JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai, J. - Validity of order dated 22nd February 1978 sanctioning scale of Rs. 1300-1600 to five out of Ten Deputy Registrars of this Court, only, and their consequent designation in senior and junior scale by order dated 16th April 1982 have been attacked in these two petitions to the extent of its confinement to the limited number as invalid and inoperative being in violation of constitutional guarantee of equality. 2. Although what and why of these orders has to be tested on rationality of classification with objective sought to be achieved but it may be bad even if it it found to be arbitrary and without any reasonable basis. Since it has been attempted to be justified on historical back ground, a basis which has been accepted as reasonable, it is necessary to narrate in brief about these posts, their existence, creation, merger and scale of pay etc. The post of Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar and Secretary to the Chief Justice existed even before l93l. The Registrar used to be and still is senior officer from the Higher Judicial Service. The others were and are promotion posts. Rule 10 of the Allahabad High Court (Conditions of Staff Rules) 1946 provided that promotion to the posts of Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrar shall be made by the Chief Justice, Between 1547 and 1964 due to work load the posts of Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrar multiplied and in 1974 their number swelled to ten the break up being 7 Deputy Registrars and 3 Assistant Registrars according to High Court but five Deputy Registrars and five Assistant Registrars according to government. By this time it was realised that nature of work done by Assistant Registrar was more or less same as Deputy Registrar and after grant of parity in 1968 their responsibility had also increased, therefore, the govern me in agreement with this Court merged the two posts and created one common cadre of Deputy Registrar in the scale of Rs. 800-1350 by order dated 23rd October 74. Later on in 1982 two more posts of Deputy Registrars were created raising the strength to twelve which has continued since then. 3. Coming to the scale of pay the Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar and Secretary to the Chief Justice were in one scale that is Rs. 475-40-675 in 1946 Rules. 800-1350 by order dated 23rd October 74. Later on in 1982 two more posts of Deputy Registrars were created raising the strength to twelve which has continued since then. 3. Coming to the scale of pay the Deputy Registrar, Assistant Registrar and Secretary to the Chief Justice were in one scale that is Rs. 475-40-675 in 1946 Rules. One Deputy Registrar was entitled to special pay of Rs. 175/- and If Deputy Registrar was member of judicial service then he drew his time scale in that service. No change in this regard was made even by U.P. Pay Committee of 1947. In 1965 the government appointed a Pay Rationalization Committee to restructure and rationalize the pay scale of various employees of the State. Before this committee it was claimed by Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar that their work and responsibility being the same as Deputy Secretary and under Secretary in State Government they should be given the same pay scale. The committee did not agree to it but it suggested higher pay scale for Deputy Registrar and same pay for Assistant Registrar and Private Secretary to the Chief Justice. In 1968 staff of High Court was granted parity with employees in Secretariat. This however, was confined up to section officers only. When pay commission was constituted in 1971 the question of parity of higher staff was also raised. It was not accepted. But the Anomoly Committee accepted the principle of parity for Registrar, Additional Registrar and Joint Registrar with Secretary, Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary (P.C. in Secretariat). It also did not accept for Deputy Registrar. After a common cadre of Deputy Registrar was created in 1975 a letter was sent by the Chief Justice in February 1976 to the Chief Minister: It may be recalled that the question of complete parity in scales as well as prospects was raised in almost each of the Chief Justices conference and there was unanimous decision that the High court staff in various States should be at par with their respective Secretariats. While accepting the principle of parity in 1967 the posts of Registrar, Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Justice only were left and I am informed that during a verbal discussion with the then C.J., the then Chief Minister assured that the question of parity for them would be considered later on. While accepting the principle of parity in 1967 the posts of Registrar, Additional Registrar, Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Justice only were left and I am informed that during a verbal discussion with the then C.J., the then Chief Minister assured that the question of parity for them would be considered later on. The Anomoly Committee has now equated the special pay of the " Registrar, Additional Registrar and Joint Registrar with the Secretary, Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary (from P.C). The only class or category of post left from being equated is of Deputy Registrar and the Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Justice. After they are also equated with their corresponding post in the U.P. Secretariat, viz. the Deputy Secretary and the Private Secretary to the Chief Minister there will be complete parity. It is needless to say that in almost all the High Courts the Deputy Registrars are equated with Deputy Secretaries in the Government But the government instead of upgrading scales of Deputy Registrars and bringing it at par with pamotee Under Secretary in Secretariat sanctiored in July 1976 one selection post of Rs. 13i 0-1600. In the same month 1976 High Court Staff Rules repealing 1946 Rules were framed. The post of Deputy Registrar was designated as Class I post. The High Court, therefore, requested the government to alter its order and place all the posts of Deputy Registrars in Rs. 1300-1600. Since it did not create any reaction another letter was sent by the Registrar in 1977 to the following effect: Please refer to Government letter No. l035/(3)-VII High Court 24/74 dated July 9, 1976 conveying the sanction of one post out of ten posts of Deputy Registrars as selection grade posts in the scale of Rs. 1300-1600 on the principal on which " such selection grade has been made admissible to some of the Deputy Secretaries in the U.P. Secretariat promoted from the official cadre. I am desired to lay in this connection that the main issue raised in the letters dated February 25, ly76 and May 3, 1976 of the Honble the Chief Justice addressed to the Hon'ble the Chief Minister was the issue of parity of Deputy Registrar with the promotee Deputy Secretaries in the U.P. Secretariat. The grant of selection grade of Rs. The grant of selection grade of Rs. 1300-1600 to one post of Deputy Registrar clearly indicates that the Government have accepted the principle of parity with Deputy Secretaries, but it appears that the government while creating one post of selection grade Deputy Registrar in the scale of Rs. 1300-1600 have, by an over sight, not given sanction for the grant of the scale of Rs. 1250-1600 to the remaining 9 Deputy Registrars. The grant of selection grade without first sanctioning the original of the initial grade of Rs. 1250-1600 to non-selection grade Deputy Registrars has made the position rather anomalous So far as the main question of a complete parity is concerned all the posts on the establishment of the court from Registrar at the top to the Routine Grade Clerk at the bottom stand fully equated now with their counter parts in the U.P. Secretariat with the exception only of the non selection grade Deputy Registrars. With their equation with non selection grade Deputy Secretaries in the U.P. Secretariat the principle of a complete parity already agreed to by the government will be fully implemented. The Hon'ble the Chief Justice, therefore, desires that the scale of Rs. 1250-1600 admissible to non selection grade Deputy Secretaries may be sanctioned with immediate effect to the 9 non selection grade Deputy Registrars. A statement of the cost involved during the current financial year has been prepared and is sent herewith. It will show that the total cost involved during the current financial year is only Rs. 4,900/-. Even the maximum yearly expenditure in the subsequent years will be only Rs. 8,400/- which is too negligible and the Court will be able to meet the same from out of the budget grant already sanctioned This led to re-thinking, and in October 1977 five posts out of ten posts more sanctioned in scale of 1300-1600 including one in selection grade of Rs. 1350-1600 and they were designated senior scale. In 1978 Registrar wrote again for grant of same scale to all Deputy Registrars. Reply to this letter disclosed the reason which persuaded government to sanction only five posts was that when merger of Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars took place there were only five posts of Deputy Registrars. 1350-1600 and they were designated senior scale. In 1978 Registrar wrote again for grant of same scale to all Deputy Registrars. Reply to this letter disclosed the reason which persuaded government to sanction only five posts was that when merger of Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars took place there were only five posts of Deputy Registrars. But the court again re-iterated its demand and further pointed the error in calculation as there were 7 posts of Deputy Registrars and 3 posts of Assistant Registrars at time of merger. While correspondence was going on government announced pay commission of 1979, therefore, letter was received that proposal for grant of scale of Rs. 1300-1600 to the remaining posts of 5 Deputy Registrars had been dropped on the recommendation of the Finance Department since a pay commission had been set up by the government. The Commission, however did not agree to grant the scale of Rs. 1300-1600 to all Deputy Registrars, because, that at this time there are two scales of pay for Deputy Registrars, i.e. 800-1350 and 1300-1600 and that out of the ten posts of Deputy Registrars, 5 posts are in the scale of 1300-1600 and 5 are that of Rs. 800-1350 and that they do not find any justification for the scale of Rs. 800-1350 for Deputy Registrars and recommend the scale of Rs. 1420-1900 as is admissible to the Under Secretaries in the Secretariat. They added that for those posts of Deputy Registrars which are at present in the scale of Rs. 1300-1600, a scale of Rs. 1720-2125 has been given as is admissible to the Deputy Secretaries in the Secretariat and that they do not find any justification for keeping all the posts of Deputy Registrars in the same scale because the two scales have been given on the basis of similarity of the scales of Under Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries in the Secretariat Even the Anomoly Committee did not heed to request of Petitioner. The committee, however, upgraded scale of Private Secretary to the Chief Justice and brought it at par with Deputy Registrar in senior scale. 4. Having noticed the history and back ground of the post of Deputy Registrar and its bifurcation since 1979 into senior and junior scale it may now be examined if this classification or division is contrary to concept of equality. 4. Having noticed the history and back ground of the post of Deputy Registrar and its bifurcation since 1979 into senior and junior scale it may now be examined if this classification or division is contrary to concept of equality. Although grant of pay to Deputy Registrar on parity with Deputy Secretary is not admitted but that does not appear to be correct. It is belied by correspondence and the coincidence of same pay and its relative increase whenever there was increase in pay of Deputy Secretary. Moreover pay scale of Principal Private Secretary and Assistant Registrar till 1975 was same. When five posts of Deputy Registrars was upgraded the post of Principal Private Secretary which in respect of pay was equal to post of Assistant Registrar was given same scale as Deputy Registrar then on what rational it was denied to remaining Deputy Registrars is not easy to understand. But nothing turns on these. 5. Equal pay for equal work although visualised as a guideline for States to achieve social and economic equality is in fact as fact of equality before law and in employment. No law, rule or order can create dis-similarity between persons similarly situated r.ot only in respect of appointment and promotion but even in scale of pay, General Manager S. Railway v. Rangachau AIR 1962 SC 36. The Deputy Registrar after merger became one class, one group. It is not disputed that all the Deputy Begistiars from the time of their promotion from the post of section officer to the post of Deputy Registrar upto the date of their retirement discharged similar duties and responsibility, do the same work and the post is interchangeable. No distinction is made between a Deputy Registrar in senior and junior scale. In fact there could be none. From Annexure filed along with supplementary affidavit it is clear that even in October 1985 after retirement of one of the Deputy Registrars a Deputy Registrar in senior scale has been posted as Deputy Registrar of a section hither to held by Deputy Registrar of junior scale and vice versa. In fact there could be none. From Annexure filed along with supplementary affidavit it is clear that even in October 1985 after retirement of one of the Deputy Registrars a Deputy Registrar in senior scale has been posted as Deputy Registrar of a section hither to held by Deputy Registrar of junior scale and vice versa. Same pay for same work may not be possible in wider sense of every class I officer getting the same in every department- although it is neither impossible nor impracticable rather desirable and necessary which requires streamlining by a body entrusted with responsibility of classifying posts for the entire country either horizontally or vertically that is either department-wise, or post-wise, but when it comes to one group or class then it can be granted to few and denied to others only if such denial is based OH some reasonable basis, which can be supported in law. 6. The classification of Deputy Registrar into senior and junior scale because there were only five Deputy Registrars at time of merger of the post of Assistant Registrars with Deputy Registrars appears to be shaky. Once it vas recognised that duty and nature of work performed by Assistant Registrar was same and similar as hat of Deputy Registrar ai,d the two posts were merged and a common cadre was created the cadre of Assistant Registrar became non-exisient ana it ceased to exist in law. Effect of merger was complete. It was rot partial or conditional. It could not exist and non-exibt both. It could tot furnish loundation for classification amongst Deputy Registrars because at one time there v. ere only five Deputy Registrars. The class ol Deputy Registrar was and is a well defined class, it remained so even after merger. No law could be enacted to deal with members of this class differently. The pledge of equality could not be vitiated by classifying like persons in a manner so as to operate dinerently on persons simi arly situated. Classification in order to be whuw ambit of equality must have a rational basis. It must be founded on intelligible differentia on common qualities or characteristic in persons grouped together to distinguish them from those who have been left out. Does the classification if Deputy Registrar into senior and junior scale satisfy any of these tests. Classification in order to be whuw ambit of equality must have a rational basis. It must be founded on intelligible differentia on common qualities or characteristic in persons grouped together to distinguish them from those who have been left out. Does the classification if Deputy Registrar into senior and junior scale satisfy any of these tests. The basis of existence of five pos s at the time ot merger does not stand the test either of intelligible differentia or there being any reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved. Persons doing same work, performing same duty belonging to same cadre were divided in two neither on merits nor on qualification nor on efficiency but because at one time the cadre consisted of five Deputy Registrars only. This was irrational and unreasonable. It was an attempt to disintegrate what had been integrated. It violated the equality doctrine and denied equal pay for equal work. Division of persons similarly situated in class 1 and II on length of service or seniority has not been approved by Supreme Court as reasonable basis of classification in P. Savita and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI), Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence Production), New Delhi and Others, AIR 1985 SC 1124 . it was held " where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently. 7. Nor is the submission that five posts were sanctioned in scale of Rs. 1300-1600 to provide promotional avenue is well founded. It is based on observation in recommendation of pay commission of 1980. Granting of higher scale or liffcrent grade to few of same cadre on seniority does not amount to promotion. In State oi Mysore v. Krishna Murty AIR J.V73 SC 1146 it was held that division into classes of memters of same service belonging to same cadre for purposes of creating difference in opportunity of promotion violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. Therefore, the classification of Deputy Registrars into senior and junior scale or grant of Rs. 1300-1600 to five Deputy Registrars only does not stand the test of reasonableness. It being irrational and arbitrary violates the guarantee of equality in Articles 14 and 16. The order of the government, therefore, so far it creates discrimination is liable to be struck down. 9. 1300-1600 to five Deputy Registrars only does not stand the test of reasonableness. It being irrational and arbitrary violates the guarantee of equality in Articles 14 and 16. The order of the government, therefore, so far it creates discrimination is liable to be struck down. 9. In the result both petitions succeeds and are allowed. The order dated 22nd February 19/8 so far it confines the giant of scale of Rs. 1 00-160u to five Deputy Registrars only is quashed. Further the classification ot Deputy Regisuais into senior and junior scale in orcer dated 22nd February 197b and order dated 16th April 1982 are quashed. 10. A direction is issued to opposite parties to treat all the Deputy Registrars in scale of Rs. 1300-1600 from the date it was sanctioned. The opposite parties shall in pursuance of it work out the arrears of those Deputy Registrars who have retired or who have died but could not reach the senior scale or reached it latter and pay the same within a period of six months from the date a copy of this order is produced before them. The Petitioners shall be entitled to their costs from opposite party No. 1.