R. C. MANKAD, J. ( 1 ) GUJARAT Public Service Commission held competetive examination in April 1963 for recruitment of Stenographers Grade I English appointment to various post in Sachivalaya and allied offices and offices of Heads of Departments situate at Ahmedabad which was the capital of the Gujarat State at the relevant time. Petitioner appeared at the competitive examination and was selected by the Gujarat Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Stenographer Grade I English (hereinafter referred to as the Stenographer ). Petitioner secured fourth rank in the examination and was allotted to Gujarat Revenue Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal ). The other selected candidates were allotted to various departments of the Government. Some of them were allotted to various offices of the Sachivalaya. It appears that allotment was made in accordance with exigencies of administration. In other words candidates who were allotted to various Departments of offices in the Sachivalaya did not possess any special merits or were not more meritorious than the candidates allotted to the offices or departments other than Sachivalaya. Petitioners allotment in the Tribunal was purely fortuitous not on the basis of assessment of relative or comparative merits of the selected candidates. ( 2 ) THE State Government by its memorandum dated 7/07/1980 read with Government Resolution Finance Department No. PCR-2279 -200 dated 17/07/1979 granted selection grade of Rs. 900-45- 1080 with effect from 1/07/1979 to 14 Stenographers working in the Sachivalaya. These stenographers included two ##397/25 stenographers who ranked below the petitioner at the examination referred to above. It may be mentioned here that there was a separate seniority list of Stenographers working in Sachivalaya and separate seniority list for stenographers working in non-Sachivalaya departments. Three stenographers working in non-Sachivalaya departments were also granted selection grade of Rs. 900-1280 referred to above with effect from 1/07/1979 as per norms laid down by Government Resolution dated 17/07/1979. Since the petitioner was third in the seniority list of the stenographers working in non-Sachivalaya Departments he was granted selection grade with effect from 1/07/1979 vide Government Order No. SACHM/2182/1 (4)/kh-4 dated Nil May 1982. 900-1280 referred to above with effect from 1/07/1979 as per norms laid down by Government Resolution dated 17/07/1979. Since the petitioner was third in the seniority list of the stenographers working in non-Sachivalaya Departments he was granted selection grade with effect from 1/07/1979 vide Government Order No. SACHM/2182/1 (4)/kh-4 dated Nil May 1982. ( 3 ) UNDER Government Resolution Finance Department No. PPA- 1069 (16)-CH dated 5/10/1976 it is laid down that if an employee is drawing pay in the ordinary scale less than the minimum of the selection grade at the time of his appointment in the selection grade his pay should be fixed at the minimum of the selection grade and his next increment would be due after full incremental period of one year is over. Before the petitioner was placed in selection grade he was in the pay-scale of Rs. 650-30-750-35-810-EB-35- 880 and his pay on 1/07/1979 was Rs. 880. 00 The normal date of increment for the petitioner was 1st January in the said payscale. In accordance with the aforesaid Government Resolution dated 5/10/1976 petitioner was entitled to fixation of his pay at the minimum of the selection grade that is at Rs 903/- per month and after full incremental period of one year he would have been entitled to Rs. 945. 00 with effect from 1/07/1980. As pointed out above petitioners pay was Rs. 880. 00 in the ordinary pay-scale on 1/07/1979. Petitioners pay would have been raised to Rs. 920. 00 per month with effect from 1/01/1980 had he remained in the ordinary pay-scale. However since the petitioner was placed in the selection grade and since he was entitled to his increment in the selection grade only with effect from 1/07/1980 his pay remained at Rs. 900. 00 per month on 1/01/1980. It appears from the table given by the petitioner in paragraph 6 of his petition which is not disputed on behalf of the State Government that the difference in pay on account of postponement of the date of increment as stated above would be reflected throughout the career of the petitioner. For certain periods petitioner would draw pay less than what he would have drawn had he remained in the ordinary pay-scale. For certain periods petitioner would draw pay less than what he would have drawn had he remained in the ordinary pay-scale. ( 4 ) IDENTICAL situation had arisen in the case of one G. R. Patel who was working in the Sachivalaya and was placed in the select on grade with effect from 1/07/1979. His date of increment in the ordinary pay-scale was 1st January as in the case of the petitioner. Ordinary pay-scale and selection grade pay-scale both in the case of the petitioner and G. R. Patel are the same. As in the case of the petitioner since the date of increment was postponed in the case of G. R. Patel also on his being placed in the selection grade his pay was Rs. 900. 00 per month on 1/01/1980 though it would have been Rs. 920. 00 per month had he remained in the ordinary pay-scale. As in the case of the petitioner this difference in pay on account of postponement of the date of increment was to be reflected throughout the career of G. R. Patel and for certain period he would have drawn less pay than what he would have drawn had he remained in the ordinary pay scale. G. R. Patel made a representation and pointed out the above anomolous position to the Government. The State Government realised the anomolous situation created by the aforesaid Government Resolution accepted the representation made by G. R. Patel and directed to give him increments with effect from the date he was entitled to increments in the ordinary pay-scale. In other words it was directed that G. R. Patel will be entitled to draw increment with effect from 1 January in the selection grade. As a result of this direction given by the State Government G. R. Patel started drawing pay of Rs. 945. 00 per month in the selection grade with effect from 1/01/1980 and subsequent increments were accordingly given to him in the selection grade. It is not controverted by the State Government that similar benefit has been given to other stenographers working in various Departments and offices of Sachivalaya. 945. 00 per month in the selection grade with effect from 1/01/1980 and subsequent increments were accordingly given to him in the selection grade. It is not controverted by the State Government that similar benefit has been given to other stenographers working in various Departments and offices of Sachivalaya. ( 5 ) SINCE the petitioner and stenographers working in various departments and offices other than those of Sachivalaya were similarly situated petitioner made representation to the State Government pointing out the above anomolous position and requested them to give increments in the selection grade with effect from 1st January every year as in the case of stenographers working in Sachivalaya. The State Government however by its order Annexure F dated 17/05/1983 rejected the petitioners representation informing him that the question has been referred to the Third Pay Commission for consideration. Petitioner has therefore approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) IN the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the State Government petitioners contention that he and stenographers working in Sachivalaya are similarly situated is not controverted. The manner in which the recruitment and allotment of stenographers was made is also not disputed. As stated by the petitioner a common selection list of selected candidates for appointment to the posts of stenographer in Sachivalaya allied offices and in the Heads of the Departments was prepared. Allotment of candidates to various offices was not on the basis of comparative merits of the candidates but in accordance with exigencies of administration. In other words the candidates possessing better merits or who were more meritorious were not specially selected for Departments and Offices in Sachivalaya. In fact candidates who ranked below the petitioner in the select list had been allotted to the Sachivalaya. Thus it was fortuitous circumstance that petitioner was allotted not to any Department or Office of Sachivalaya but to the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal. The pay-scale of all the stenographers whether working in the Departments or Offices of Sachivalaya or in the offices of the Heads of the Departments is the same. Selection grade which was granted to all the stenographers is also the same. The pay-scale of all the stenographers whether working in the Departments or Offices of Sachivalaya or in the offices of the Heads of the Departments is the same. Selection grade which was granted to all the stenographers is also the same. In other words all the stenographers wherever they are working are similarly situated In the background of these facts it is difficult to understand and appreciate as to how the State Government could have given any preferential or better treatment to the stenographers working in the Sachivalaya. All the stenographers who were similarly situated ought to have been given the same treatment. It is however found that in the case of the stenographers working in the Sachivalaya who drew pay less than the minimum of the selection grade d the State Government gave direction that they will be entitled to earn increments in the selection grade on the date on which they were entitled to increments in the ordinary pay-scale. In other words the resolution under which they were entitled to increment only on expiry of period of one year from the date of their being placed in the selection grade was not made applicable to them. This position is not deputed by the State Government. There is absolutely no justification or reason to deny the above benefit to the stenographers who are similarly situated but are working in the offices or Departments other than Sachivalaya. The action of the State Government is denying the above benefit to the petitioner must be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In many opinion petitioner is entitled to the same benefit which was extended to G. R. patel under the order Annexure D dated 6/10/1981 In other words petitioner is entitled to draw increments on the date on which he would have been entitled to draw increments i. e. January 1 in the ordinary pay-scale. Consequently petitioner is entitled to draw pay of Rs. 945. 00 per month with effect from 1/01/1980 Rs. 990. 00 per month from 1/01/1981 Rs. 1035. 00 per month from 1/01/1982 and so on. ( 7 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The order Annexure F dated 17/05/1983 passed by the Revenue Department of State of Gujarat rejecting the petitioners request or representation to remove anomaly as aforesaid is quashed and set aside. 990. 00 per month from 1/01/1981 Rs. 1035. 00 per month from 1/01/1982 and so on. ( 7 ) IN the result this petition is allowed. The order Annexure F dated 17/05/1983 passed by the Revenue Department of State of Gujarat rejecting the petitioners request or representation to remove anomaly as aforesaid is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to draw increments on January 1 every year to the selection grade with effect from the date he was placed in the selection grade. He would thus be entitled to draw pay of Rs. 945 per month on 1/01/1980 and earn increment thereafter every year on January 1 in the said pay-scale. Government is directed to give effect to this order and pay to the petitioner all the arrears and increments within two months after the receipt of the writ of this Court. ( 8 ) RULE made absolute with costs. Petition allowed. .