JUDGMENT : J.K. Mohanty, J. - Petitioner, a Trained Graduate, is working as an Assistant Teacher in M.V.-79 High School under Dandakaranya Project in the scale of pay of Rs. 380-640/-. In this writ application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India he has prayed for issue of a direction to the Opp. parties for fixing his scale of pay in accordance with the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission) with effect from 18-5-1975, i.e. the date of his appointment. The Commission submitted its report in 1973 in which it dealt with the conditions of service of teachers and the staff of the Educational institutions and other Departments of Central Government and recommended for revised scales of pay. According to the recommendation of the Commission, "for posts for which the recruitment qualifications are the same. as per similar categories as in the Ministries of Railways and defence, and where the duties performed are also comparable, the appropriate revised scales and selection grades prescribed earlier for such categories should be adopted". The Commission further recommended that in other cases, suitable substitutes may be decided upon keeping in view the revised scales recommended for other comparable categories. According to the petitioner, his revised scale of pay as recommended by the Commission should be Rs. 440-750/-. From a bare perusal of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1973, specifically rule 2, it would be evident that the rule applies to all persons appointed to Civil Services and Posts in connection with the affairs of the Union. The Central Government implemented the revised pay scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission with effect from 1-1-1973 in the case of all other categories of employees, yet the same was, however, not implemented in the case of Educational employees under which the petitioner is a victim. In spite of several representations no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 2. The opp. parties in their counter have stated that the petitioner was appointed after 1-1-1973, i. e. the date from which the recommendation of the Commission came into effect. In spite of several representations no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition. 2. The opp. parties in their counter have stated that the petitioner was appointed after 1-1-1973, i. e. the date from which the recommendation of the Commission came into effect. Therefore, he is governed by the revised pay scales in accordance with the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Third Amendment Rules, 1975 notified for teachers in Dandakaranya Project vide the Government of India Gazette dated 29-2-1975, pages 661-662, amendment to Section 37, Ministry of Supply and Rehabilitation, Sub-section 8 - Chief Administrator, Dandakaranya Project, Koraput, under heading "(ii) Class III Posts, Item G". It was also specifically stated in the offer of appointment that the pay scale is liable to be revised. The petitioner reported for duty subject to the conditions in the offer of appointment. The Dandakaranya Development Authority at its 42nd Meeting decided to follow the curriculum of the Secondary School Boards of the respective Government, i. e Orissa and Madhya Pradesh from July, 1969. Consequently, the pay scales of teachers in the Dandakaranya Project were adopted in such a way that the same were as near to the scales of pay of teachers in Orissa and Madhya Pradesh as they existed in 1973-74. It is also contended that the nature of duties of teachers of Dandakaranya Project is not the same as in case of teachers under the Ministries of Defence and Railways. 3. It is seen that the Commission in its Report at page 224, paragraph 12 has recommended to the following effect : "We recommend that for posts for which the recruitment qualifications are the same, as per similar categories in the Ministries of Railways and Defence, and where the duties performed are also comparable, the appropriate revised scales and selection grades prescribed earlier for such categories should be adopted." The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the qualifications for the post of teachers of High Schools of Dandakaranya Project as that of the High Schools of Railways and Defence are the same and their duties are also the same and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the revised scale of pay recommended by the Commission. Learned counsel for the opp parties contended that the qualifications for the teachers of High Schools of Dandakaranya Project were different from that of the teachers of the High Schools run by the Railways and Defence and, therefore, the opp. parties are entitled to fix a suitable substitute scale for the petitioner. The revised scale of pay as fixed by the notification in Annexure-A is Rs. 380-640/- and the petitioner is being paid at the above scale as he is a Trained Graduate Teacher. The duties of the teachers in all the schools are nearly the same. In the absence of any material placed before us by the opp. parties to show that the duties and qualifications of the teachers of High Schools of Dandakaranya Project are different from the duties of the teachers of High Schools run by the Railways and Defence, we are constrained to hold that their duties are the same. The Commission's recommendations so far as teachers are concerned, were accepted as a whole with effect from 1-1-1973. Having accepted the recommendations of the Pay Commission, the opp. parties cannot discriminate and refuse to implement the recommendation so far as petitioner is concerned. In this connection a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Purushottam Lal and others v. The Union of India and another AIR 1973 S.C. 1088 , is relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In a similar case by Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Sitanath Debnath and another v. Union of India Misc. Petition No. 529 of 1978-D/9-1-1979, which was a case by teachers of Dandakaranya Project Schools, Mana Camp, Raipur, it was decided that the petitioners are entitled to the revised scales of pay are recommended by the Commission. We are also in agreement with the views expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and we hold that the petitioner is entitled to the revised scale of pay as recommended by the Commission. 4. In the result, therefore, the writ application is allowed, and the opp. parties are directed to implement the Report of the Commission in respect of the petitioner and fix the pay of the petitioner in the scale of Rs. 440-750/- as per the recommendation of the Commission. 5. There shall be no order as to costs. Final Result : Allowed