- for the post of Assistant Director and Rs. 200/- for the post of the Deputy Director. 3. When the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Directors in Class I senior scale, they were denied the special pay though the same was paid to transferee officers. Some of the promotee officers filed a writ petition in this Court which was numbered as 973 of 1969. 200/- for the post of the Deputy Director. 3. When the petitioners were promoted as Assistant Directors in Class I senior scale, they were denied the special pay though the same was paid to transferee officers. Some of the promotee officers filed a writ petition in this Court which was numbered as 973 of 1969. The petition was dismissed by a learned single Judge but in special appeal the order of the Railway Board denying the special pay to the promotees was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and was, accordingly, quashed. A copy of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 11 of 1971 has been filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The Division Bench held that the classification by which the special pay was admissible to one class of officers and denied to the other class of officers who were doing the same type of work was not reasonable and was not connected with the object intended to be served. 4. The petitioners case is that the authorised pay scales were substituted by the revised pay scales with effect from 1-1-1973. The Railway Board under the Railway Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973, issued certain schedules. The schedules have been amended from time to time with regard to the two categories, namely, the promotees and the transferees by indicating common revised scale of pay, namely, Rs. 1100-50-1600. The schedule indicating the revised scale of pay is on record as Annexure A 3 to the counter affidavit. The petitioners grievance is that though uniform scale of pay has been shown but by administrative orders contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition, special pay has been made admissible to transferee officers over and above the revised scale of pay of Rs. 1100-50-1600 while the promotees are given the pay in the scale of Rs. 1100-1600 and the special pay admissible to the transferee officers is denied to the promotees, namely, the petitioners. In these circumstances, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 1100-50-1600 while the promotees are given the pay in the scale of Rs. 1100-1600 and the special pay admissible to the transferee officers is denied to the promotees, namely, the petitioners. In these circumstances, the petitioners have prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the order contained in Annexure 7 to the writ petition. They have also prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus requiring the opposite parties to modify or amend the Schedule issued under the Revised pay Rules relating to the posts of Assistant Director/Deputy Directors in the R.D.S.O. with a view to make them uniformly applicable for the grant and continuance of special pay of Rs. 200/- per month to officers irrespective of their being transferee Railway officers or the officers promoted from the R.D.S.O. 5. It is an admitted case that the Third Pay Commission had recommended the grant of special pay to both the categories of officers in its report and the Central Government had accepted the said recommendation. It is thus contended that since the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission has been accepted, the action of the opposite parties in not implementing the same in regard to promotee officers and implementing it in regard to the transferee officers was violative of the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the Provisions of R. 2003 (26) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II, special pay has been defined as follows :- "(26) Special pay means an addition, of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post or of a railway servant, granted in consideration of - (a) the specially arduous nature of duties; or (b) a specific addition to the work or responsibility and includes non-practising allowance granted to doctors in lieu of private practise." In para 7 of the writ petition the petitioners have stated that the special pay was provided in the prescribed scale of pay as well as the authorised scales of pay to class II and class I officers working in the R.D.S.O. irrespective of their being departmental promotees or persons transferred from the Zonal Railways to the R.D.S.O. for the reason that the duties assigned were of an arduous nature. The averment with regard to the post having arduous nature of duties has not been controverted in the affidavit. The averment with regard to the post having arduous nature of duties has not been controverted in the affidavit. By reference to the decision rendered in Special Appeal No. 11 of 1977 referred to above, it was submitted that since the promotees and transferees both perform the same duties, no discrimination in regard to the special pay can be made. This contention of the petitioners was met by the opposite parties by contending that the grant of special pay of Rs. 200/- to transferee officers from Zonal Railways against the posts of Assistant Directors and Deputy Directors was made by reason of the fact that the officers brought on deputation have to encounter many problems due to the disturbance involved and some compensation on this account has to be provided also if suitable persons were to be attracted to the post. It was also contended that in place of Senior pay Scale of Rs. 700-1250 plus special pay of Rs. 200/-, a revised pay scale of Rs. 1100-1600 has been given and in this why the special pay has been merged in the revised pay scale. 6. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties we are of the view that Class I officers who have been promoted stand on the same footing as the transferee officers. When the said officers discharge duties of Assistant Director/ Deputy Directors in the R.D.S.O., the nature of the duties required to be performed is the same. The Railway authorities are not justified in giving special pay to the transferee officers denying the same to the promotee officers. It has to be borne in mind that the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission have been accepted by the opposite parties and the recommendations apply to Class I officers as a whole. That being the position, there is no justifiable basis on which the demand of special pay can be denied to the promotee officers. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Purshottam Lal v. Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 1088 ) : (1973 Lab IC 604), S.M. Sikri, C.J. dealing with a case identical in nature observed as follows: - "Either the Government has made reference in respect of all Government employees or it has not. In this connection reference may be made to the case of Purshottam Lal v. Union of India ( AIR 1973 SC 1088 ) : (1973 Lab IC 604), S.M. Sikri, C.J. dealing with a case identical in nature observed as follows: - "Either the Government has made reference in respect of all Government employees or it has not. But if it has made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accepts the recommendations it is bound (o implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned." In view of the Observations referred to above we are of the view that the petitioners are entitled to special pay of Rs. 200/- along with the promotee officers. 7. The learned counsel for the Central Government Mr. B. L. Shukla placed reliance on Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India (AIR 1962 SCI 139). The observations in the said decision relied upon by the learned counsel are as follows :- "The only other contention raised is that there is discrimination between Class I and Class II Officers inasmuch as though they do the same kind of work their pay scales are different. This, it is said, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. If this contention.had any validity, there could be no incremental scales of pay fixed dependent on the duration of an officers service. The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Article 14. The contention that Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated, therefore, also fails." 8. By reference to the said observations of the Supreme Court, it was contended that the prayer of the petitioners that they are entitled to special pay as the petitioners and the transferee officers do the same kind of job and are entitled to.equal pay, is not correct as equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This contention of Mr. B. L. Shukla based upon the above observations of the Supreme Court will have no application in the instant case. This contention of Mr. B. L. Shukla based upon the above observations of the Supreme Court will have no application in the instant case. In the instant case the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission in regard to Class I officers in respect of the grant of special pay was accepted by the Government. A perusal of Annexures 8 and 8-A to the writ petition indicates that the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission in regard to the payment of special pay of Rs. 200/- was accepted by the Railway Board. The following quotation from Annexure 8-A will bear this out: "The President is accordingly pleased to decide that the grant of special pay of Rs. 200/- p.m. recommended by the Commission for the Senior Scale Officers in Rs. 1100-1600 posted in Head quarters Organisation, viz., Railway Board and R.D.S.O. should be subject to the condition that the pay plus special pay does not exceed Rs. 1700/- p.m." In our view, on these facts the principle enunciated in Purshottam Lal v. Union of India (1973 Lab IC 604) (supra) applies and the observations of the Supreme Court in Kishori Mohan Lal Bakshi v. Union of India (supra) that the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Article 14 of the Constitution of India has no application in the instant case. The principle behind the decision rendered in Purshottam Lals case is that if the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission had been implemented in regard to some employees only excluding others similarly situate, a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India takes place. In the instant case by an administrative order Annexure 7 the special pay is denied to promotee officers but is admissible to officers drawn from the Zonal Railways. In view of the principles enunciated in Purshottam Lals case (1973 Lab I C 604) (SC) this cannot be done as such an act is discriminatory and is violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. The next case relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel Mr. B. L. Shukla is the case of Unikat Sankunni Menon v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1968 SC 81 ). 9. The next case relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel Mr. B. L. Shukla is the case of Unikat Sankunni Menon v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1968 SC 81 ). In this case also the grant of special pay was claimed by the petitioner but the claim was rejected on the ground that the parties to the case were not similarly placed. A perusal of para 7 of the decision rendered in Menons case would indicate that a member of . the Rajasthan Secretariat Service on appointment as Deputy Secretary draws salary in the grade of Rs. 900-50-1500 whereas a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service appointed as Deputy Secretary is granted pay in inferior scale but he is allowed special pay of Rs. 150/-. It is only in addition to that lower time-scale that a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service is allowed the special pay of Rs. 150/-. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the method of fixation of salary in the two Services on appointment as Deputy Secretaries is different. A member of the Rajasthan Secretariat Service is allowed a special higher grade, while a member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service continues on his old scale and only gets an extra salary of Rs. 150/- per month. The Supreme Court in these circumstances held that no occasion arises for holding that a member of the Rajasthan Secretariat Service should also be granted special pay in addition to being placed in the higher grade of pay prescribed for the post of Deputy Secretaries when that post is held by the member of the Rajasthan Secretariat Service". In the instant case, Class I officers are promoted from Class II officers and are also drafted from the Zonal Railways. Their grade of pay is the same irrespective of the fact whether they are promotee officers or transferee officers. 10. In our opinion. Annexure 8 read with item No. 8 clearly indicates that special pay is admissible to Class I officers. Since all the Class I officers have been treated on the same footing by the Pay Commission there is no justifiable basis for making a discrimination between the categories of Class I officers. On this aspect of the matter, the principles enunciated in Purshottam Lal v. Union of India (1973 Lab IC 604) (SC) (supra) would' apply to the facts of the present case. On this aspect of the matter, the principles enunciated in Purshottam Lal v. Union of India (1973 Lab IC 604) (SC) (supra) would' apply to the facts of the present case. Since the facts of the instant case are on all fours with the facts of Purshottam Lal v. Union of India (supra), the decision reported in Unikat Sankunni Menon v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1968 SC 81 ) (supra) will have no application. 11. For the reasons stated above, we are of the view that the promotee Assistant Directors/Deputy Directors are also entitled to special pay in the same manner as the transferee Assistant Directors/Deputy Directors. Since the Third Pay Commission in fixation of pay has treated Class I officers on the same footing, there is no justification for the opposite parties to deny the grant of special pay to the promotee officers. In doing so, the opposite parties have acted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India. 12. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and issue a mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioners at par with the transferee officers holding similar posts, in matter of their scales of pay including special pay and to pay to the petitioners similar emoluments. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs.