JUDGMENT R. M. Sahai, J. - Bench Secretaries of the Court have invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 2-6 of Constitution of India against classification by Government of Bench Secretaries since 1975 into Grade and 11 on seniority even though the duty and responsibility of both the groups was and is same as contrary not only to constitutional aspirators embodied in clause (d) of Article 29 of the equal pay for equal work but also as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. Although this Court did not approve of this classification and has been recommending since very beginning that this was unfair and not in keeping with the specialised duties that a Bench Secretary has to perform but unfortunately it did net cut any ice and despite two Pay Commissions having been constituted in 1971 and 1979 Athena moly continued and the petitioners had to knock door of this court on the judicial side. With expansion of horizon of equality doctrine since late seventies much of the controversy on applicability of Articles 14 and 16 to such matters has narrowed down. When Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 1879, was decided voicing the social march by recognising directive principles of Constitution as not mere aspirations and it was observed : "It is true that the principal of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitutional to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal." Then probably it kiddied ray of hope in petitioners and it furnished foundation for this petition, And by the time this petition came up for hearing the Honble Court decided P. Savita v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1124 , which broadened the concept of equal pay for equal work not as abstract doctrine but as necessary incidence of service jurisprudence, the breach of which is to be tested on touchstone of rationality embodied in Article 14. 3. Facts may now be narrated to ascertain if the principle laid down in these decisions can come to rescue of petitioners and their long battle spreading over nearly ten years can be said to come to end. 3. Facts may now be narrated to ascertain if the principle laid down in these decisions can come to rescue of petitioners and their long battle spreading over nearly ten years can be said to come to end. In 1946 Allahabad High Court (Conditions of Service Staff) were framed by the Chief Justice in exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) sub-section (2) of Section 241 read with sub section (4) of Section 242 of Government of India Act, 1935. Rule 2 of it provided that the stall' attached shall consist of the posts specified in the first column of the Schedule. In the Schedule the strength of Bench readers, now designated as Bench Secretary was fixed at eighteen. It carried pay scale of Rs. 160-10-260-EB-10-320 In 1947 U. P. Pay Committee was appointed which too approved the pay scale to readers as was being given to them under rules of court. The Committee did not disturb the pay scale of Superintendents, Upper Division Assistants and Stenographers also which was as follows : Superintendents Superintendent : 120-8-200-EB-10-300. Uupper Division Assistants : 120-8-200-EB-10-300. Stenographers : 130-5-180-EB-7-250. 4. The Bench Secretaries were thus getting more than Superintendents, Upper Division Assistants and Stenographers. In January, 1959 a notification was issued declaring certain posts of responsibility. Rule 9 of this notification provided various posts mentioned in it including post of Bench readers to be post of responsibility and trust which required special qualification and was to be filled by Selection irrespective of seniority after written ness followed by interview from amongst Upper Division Assistants or Lower Division Assistants who were graduate or who had put in more than ten years service. In 1965 the Government appointed a Pay Rationalisation Committee to consider existing structure of emoluments of its employees and recommend changes with a view to reduce multiplication of scales of pay, effecting rationalisation and ensuring as far as possible equal emoluments for identical nature of duties and responsibilities. The Committee considered ministerial services in Secretariat, Public Service Commission, Board of Revenue, High Court etc. in Chapter IX of its reports. It was of opinion that there was no uniformity in different posts in different departments either in respect of duties or in respect of qualifications. Therefore, it recommended pay scales for various posts taking into account its designation, functions, qualifications, nature of duties etc. in Chapter IX of its reports. It was of opinion that there was no uniformity in different posts in different departments either in respect of duties or in respect of qualifications. Therefore, it recommended pay scales for various posts taking into account its designation, functions, qualifications, nature of duties etc. In paragraph 7 of Chapter IX the Committee recommended scale of Rs. 120-200 for the next higher grade of ministerial staff, such as Senior Clerks, Junior Clerks, Noted and Drafters and Reference Clerks in all Heads of Departments Offices. It observed, this, the posts in the High Court and the Board of Revenue which are at present in pay scale of Rs. 80-130-Re. 80-140 or Rs. 85-105 will have according to our recommendation the scale of Rs. 120-220. For the post of court reader for which the scale of pay at present is the same, as that for the post of Ahalmad we have suggested the higher pay scale of Rs. 120-220 because in our opinion the duties and responsibilities attached to the post of court reader are higher than that attached to the post of Ahalmad. For Upper Division Assistants and Senior Notes and Drafter the Committee recommended that as Volume of work of such assistants in High Court and Board of Revenue was considerable and nature of their work was complicated they should be paid Rs. 150-350. And in respect of office Superintendent in suggested pay scale of Rs. 300-400. 5. Effect of recommendation of the Committee was that the post of Bench Reader stood down graded both in Status and emoluments. And the pay of of Bench readers became lower even than upper Division Assistants. The Committee in its anxiety to bring uniformity appears to have made the recommendations in respect of Bench Readers against broad principles formulated by it under mis-apprehension. The duty of Upper Division Assistants of this Court is no doubt complicated and the Volume of work they have to handle is much more than Upper Division Assistants of other offices, therefore the committee rightly recommended better pay scale for them. But in equating pay of bench readers of this court with them it certainly acted under delusion and against facts. But in equating pay of bench readers of this court with them it certainly acted under delusion and against facts. Although the Committee accepted that the post of Bench Reader was responsibility but it omitted to consider that post of Bench reader was a promotion post and the field of eligibility was out of Upper Division Assistants or Graduate Lower Division Assistants or Lower Division Assistants with ten years experience. It was a post not only of responsibility or trust but also of special qualifications. How, could scale of pay of such post be put even lower than pay of the post from which a person was selected on merit. Consequently, Bench Secretaries made representation for giving pay scale if not higher th3n same as had been recommended to Superintendents (Section Officers) which was accepted in principle by this Court and recommendation was made to Government accordingly but considering the financial exigencies the court further recommended Government to grant pay scales, for the time being to ten Bench Reader; as was admissible to Superintendents and Private Secretaries. In 1968 the State Government granted party in pay to the employees of High Court was equated with Section Officers in Secretariat and their pay scale was fixed at Rs. 515-715 instead of Rs. 300-400 granted by the Pay Rationalisation Committee. So far Bench Reader was concerned as there was no such post in Secretariat but as Pay Rationalisation Committee had equated them with Upper Division Assistants they were put in the revised pay scale of Upper Division Assistants in 200-400. Before any action could be taken on representation of petitioners the Government appointed Pay Commission in 1971-72. Before it the court sent a recommendation that Bench Secretaries be given same pay scale as was admissible to Section Officers and Private Secretaries. The Commission realised the injustice done to petitioners by the Rationalisation Committee by putting them even lower than Upper Division Assistants, therefore, it recommended higher pay scale for Bench Readers than Upper Division Assistants. But it did not accept their claim that they should be given same pay scale as Private Secretaries of the Judges of Section Officers. It pointed out that although Registrar of the Court had demanded same pay scale for Bench Secretaries as Section Officers but the duties of two were not identical. But it did not accept their claim that they should be given same pay scale as Private Secretaries of the Judges of Section Officers. It pointed out that although Registrar of the Court had demanded same pay scale for Bench Secretaries as Section Officers but the duties of two were not identical. The work of Section Officers required administrative control and preparation of notes in complicated matters etc. Therefore, the pay scale of Bench Secretaries could not be fixed at par with Section Officers. It did not consider the nature of work done by Readers. But it recommended for its fixation in scale higher than Upper Division Assistants as it was a promotion post from out of Upper Division Assistants. The Committee recommended following scales for Section Officers, Bench Secretaries and Upper Division Assistants. 1. Section Officers : 500-1000 2. Bench Secretaries : 400-750 3. Upper Division Assistants. : 350-700 6. After the report was published another representation was made by the Bench readers to this court and to the Government reiterating their stand for being given the same scale as was admissible to the Section Officers and Private Secretaries. This Court again recommended to the Government for grant of the same pay scale. The matter was referred to the anomaly Committee which had been constituted by the Government to remove anomalies in the recommendations made by the Commission. The anomaly Committee recommended that 10 posts of Bench Secretaries should be up-graded and placed in the scale admissible to the Section Officers and Private Secretaries. Therefore, the claim of Bench Secretaries for placing them at per with Section Officers was accepted in principle but only 10 posts were given in higher scale presumably because that was the recommendation of this Court for getting the reason for it namely financial exigency. This recommendation was accepted by the Government which issued an order on 2nd July, 1976 classifying Bench Secretaries in Grade and Grade It fixing pay scale of 10 posts in Grade at Rs. 500-25-700-EB-40-900-EB-50-10U0 and for remaining in Grade II at 400-15-475-EB-20-575-25-750. What is significant, however, is that recognised that the Bench Secretaries of Grade II did same work and carried same responsibility as Bench Secretaries of Grade I. This led to further representations by the Bench Secretaries of Grade II on which this court made recommendation on 30th April, 1977. 500-25-700-EB-40-900-EB-50-10U0 and for remaining in Grade II at 400-15-475-EB-20-575-25-750. What is significant, however, is that recognised that the Bench Secretaries of Grade II did same work and carried same responsibility as Bench Secretaries of Grade I. This led to further representations by the Bench Secretaries of Grade II on which this court made recommendation on 30th April, 1977. In the letter sent by the Registrar to Government it was pointed out the Hon'ble Chief Justice is also of the view that on principle of equality and natural justice Bench Secretaries Grade II have a strong case for being brought on level with 10 Bench Secretaries Grade who had been allowed a Pay Scale of 500-1000 with effect from October 1, 19/5, and there is no reason why step motherly treatment be shown to the remaining 41 Bench Secretaries, particularly when their duty and responsibility as observed by the Government are similar in nature. the letter further pointed out the court could have recommended the common pay scale for the remaining 41 Bench Secretaries but in view of economised expenditure, it is proposed that for the present 26 Bench Secretaries who remained regularly attached to the court rooms or to the Honble Judges sitting in chambers be allowed the same scale of pay as has been sanctioned by the Government the Bench Secretaries Grade I. While this matter remained pending with the Government another Pay Commission was constituted in 1979. On 13th April, 19.' 0, a D. O. was sent by the Registrar of this court to the Pay Commission explaining its stand in respect of Bench Secretaries. It was pointed out that the court was of considered view that cadre of Bench Secretaries should be made self sufficient both in matters of pay and allowances and promotion as Bench Secretaries are appointed through competitive examination open to Upper Division Assistants and permanent Lower Division Assistants of outstanding merit having no less than ten years experience with preference to law graduate. The letter stated that test itself was vigorous as it required working knowledge of rules of Court, Code of Civil Procedure. Criminal Procedure Code and some important provisions of Constitution of India followed by interview at of Constitution of India followed by interview at which the knowledge of Hindi, Urdu, other regional languages, arrangements of papers in Judicial files etc, were put to test. Criminal Procedure Code and some important provisions of Constitution of India followed by interview at of Constitution of India followed by interview at which the knowledge of Hindi, Urdu, other regional languages, arrangements of papers in Judicial files etc, were put to test. The letter added that job of Bench Secretary was highly skilled and specialised who had not been given fair deal specially when pay scale and avenues of promotion admissible to Bench Secretaries in various High Courts was at par with Private Secretaries and in some courts even more. The pay Commission accepted in Chapter VI of its report the principle of equal pay for equal work. But recommended that two post of Bench Secretaries in pay scale of 1420-1900 and 30 per cent of the total posts including two posts mentioned above in pay scale 770-1600 and the remaining in 625-1240. In other words it accepted the recommendation of the court for granting two special posts but it did not agree that all Bench Secretaries should be given the same pay although it increased the strength by raising to JO percent instead of 10 as was done by the anomaly committee Consequently, the classification which was made by anomaly Committee in Grade and Grade II was maintained by the letter Pay Commission as well. The Government accepted the recommendation except that it modified the scale of special grade to 1250-2050 instead of 1420-1900 and Pay Scale of Grade II from 625-1170-EB-I240. In counter-affidavit facts are more or less admitted. What is of consequence is that it is not disputed that duties and responsibilities of all the Bench Secretaries of Grade 1 and II are the same. 7. It may be clarified that petitioners are not claiming any parity with the Bench Secretaries in special grade. In Paragraph 24 of the counter-affidavit it is stated although the duties and responsibility of the Bench Secretaries are the same but all of them do not fall in one and the same category and class and they are not in the some cadre. Inter se they constitute a different and separate class namely, the Bench Secretaries holding post of senior scale and Bench Secretaries holding post of Grade and Bench Secretaries holding the post of Grade II. Further it is claimed that Grade was granted by the Government to provide better promotional avenues. 8. Inter se they constitute a different and separate class namely, the Bench Secretaries holding post of senior scale and Bench Secretaries holding post of Grade and Bench Secretaries holding the post of Grade II. Further it is claimed that Grade was granted by the Government to provide better promotional avenues. 8. Equal pay for equal work is not only an ideal or objective of a free society but ethos of equality structured on fairness. A rule or law which attempts to violate it is anxious as it does not deal equally with members of a well defined class. Till 1975 Bench Secretaries formed one single group selected on merit from amongst common field of eligibility entrusted with same duty and responsibility. Even the Fay Rationalisation Committee which down graded them in status and emoluments did it for the whole lot, or group or class. From the best paid they become worse paid. Yet injury was to all. And thus the fight began to what was irrationally done by a rationalisation committee. It was scop assuaged partially by the Pay Commission by putting them higher than Upper Division Assistants. But what w as lost sight of was than Bench Secretaries were being put to this suffering not because their job bad ceased to be work of responsibility and trust but because there was no such equivalent post in Secretariat with which they could be given parity. What lame reasoning indeed. If a well recognised class had been existing from before the Commission was constituted and was permitted to continue then in all fairness its pay had to be determined on its working, its responsibility, duties etc., independently on its own merits and not under cover of non-existence of such posts . Rejection of petitioners demand for equating them at least with Section Officers by comparing them with absence of Administrative Control exercised by Section Officer in the Secretariat was ignoring history of Bench Secretaries being a different class both before and after independence and the nature of duties performed by them. A person entrusted with office of trust and responsibility does not per- form less onerous duty than a person required to exercise administrative control. A person entrusted with office of trust and responsibility does not per- form less onerous duty than a person required to exercise administrative control. Claim of petitioners of paying at least equal to Section Officers appears to have been more out of frustration and helplessness obviously because those who were getting less than petitioners were not only getting more but after parity they were put on a scale which was more than double. Curiously enough when Anomaly Committee redressed the wrong by granting pay scale equivalent to Section Officers it created an artificial division by drawing a line between 1st ten and others. A Bench Secretary or for that matter any officer who puts in longer years of service gets more salary than his juniors but if a senior performing the same duty as his juniors is put in different higher scale then it results in invidious classification in the same group. And that violates the concept of equality which visualises that whatever condition are guaranteed and secured by law to one shall be guaranteed to others who are of the same group or class. Equality doctrine dose not forbid classification. It only denies enactment of a rule or law which attempts to deal differently with persons situated similarly. The Government order by which the classification was done itself provided that duty and responsibility of Bench Secretary of Grade II be the same as of Grade and the basis for granting pay scale to Grade shall be seniority. No other basis or qualification or test or merit was laid down. The effect of the order was that those who were senior entered into an altogether different grade. That is senior Bench Secretary although doing the same work as his Junior became entitled to higher grade. And that clearly violated the principle of equal pay for equal work. It is not undisputed that a Bench Secretary in Grade and II can be attached with any Court or any Hon'ble Judge. There is no basis either in the rules nor there is any material on record which may show that the posting of Bench Secretary Grade is based on any basis different than that for Grade II. In fact there could be none as admittedly the duties and responsibilities of Bench Secretary of both the group is the same. Therefore, the grouping or classification was not backed by any principle. In fact there could be none as admittedly the duties and responsibilities of Bench Secretary of both the group is the same. Therefore, the grouping or classification was not backed by any principle. There was no intelligible differentia for it. Selection to higher scale was not based on seniority and merit but seniority-cum-fitness. The effect of the classification was different pay for same work. And that has happened when successive Pay Commission claimed to be wedded to the ideal of equal pay for equal work. In creating two groups of Bench Secretaries as Grade and II only on seniority an irrational classification was adhered to. In P. Savita's case (supra) somewhat similar situation came up for consideration before Supreme Court. As a result of third Pay Commission the draftsman working in various establishments of Ministry of Defence Production and Director General of Ordinance Factories, Calcutta were divided into two groups as Draftsmen and Senior Draftsmen. This was based on seniority even though men of both the groups discharged identical duties and performed similar work. The Hon'ble Court did not accept this classification as being based on any rationale and struck it down as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. It was held, that where all relevant consideration are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently. The Court further observed : "In this case, the Senior Draughtsmen, divided into two groups are in the same department doing identical and same work. It is not a case of different grades created on the ground of higher qualification either academic or otherwise or an entitlement by any other criteria laid down. The justification for this classification is by the mere accident of an earlier entry into service. This cannot be justified." 9. The ratio of this decision squarely applies to petitioners, The artificial division created by Government by its Order dated 2nd July, 19/6 perpetrated even in the recommendation of Pay Commission constituted in 1979 dividing Bench Secretaries into two groups even though they were doing identical work, having identical qualification was without any justification. 10. In 1976 rules of the court were amended and selection to Grade has been provided to be made from Grade II on merits. 10. In 1976 rules of the court were amended and selection to Grade has been provided to be made from Grade II on merits. Provision was made in the rule not because the Court agreed with classification of Bench Secretaries in Group and II but because of the Government Order dated 2nd July, 1976. The vice is not in the method of selection but in creation of two different groups without any intelligible differentia. If Bench Secretaries of Group would have been required to do any work different than Bench Secretaries Grade II it could be described as promotional avenue. Promotion from one post to another is associated with advancing to a higher office, climbing one more ladder in service career. But, different grade for persons of same class even on seniority-cum-merit with same work and responsibility cannot amount to promotion. If this was the objective of classification as claimed in counter-affidavit then the classification was bad not only for absence of reasonable basis for leaving others than those who were senior but was vitiated also because there was no rational relation in the classification with the objective sought to be achieved Promotion could not be for the same work. Consequently part of the notification dated 2nd July, 1976 which creates Grade II of Bench Secretaries has to be struck down as invalid. 11. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. A direction is issued to opposite parties to fix salary of all Bench Secretaries including those in Grade II in scale of pay admissible to Bench Secretary in Grade with effect from 1st October, 1975.