JUDGMENT 1. - All these special appeals are directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated November 16, 1984, (reported in 1984 RLR 966 ), as such they are disposed of by one single judgment. 2. Eight Private Secretaries attached to the Chief Justice and Judges of this Court (hereinafter called 'the petitioners') filed 8 writ petitions praying that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued to the State of Rajasthan, Hon'ble the Chief Justice and the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court for upgrading their pay-scales to the level of Private Secretaries in Government Secretariat and grant other benefits with effect from the date the post of private secretary was created i.e. December 4, 1975. It was also prayed that the petitioners be given all arrears relating to pay-scales and equivalent benefits which are being enjoyed by the private secretaries in the Government Secretariat with effect from December 4, 1975. It was also prayed that an appropriate writ, order or direction be issued declaring Schedule It to the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953 (Amendment) as ultra vires and be quashed in so far as it erroneously equated the Private Secretary of High Court that of Senior Stenographer in Government Secretariat. 3. Learned Single Judge has narrated in Idetail the history of service of private secretaries/personal assistants in the Government Secretariat as well as the private secretaries attached to the Hon'ble Judges in the Rajasthan High Court and we do not think it necessary to repeat the same. The Chief Justice of this Court wrote from time to time to the State Government for restoring parity in the pay scales and promotion prospects of private secretaries in the High Court. The Government did not care to restore the parity which obtained till May, 1973. All that it agreed to, was to upgrade two posts of private secretary to the Chief Justice and judges of the High Court, what was described a. Super-time scale of 1930-1500 somewhere in 1978. The Government did not agree to equate all the private secretaries as a class with the private secretaries to the Commissioners and Secretaries to Government as a class for the purpose of pay scales. 4. The Government did not agree to equate all the private secretaries as a class with the private secretaries to the Commissioners and Secretaries to Government as a class for the purpose of pay scales. 4. Learned Single Judge after mentioning the history of pay scales of private secretaries to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court on one side and all private secretaries to Commissioners /Secretaries to the Government, senior personal assistants and personal assistants in the Government Secretariat deduced the following conclusion : (See pars 16 of 1984 RLR 966 at page 972) X X X X 5. Notices of motion of the writ petitions were served on the respondents in August 1983. The Deputy Government Advocate entered appearance on August 25, 1983 and obtained adjournment for filing reply. The cases were adjourned from time to time at the instance of the Government Advocate, but no reply was filed on behalf of the respondents. Ultimately, on December 12, 1983, all the 8 writ petitions were admitted and a rule nisi was issued requiring the respondents to show cause why the same be not made absolute. While adjourning the proceedings to January 12, 1984 it was made clear that if the respondents did not file their return within one month, it will be presumed that the respondents did not wish to file any return. A reply to the writ petitions was filed on behalf of Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Registrar, Rajasthan High Court on January 13, 1914 but no reply was filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan Oral arguments in the case started in February, 1984 and concluded in May. 1984. On May 2, 1984, learned counsel for she petitioners and the learned Advocate General obtained adjournment for four months stating that the petitioners would like to approach the authorities concerned once again for reconsideration and necessary relief. 1984. On May 2, 1984, learned counsel for she petitioners and the learned Advocate General obtained adjournment for four months stating that the petitioners would like to approach the authorities concerned once again for reconsideration and necessary relief. The learned Advocate General made a statement that if and when the Chief Justice of the High Court made a proposal under Article 229 of the Constitution of India for equation of posts of Private Secretaries to Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court with Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government, the State Government shall take its decision thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the proposal The cases as such were again taken up on September 6, 1984. It transpired that the State Government had not taken any decision on the proposal of the Chief Justice by that date. Learned Single Judge in this regard observed as under : (See para 24 & 26 of 1984 RLR 966 at page 974) X X X X 6. Learned Single Judge than held that parity existed in the State of Rajasthan at least in respect of personal assistances and judgment writers in the High Court on one side and Senior Stenographers in the State Secretariat on the other from 1950 to 1973 as could be evident from the comparative history of these posts from 1950 to 1973. This parity was statutorily recognised by the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) - Amendment Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as `the 1915 Rules') inasmuch as the post of a personal assistant and judgment writer in the High Court was equated with the post of Senior Stenographer in the State Secretariat for the purpose of pay-scale with effect from October 31, 1975. The Rajasthan High Court Rules of 1975 were, however silent as to the equation of posts of selection grade stenographers in the State Secretariat and the High Court. So far as the State Secretariat is concerned the State Government issued a Notification dated May 22, 1973. The Rajasthan High Court Rules of 1975 were, however silent as to the equation of posts of selection grade stenographers in the State Secretariat and the High Court. So far as the State Secretariat is concerned the State Government issued a Notification dated May 22, 1973. thereby amending the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules (in short `Ministerial Service Rules) and creating posts of selection grade stenographers in the State Secretariat equal in number if not more to the number of posts of Commissioner and Secretaries to Government so that every stenographer attached to the Commissioner and Secretary could be promoted and get the higher scale prescribed for a selection grade stenographer. It did not seem to have occurred to the authorities concerned not even to the Chief Justice of the High Court at that tire, that simultaneously with the amendment of the Ministerial Service Rules the High Court staff Rules also needed a corresponding amendment so that at least one personal assistant-cum-judgment writer attached to the Chief Justice and every judge of the High court could be promoted and given a higher scale identical to the scale prescribed for a selection grade stenographer in the State Secretariat. It was more than a year after the aforesaid amendment of the Ministerial Service Rules that the Chief Justice wrote to the State Government recommending that the terms and conditions of service of personal assistant,-cum-judgment writers should be brought at least at per with the selection grade stenographers in the State Secretariat. It was further recommended that having regard to the arduous nature of the duties of personal assistants-cum-judgment writers attached to the judges of the High Court should be granted special pay of Rs. 100/- p. m. The cadre of personal assistants-judgment writers in the High Court consisted of IC permanent posts and 5 temporary posts in 19-4-75. Thus, if the Government had approved the approval of the Chief Justice all the 15 posts of personal assistants-cum-judge meat writers in the High Court would have been brought not only at par with the selection grade stenographers from May 22, 1971, but they would have also got special pay of Rs. Thus, if the Government had approved the approval of the Chief Justice all the 15 posts of personal assistants-cum-judge meat writers in the High Court would have been brought not only at par with the selection grade stenographers from May 22, 1971, but they would have also got special pay of Rs. 100/- p m. The State Government did not approve the proposal of the Chief Justice and what the State Government did was to convert two of the 15 posts into selection grade posts carrying a pay scale of 275-650 with effect from September 18, 1974. The remaining 13 posts remained in the old scale of 225-525 Schedule II of the High Court Staff Rules as amended with effect from October 31, 1975, only equated the post of personal assistants-cum-judgment writer with the post of stenographer in the Government Secretariat for the purpose of pay scale. It may be further mentioned that this omission on the part of the authorities concerned resulted in disturbing the age-old parity in the matter of pay scales between the personal assistants-cum-judgment writers in the High Court and the senior stenographers in the State Secretariat. The High Court Staff Rules were amended on December 4, 1975, substituting the old designation of `Personal Assistant cum-Judgment Writers" by the new designation of "Private Secretaries" attached to Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Judges of the High Court. This change of designation however did not confer any monetory benefits on the Private Secretaries in the High Court. On the other hand, the State Government not only changed the designation of the corresponding posts in the State Secretariat but also increased their pay scales. By an executive order the State Government created the posts of Private Secretaries to Commissioner and Secretaries to Government in the pay scale of 930-150 i.e. much higher than the pay scales of Private Secretaries of the High Court. The executive order passed by the Government was subsequently incorporated by making an amendment in the Rajasthan Secretariat Service Rules, 1954, whereby the post of Private Secretary to Commissioner and Secretary to the Government was inserted in the category of posts constituting the Rajasthan Secretariat Service. The amendment also made provision to the effect that recruitment to the posts of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretary to the Government shall be made by promotion from amongst the Selection Grade Stenographers in the Government Secretariat. 7. The amendment also made provision to the effect that recruitment to the posts of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretary to the Government shall be made by promotion from amongst the Selection Grade Stenographers in the Government Secretariat. 7. The learned Single Judge, in these circumstances, held that if all the private Secretaries attached to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government could be grouped in one cadre carrying the same pay scale and enjoying the same status, it was difficult to think of any plausible reason why a group of private secretaries attached to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court who had all along been enjoying parity of pay scales and status with the former, were not granted the same pay scale and status as had been granted to the former as a consequence of the amendment of the Rajasthan Secretariat Service Rules. 1954 with effect from March 1, 1978. It was further observed by the learned Single Judge that one could quite understand the argument that not more than one post of Private Secretary in the scale of 930-1500 (since revised to 1210-2040) per judge may be sanctioned on the basis of the pattern adopted for Commissioner and 'Secretaries to the Government, but it was not understandable as to why the Private Secretaries to Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court could not be treated at par with the former in all respect on the basis of the formula of "one private Secretary per one judge", simultaneously with the creation of Class I post for Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to Government in March 1978. Learned Single Judge then considered that as against 94 posts of Personal Assistants in the pay scale of 740-1420 in the State Secretariat there were 30 posts of Senior Personal Assistants in the pay scale of 820-1550, and 23 posts of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to Government in the pay scale of 1210-2040. Thus, there were 53 promotion posts to which the personal assistants may legitimately look for promotion in the Secretariat. la contrast as against 23 posts of Private Secretaries to Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court in the pay scale of 740-1420 only 4 promotional posts, viz., 2 in the pay scale of 20-1550 and 2 in the pay scale of 1210-2024 are available in the High Court. la contrast as against 23 posts of Private Secretaries to Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court in the pay scale of 740-1420 only 4 promotional posts, viz., 2 in the pay scale of 20-1550 and 2 in the pay scale of 1210-2024 are available in the High Court. Learned Single Judge thus held as against over all promotional avenues of nearly 57 per cent for personal assistants in the State secretariat, such avenues in the High Court work out to 17 percent only. It was further observed that the number of posts of Private Secretaries to the Government keeps on increasing with the increase in the number of Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government. For example the number of such private secretaries was just six in 1980-81 (see the report of the Rajasthan Pay Commission page 313) and the said number increased from 6 to 23 in 1983.84 as also admitted in the written arguments submitted by the learned Advocate General. It was further observed by the learned Single Judge that on the other band, the number of posts of private Secretaries in the High Court in the higher pay scale of 1210-2040 was fixed at 2 in 1978 and it is the same in 1984. As and when there is increase in the number of judges of the High Court the number of posts of Private Secretaries is increased correspondingly but in the pay scale of 740-1420 and there is no increase in the number of posts in the higher pay scale of 1210-2040 which stands frozen at 2 since 1978. The learned Single Judge thus issued a writ of mandamus giving a direction to the respondents to amend the High Court Staff Rules or otherwise make an executive order so as to give effect to the following . (See para 36 of 1984 RLR 966 at page 980) X X X X X 8. Aggrieved against the above order of the learned Single Judge, Special Appeal Nos. 1/85, 2/85, and 51/85 have been filed by the Private Secretaries and 63/85, 64/85, 65/85, 69/65, 70/85, 71/85, 72/8, and 73/85 have been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 9. We could first consider the appeals filed by the State. 10. Aggrieved against the above order of the learned Single Judge, Special Appeal Nos. 1/85, 2/85, and 51/85 have been filed by the Private Secretaries and 63/85, 64/85, 65/85, 69/65, 70/85, 71/85, 72/8, and 73/85 have been filed by the State of Rajasthan. 9. We could first consider the appeals filed by the State. 10. It was submitted by the learned Advocate General that the posts of Private Secretary to Commissioner and Secretary to the Government are State Service posts and have been included in the Rajasthan secretariat Service Rules, 1954, while the post of Senior Personal Assistant. Personal Assistants, and Stenographers have been included in the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970, Thus, in the Secretariat, personal assistant, is first promoted as Senior Personal Assistant i.e. Pay Scale No. 15 to pay scale No. 17 and then from Senior Personal Assistant to Private Secretary in the pay scale No. 20. It is submitted that in the case of High Court a stenographer in pay scale No. 11 is promoted to Private Secretary and judgment writer in pay scale No. 15. The petitioners were falling in this category and after considering the recommendations of the Pay Commission (Beri Commission) scale to scale revision was made in this category and they would be in the time scale of 740-1420. After this category there is a category of Private Secretary and judgment-writer in the selection scale in pay scale No. 17 i.e. 820-1550. The Private Secretary (Selection Scale) in the High Court can also be promoted to the post of Office Superintendent in the pay scale No 20 i.e. from 11-10-2040. It is thus submitted that the petitioners seek more than one jump and are seeking a jump from pay scale No. 15 to pay scale No. 20. It was also argued by the learned Advocate General that the learned Single Judge erred in over looking the fact that the Rules made under Article 229 of the Constitution of India are legislative in character and no mandamus can be issued to the Governor for exercising any legislative power under the Constitution. It was also submitted that the principle of equal work and equal pay' can have no application where service conditions are laid down by Rules which are legislative in character and are framed within the parameters of the Constitution. It was also submitted that the principle of equal work and equal pay' can have no application where service conditions are laid down by Rules which are legislative in character and are framed within the parameters of the Constitution. It was also argued that the Private Secretaries to the Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government are governed by different Rules in comparison to Private Secretaries to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, who are governed by different sets of Rules and as such they did not belong to the same class and there does not arise any question of equality between the two services. 11. Learned Advocate General also submitted that in the case no rules have been made by the Chief Justice changing the conditions of service of Private Secretaries as required under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution and in the absence of' such rules being prescribed in High Court Staff Rules, no relief can be granted to the petitioners. As an alternative argument, it was also submitted that the proviso to Article 229 (2) further laid down that the Rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions required approval of the Governor of the State. On the present case, no approval of the Governor has been given to the recommendations made by the Chief Justice and in these circumstances a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be given. In support of the above contentions reliance is placed on the following observations made in (1) State of Andhra Pradesh and Another V.T. Gopalakrishan Murthi and others, AIR 1976 SC 123 . If there is a law made by the Legislature of the State then subject to the law, otherwise without it, the Chief Justice or some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief justice is empowered to make rules laying down the conditions of service of the High Court staff. If there is a law made by the Legislature of the State then subject to the law, otherwise without it, the Chief Justice or some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief justice is empowered to make rules laying down the conditions of service of the High Court staff. But if the Rules made under clause (D) of Article 229 relate to salaries, allowances or pensions then since in them is involved the question of finance the framing of the rules requires the approval of the Governor that means the State Government One should expect in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Article 229 that ordinarily and generally the approval should be accorded. But surely it is wrong to say that the approval is a mere formality and in no case it is open to the Government to refuse to accord their approval. On the facts and in the circumstances of this case and in the background of the conditions which are prevalent in other States Government could have been well-advised to accord approval of the suggestion of the Chief Justice. It is, however, not possible to take the view that merely because the State Government does not see its way to give the required approval it will justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution as if the refusal of the State Government was ultra vires or malafide and arbitrary." 12. It was also contended by the learned Advocate General that the directions given by the learned Single Judge are neither clear nor the same are justified even if similar posts in the Secretariat are taken into consideration. 13. It was also contended by the learned Advocate General that the directions given by the learned Single Judge are neither clear nor the same are justified even if similar posts in the Secretariat are taken into consideration. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners private secretaries submitted that the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the duties and the responsibilities of the Private Secretaries-cum-judgment Writers attached to the Judges of the High Court were more onerous and burdensome as against the duties and the responsibilities of the Private Secretaries attached to the Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government, has neither been challenged nor the learned Advocate General during the course of arguments was able to assail the same No reply has been filed by the State inspire of repeated opportunities given by the learned Single Judge & there is no specific denial of the averments made in the writ petitions On the other band, the High Court in its reply has admitted the fact that the duties and responsibilities of the private Secretaries attached to the Judges were identical if not more burdensome than the duties and responsibilities of the private Secretaries attached to the Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government. It has also been admitted in the reply by the High Court that Hon'ble the Chief Justice had made recommendations from time to time for bringing about the parity in the matter of pay scale of the holders of the two posts. Even during the course of arguments before the learned Single Judge cases were adjourned and the petitioners again male representations to Hon'ble the Chief Justice who recommended the matter to the Government for giving the same pay-scale to the Private Secretaries-cum-judgment writers as was admissible to the Private Secretaries attached to the Commissioners and Secretaries in the Government Secretariat. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State Government is neither approving nor refusing to approve the proposal of the Chief Justice made from time to time and reiterated during the pendency of these cases on July 11, 1984. The State Government as such has acted arbitrarily in ignoring the proposal of the Chief Justice. The State Government as such has acted arbitrarily in ignoring the proposal of the Chief Justice. The State Government without any valid reason is not prepared to abide by the age-old principle of parity in the matter of pay-scales and status between the Private Secretaries of the High Court on the one hand and private secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries of the Government on the other hand. It is submitted that discrimination is writ large and this Hon'ble Court is fully competent to justify to give a mandamus to the respondents against such arbitrary and discriminatory act. 14. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the decision in Gopalkrishnan's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable. Following distinguishing features are thereof the cases in hand which were not before the Supreme Court in the above Andhra Pradesh case : (a) in the present case, there has been age-old parity between the pay- scales of the private secretaries-cum-judgment writers and the cadre of private secretaries attached to the Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government in the Secretariat; (b) in the present case, there is finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the action of the Government is arbitrary and unreasonable and results in hostile discrimination between the persons similarly placed; (c) there is also a finding of fact given by the learned Single Judge that the Government failed to give any reasons or explanation for giving different scales of pay to the persons holding similar qualifications and discharging similar duties; (d) in the Andhra Pradesh case their Lordships of the Supreme Court had observed "the High Court staff has always not been treated at par with that of the Government Secretariat staff in the matter of pay". It was also submitted that in the above case the Supreme Court had further held that the mandamus cannot be issued, unless refusal of the Government was ultra vires or mala fide and arbitrary. 15. It is contended that in the present cases the action of the State Government being arbitrary, this Court is entitled to issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. 15. It is contended that in the present cases the action of the State Government being arbitrary, this Court is entitled to issue a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. 16. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was not raised in T. Gopalkrishuan's case (supra) and there was no decision of the Supreme Court on that point in that case. The concept for equal pay for equal work has emerged at a later time and has been incorporated as a concept of equality by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (2) Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 879 . In this case it was held as under : x x x 17. The above principle was further reiterated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (3) P.K. Ramehandra Iyer and others v. Union of India & others, (1984) 2 SCC 141 . 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance of a division bench decision of Delhi High Court in (4) H.L. Vijh and others v. Union of India and others, 1984 (1) SLR 99 . The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the above case held as under : X X X 19. We have given our careful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and have thoroughly perused the record. 20. The history of the two services as mentioned in detail by the learned Single Judge is unassailable. As already mentioned above in the earlier part of our judgment learned Single Judge had drawn five conclusions on the basis of the history of pay-scales of Private Secretaries to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court on the one side and of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government, Senior Personal Assistants and Personal Assistants in the Government Secretariat. The above conclusions clearly go to show that strict parity was maintained in the pay-scales of Private Secretaries to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court and those of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to Government from 1950 to 1973. The above conclusions clearly go to show that strict parity was maintained in the pay-scales of Private Secretaries to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court and those of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to Government from 1950 to 1973. This parity was disturbed for the first time in 1973 when the State Government created the cadre of Selection Grade Stenographers in the Government Secretariat without creating a corresponding cadre in the High Court. Last blow in this regard was struck in 1978 when the State Government created yet another cadre of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to Government as a part and parcel of Rajasthan Secretariat Service by amending the Rajasthan Secretariat Service Rules, 1954. 21. It is clearly borne out from the record that efforts of the Chief Justice between 1973 and 1978 to persuade the State Government to restore the parity, as it existed from 1950 to 1973 did not succeed. Only two posts of personal Assistants-cum-Judgment Writers were upgraded in 1974 and renamed as Private Secretaries in a pay-scale equal to the pay-scale of selection grade stenographers in the Government Secretariat and thereafter the gradation of two other posts in 1978 in the Super-time scale of 930-1500 revised to 1210-2024. It may be pertiment to mention that on May 2, 1984. learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Advocate General had obtained adjournment before the learned Single Judge for tour months stating that the petitioners would like to approach the authorities concerned once again for reconsideration and necessary relief. Learned Single Judge has observed in this regard that the learned Advocate General had made a statement that if and when the Chief Justice of the High Court made a proposal under Article 229 of the Constitution for equation of the post of Private Secretaries to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court to Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government, the State Government shall take the decision thereon within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the proposal. 22. We have perused the original record from which it is clear that after seeking the above adjournment on May 2, 1984 a detailed representation was submitted by the Private 'Secretaries-cum-Judgment Writers regarding equation of their post with the post of Private Secretaries in the Secretariat. 22. We have perused the original record from which it is clear that after seeking the above adjournment on May 2, 1984 a detailed representation was submitted by the Private 'Secretaries-cum-Judgment Writers regarding equation of their post with the post of Private Secretaries in the Secretariat. The Registrar of the High Court submitted a detailed note before Hoa'ble the Chief Justice with the following concluding note:- "Therefore, if approved, the Government be requested to sanction the same pay scales and special pay to the Private Secretaries and judgment writers posted in this Court as granted to the Private Secretaries in the Government Secretariat, who are attached to the Chief Secretary, to the Government and Commissioners in the Rajasthan Secretariat and to maintain parity from the same date as envisaged under Rule 5 (2) of the Rules framed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor under Article 2-49 (2) of the Constitution." 23. The above note was approved by Hon'ble the Chief Justice on July, 2 1984. Thereafter. vide letter dated July 11, 1984 a proposal was sent to the State Government for seeking an approval. It is pertinent to mention that no action was taken by the State Government on the above proposal till the matter was heard and decided by the learned Single Judge on November 16, 1984. 24. This sort of conduct on the part of the State Government cannot be approved. The Chief Justice of the State, is the highest dignitary of the judiciary and has full power under Article 2.9 (2) of the Constitution in the matter of the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the. State. It is no doubt true that under the proviso it has been laid down that the Rules made in this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries allowances, leave or pensions require the approval of the Governor of the State. The above proviso is meant for the purpose that where the question of finance is involved, the framing of the Rules requires the approval of the Governor that means the State Government. The above proviso is meant for the purpose that where the question of finance is involved, the framing of the Rules requires the approval of the Governor that means the State Government. But as the facts in the present case show, attempts were made by succeeding Chief Justices from 1973 to 1978 for equating the pay scales and status of the Private Secretaries in the High Court with that of the Private secretaries in the Secretariat and last not least proposal was sent even during the pendency of these writ petitions and the learned Advocate General bad also given a statement before the learned Single Judge that in case such proposal would be sent, the State Government would take its decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the proposals. Such proposals were sent on July 11, 1984 but still no action was taken by the Government of accepting or refusing such proposals and no plea worth the name has been taken nor argued by the learned 'Advocate General that such proposal could not have been accepted in view of any financial difficulty or otherwise by the State Government. This clearly shows a callous and intransigent attitude on the part of the State Government. The petitioners and their class were suffering right from 1974 and were claimouring hard for redressing their grievance but no head was paid till they were left with an unsavoury act of knocking the doors of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We are thus in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single judge that in the facts and circumstances mentioned above, this Court is entitled to give a mandamus when the action of the State Government is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. 25. In the present democratic set up in our country where judiciary is one of the important pillors of democracy and is wholly independent of the other two wings, it is expected that when any proposal is sent by the head of the judiciary, it must be given its due weight. The Chief Justice as the bead of the judiciary, if sends any proposal, it is done with full sense of responsibility and normally it is expected that such proposal would be accepted unless there are cogent and valid reasons for the Government not to accept the same. The Chief Justice as the bead of the judiciary, if sends any proposal, it is done with full sense of responsibility and normally it is expected that such proposal would be accepted unless there are cogent and valid reasons for the Government not to accept the same. History of cases in hands knows that apart from in action, no reason whatsoever has been put forth by the State Government as to why the proposal was not accepted. In the case of a person, whose entire career depends on service cannot wait for an indefinite time, if his pay scales and future chances of promotion are not redressed and corrected by the employer. The petitioners in these cases were clamouring for their just rights for the last m 're than a decade and if their patience was exhausted after such long delay, these petitions cannot be thrown out on the technical plea that no mandamus can be given by this Court. Even during the pendency of the writ petitions, the learned Advocate General had sought time and it was expected that the State Government would act within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the proposals, but it appears that no action was taken even during this period without any rhyme or reason. In this view of the matter we are clearly of the view that this Court is entitled to give a direction in the nature of mandamus to the State Government and no valid reason can be found to take a different view from the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this regard. 26. The Andhra Pradesh case viz T. Gopalkrishanan Murthi's case (supra) was a case based on its own particular facts and circumstances and we agree with the distinction brought out by the learned counsel for the petitioners as already mentioned above in the earlier part of the judgment. That apart, the concept of 'equal pay for equal work' was enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for the first time in Randhir Singh's case (supra). The above principle was based on Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India which proclaimed "equal pay for equal work for bath men and women" as a directive principle of state Policy. That apart, the concept of 'equal pay for equal work' was enunciated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court for the first time in Randhir Singh's case (supra). The above principle was based on Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India which proclaimed "equal pay for equal work for bath men and women" as a directive principle of state Policy. It cannot be denied in the present case that the duties performed by the Private Secretaries in the High Court is more arduous than the duties performed by the Private Secretaries of the Secretariat. Even the learned Advocate General was unable to assail the above position and he did not raise any argument refuting the above claim of the petitioners. That being so Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have observed in Randhir Singh's case (supra) that this equality clause of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vaste majority of the people the equality clause of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance, if equal work means equal pay. In these circumstances, we also hold that the petitioners have been denied their right of equality as enshrined under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 27. We do not find any force in the argument of learned Advocate General that in the absence of any provision made in the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules and corresponding amendment in Schedule II to these Rules, no mandamus can be given under Article 226 of the Constitution We have already mentioned that the Chief Justice had approved the proposal sent to the Government in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229(2) of the Constitution and the amendment could have been made after the approval of the proposal by the Governor of Rajasthan i.e. the State Government. As the Government was not taking any action at all of either approving or disapproving such proposal and there was no reason assigned even before this Court, the action of the Government being arbitrary, direction can be given under Article 226 of the Constitution. 28. We shall now consider the special appeals Nos. 1/85, 2/85 & 57/85 filed by the Private Secretaries against the order of the learned Single Judge. 29. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that once it was held that the petitioners were entitled to be treated at par in the matter of pay scales with that of the Private Secretaries in the Secretariat, they were entitled to get equivalent pay scales with effect from February, 1978 in the scale of 930-1500 and thereafter in the scale of 1210-2040 with effect from September I, 1981. It was submitted that in Randhir Singh's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court had given a direction for higher pay scale with effect from 1973 and in P K. Ramchandra Iyer's case (supra) with effect from the date of filling of the post in the higher pay scale. We find no force in this contention. These writ petitions were filed on August 3, 1983 and the learned Single Judge has granted the pay scales at par with the pay scales of Private Secretaries in the Secretariat with effect from the commencement of the financial year following the year of the institution of these writ petitions i.e. with effect from April 1, 1984. In our view, it would not be just and proper to grant the pay sales prior to the financial year of the filing of the writ petitions. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in this regard. 30. In Randhir Singh's case (Supra) third pay commission had considered the claims of all drivers as a common category under the head ' the pay scales appropriate for drivers of Motor Vehicles operating on road.......... Afar considering the qualifications etc. possessed by the drivers, Commission proposed pay scales for various categories of drivers like drivers of light motor vehicles, drivers of heavy motor vehicles, drivers employed in organisations with large fleet of vehicles, drivers of staff cars etc. Afar considering the qualifications etc. possessed by the drivers, Commission proposed pay scales for various categories of drivers like drivers of light motor vehicles, drivers of heavy motor vehicles, drivers employed in organisations with large fleet of vehicles, drivers of staff cars etc. The pay scales were professed to be fixed with reference to qualifications for driving, the nature & arduousness of the duties and responsibilities the non-availability of adequate promotional avenues and as such other usual considerations. The Pay Commission, however, while considering the question of scales of pay of drivers separated the case of constable drivers on the ground that their case would be considered along with the cases of other police personnel. The grievance of the petitioner in that case was that while considering the question of the scales of pay of the police personnel, the Pay Commission failed to consider the drivers as a separate category and ignored the special considerations which prevailed in the case of drivers in other departments and which should have, therefore, prevailed in the case of driver-constable also. In these circumstances, their Lordships granted the petitioner in that case the scale of pay effective from Jan. 1, 1973, the fate from which the recommendation of the Pay Commission were given effect to Thus. in the above case a mistake was committed by the Pay Commission in omitting to consider the case of driver- constable separately. In the case before us we are granting relief to the petitioners on the basis of the proposal sent by the Chief Justice under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India and in our view, the basis of the commencement of the financial year after the filing of the writ petitions is quite just and proper. 31. In P. K. Ramchandra Iyer's case (supra) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the position was entirely different. 31. In P. K. Ramchandra Iyer's case (supra) on which reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the position was entirely different. The petitioners in that case were Professors in their respective disciplines attached to Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVR1 in short) The contention of the petitioners was that they fulfill the minimum qualifications prescribed for the post after upward revision of the pay scale, and they had the requisite experience and were performing the same or identical duties as were being performing by newly recruited Professors in sister discipliney and as such denial to them of the revised pay scales for the post of Professor apart from being discriminatory and violative of Article 14 was thoroughly arbitrary and unjustified. In these circumstances, different reliefs were given taking in to consideration the case of each one of the petitioners. 32. It was next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Single Judge should not have prescribed the requirement of qualification of experience of three years before being appointed to a post in the cadre of Private Secretary in the pay scale 930-1500 (revised to 1210-2040). it was submitted that all the Private Secretaries-cum-judgment writers constitute one class and amongst them there cannot be any mini or micro classification for the purpose of the grant of pay-scales. It was submitted that the question of grant of pay-scales depended upon the nature of the qualifications, duties and responsibilities and once a person came in the cadre of Private Secretaries-cum-judgment writers he as of right, was also entitled to the same pay scales as was given to the other holders of the post in that cadre. In the Rajasthan High Court at present there are 18 posts of Judges, It present there are 27 persons, who are styled and designated as Private's Secretaries-cum-judgment writers. Out of these 27 posts two senior most persons are already fixed in the pay seals of 1210-204. In the Rajasthan High Court at present there are 18 posts of Judges, It present there are 27 persons, who are styled and designated as Private's Secretaries-cum-judgment writers. Out of these 27 posts two senior most persons are already fixed in the pay seals of 1210-204. The next two senior most persons are fixed in the pay scale of 820-1550 which is equivalent to the pay-sale of Senior Personal Assistants in the Secretariat The remaining 23 persons are fixed in the pay-scale of 740-1420 which is equivalent to the pay-scales of Personal Assistants in the Secretariat Learned Single Judge has given a mandamus to the respondents to create a cadre of Private Secretaries to Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court equal in number to the posts of Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, carrying pay-scale allowances and status at par with the pay-scale, allowances and status of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and secretaries to Government in the Secretariat and in this regard has further laid down a condition that in order to get the higher pay Scale of 1210-2040 the incumbent must have worked on the post continuously for a period of least three years In our view, there is no necessity of putting the conditions of 3 yrs. continuous working on the post. There are 18 posts of Judges in the High Court and therefore, 18 posts of Private Secretaries have to be fixed in the pay-scale of 1210-2040 as the same pay-scale is given to the Private Secretaries of the Commissioners and Secretaries in the Secretariat. Similarly, if strength of the Judge is increased in the High Court, one post of Private Secretary attached to each one of the Hon'ble Judges should be given this pay scale. Thus, the strength of Private Secretaries is the scale of 1210-2040 shall remain in commensurate with the strength of permanent and additional Judges in the High Court. Thus, out of the 27 private secretaries at present, who are already getting the pay scale of 1210-2040 and now 16 more will be entitled to get the same pay- scale with effect from April 1, 1984. It is not necessary to lay down the condition of three years continuous working on such post as held by the learned Single Judge. 33. It is not necessary to lay down the condition of three years continuous working on such post as held by the learned Single Judge. 33. Now the question remains as to bow many of the remaining Private Secretaries should be given the pay-scale of 920-1550 equivalent to the pay scale of senior personal assistants in the Secretariat. In the Secretariat 94 persons are in the scale of 740-1420, who are personal assistants and there are 30 persons in the scale of 820-1550. who are senior personal assistants. Taking the above ratio into consideration we think that out of the remaining 9 Private Secretaries 3 should be given the pay-scale of 820-1550 which would be equivalent to Senior Personal Assistants in the Secretariat. Learned Single Judge also has given a direction in this regard that not less than one-third posts out of the posts as per (c) of his judgment in the relief clause has been given the pay scale and status equal to pay and status of Senior Personal Assistants in the State Secretariat with effect from April 1, 1984. We agree with the above relief and to be more specific we have clarified 3 posts out of the remaining 9. The rest of six Private Secretaries shill remains in the pay scale of 740-1420 equivalent to Personal Assistants in the Secretariat. In the Secretariat the three categories are distinguished as Private Secretaries, Senior Personal Assistants and Personal Assistants We think that in the High Court they may be categorised in three categories. (i) First category of Private Secretaries in the pay scale of 1210-2040; (ii) Second category shall be re-named as Senior Personal Assistants-cum-Judgment writers in the pay scale of 820-1550; and (iii) Third category shall be re-named as Personal Assistant in the pay scale of 740-1420. 34. We find no force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that all the 27 persons, who are at present holding the posts of Private Secretaries should be given the pay scale of 1210-2040 on the principal of ' equal pay for equal work". In Randhir Singh's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 7 observed : "We shall presently point out how the principle, "equal pay for equal work", is not abstract doctrine but one of substances. In Randhir Singh's case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court in para 7 observed : "We shall presently point out how the principle, "equal pay for equal work", is not abstract doctrine but one of substances. Kishori Mohan Lal Bakshi v. Union of India ( AIR 1962 SC 1139 ) is not itself of any real assistance to us since what was decided was that there could be different scales of pay for different grades of a service. It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualification for higher grade which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be applied to them". 35. Thus, there is nothing wrong if different grades are kept in the case of the petitioners on the basis of seniority efficiency or otherwise. The petitioners will have promotional avenues for being promoted on the post of Senior Personal Assistants-cum-Judgment-writers and thereafter on the post of Private Secretary. It may be made clear at this stage that learned Advocate General was clearly wrong in mentioning that the petitioners were also entitled to be promoted on the post of Superintendent carrying the pay scale of 1210-2040. It may be mentioned that firstly. the post of Section Superintendent does not carry the pay scale of 1210-2040 but is in the pay scale of 820-155 secondly the Bench Readers and Translators, who fall in the different category are also entitled to be promoted to the post of Section Superintendent. 36. The direction given in clause (e) of relief clause by the learned single Judge is kept in tact. 37. In the result. 36. The direction given in clause (e) of relief clause by the learned single Judge is kept in tact. 37. In the result. Special Appeals No. 63, 64, 65, 69, 70, 71, 72 and 73 of 1985 filed by the State of Rajasthan are dismissed and the special appeals No. 1, 2 and 57 of 1985 filed by the petitioner Private Secretaries are allowed in part as to the extent that the condition of working on the post for a continuous period of at least three years for making them eligible for being promoted on the posts of Private Secretaries in the pay scale of 1210-2040, is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case parties shall bear their own costs throughout.Special Appeals Nos. 1, 2 and 57/85 of P.Ss. Partly allowed., Special Appeals No. 63 to 65, 69 to 738/85 of State Dismissed. *******