Judgment Udai Pratap Singh, J. This writ application is for appropriate direction commanding upon the respondents to give the members of the petitioner the same scale of pay of Rs.850-1360 as is given to all Graduate Assistants working in different departments of the State of Bihar pursuant to the recommendation of the 4th pay Revision Committee. 2. The petitioner is an Association of the Non Gazetted ministerial staff of the Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench. They are appointed by a Board constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court by inviting applications. The applicant are to appear in a written test and after qualifying at the written test a panel is prepared who are to appear for interview before the Interview Board constituted by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice as Chairman and two of the Hon'ble Judges of the Patna High Court as member and selected for appointment. The minimum qualification for employment in the establishment of the Patna High Court is graduation. The nature of duties of a ministerial staff is to assist the Courts in the administration of justice Keeping in view the special nature of work of the Assistants in the establishment of the Patna High Court, the pay scale of the staff of the High Court had all along been higher than that of the ministerial staff of the State Government. In other establishments of the State of Bihar, namely, Urban Development, Housing Department Town Planning organisation, Welfare, Directorate of Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, the Assistants were given the pay scale of Rs.335 to Rs.555, Rs.296-423 and Rs.296-460 respectively prior to 1.4.1981, whereas, the members of the petitioner wore given the pay scale of Rs.348-570. 3. The State Government constituted the 4th pay Revision Committee. The said Committee while considering the necessity of revising the pay scale formulated guide line to execute the recommendations and prepare report thereof. 3. The State Government constituted the 4th pay Revision Committee. The said Committee while considering the necessity of revising the pay scale formulated guide line to execute the recommendations and prepare report thereof. They are as under:- (i) For fixing minimum pay scale the Constitution provide Article 43 for the State Government employees and all the rules and policy of the State Government should be in the guide line of Article 43 of the Constitution; (ii) To bring uniformity between the lower and higher pay scales by reduction of gap; (iii) It wall not necessary that pay scale of the employees of the State Government should be prepared according to prevalent pay scale in their sector; (iv) Equal pay for equal work should be the principle for all appointment of the State Government and that shall be possible only when peon clerk and Assistants etc. which are working in different departments are brought to one class and they shall be made entitled to one pay scale; (v) All employment be done on merits, in special class of employment and should be higher than the general categories so as to feed the State department with efficient and meritorious staff and in that case only best among the lot can come forward for the appointment; (vi) To bring uniformity into different pay scales and remove the disparity; (vii) Increment in the pay scale should be such that it will not in any way affect the development work of the state: (viii) The incumbent who are getting higher pay scale should not be denied the benefit of the revision of pay scale. It may be that their benefit of increment is lesser in percentage than the persons of the lower pay scale; (ix) Due importance should also be given while fixing the pay scale and revising it depending on the nature of work and responsibility of the respective services; 4. It may be that their benefit of increment is lesser in percentage than the persons of the lower pay scale; (ix) Due importance should also be given while fixing the pay scale and revising it depending on the nature of work and responsibility of the respective services; 4. Its urged on behalf of the petitioner that minimum qualification for assistants in other departments of the State of Bihar is intermediate and 75% of the total appointment is done by Subordinate Service Examination Board or Bihar Public Service Commission, The 4th Pay Revision Committee without considering the importance of the duties and responsibility of the members of the petitioner who were Assistants is the Establishment of the High Court and whose minimum qualification for appointment is graduate and who have also been appointed on the basis of written test and interview held by a duty constituted Board, recommended for the revision of pay scale from Rs.348-570 to the pay scale from Rs.348-570 to the pay scale Rs.730-1080 presumably on the basis of the recommendation of the revised pay scale for Assistants in the Secretariat who were also getting pay Beale of Rs.348-570 before the submission of the report. It is stated that the case of the members of the petitioner was the Assistants having minimum qualification of graduate where the Assistants in the Secretariat had the minimum qualification of intermediate. The report bas recommended the case of the members of the petitioner treating unequals to equals ignoring the minimum bar of qualification in the employment. The nature of duties of the staff being if not superior cannot be different then the nature of work and duties of the Statistical Assistants in the Urban Development, graduate Assistants in the Town Planning, Welfare Inspectors in the department of Welfare and Kanungo in the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation Department and ate of same in nature with that of the members of the petitioner and the aforesaid Assistants discharge the same duties as that of the members of the petitioner and there is no reason whatsoever to discriminate against the members of the petitioner and other graduate assistants merely because the other assistants belong to different departments of the State of Bihar. The report having accepted the Graduate Assistants as a separate class and treating them as separate class has denied the benefit of revision of pay scale to the members of the petitioner who by their nature of duties and responsibility are also graduate Assistants. Thus, it is stated that the State Government has acted arbitrarily in denying the members of the petitioner equality before law and equal protection of law as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. In October, 1983, the petitioner through its general Secretary made representation to the Chief Minister of Bihar asserting denial of justice and the anamolies in the pay scale. The said representation was submitted to the pay Anamolies Removal Committee. A reminder was sent to resolve the dispute and remove the grievances of the petitioner. The members of the petitioner also made representation to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and same was forwarded by the Registrar to the Joint Secretary of the Government of Bihar, Finance Department that the anamoly may be remove retrospectively. The Additional Finance Commissioner by resolution of the State Government dated 19.5.1984 revised the pay scale of the Assistants in the Secretariat and Junior engineer to Rs.785-1210/- whereas in the Resolution dated 31.12.1981 the State Government had accepted to revile the pay scale of the assistants in the Secretariat to Rs.730-1080. It is submitted that the IVth pay Revision Committee having accepted at Chapter VII para 24 that in revision of pay scales the primary consideration should be educational qualification and the anamolies in the fixation of pay should be removed with reference to the laid minimum qualification required for the post, the IVth pay Revision Committee has omitted to consider the case of the petitioners members along with other similarly qualified graduate assistants. The action of the State Government, therefore has been challenged on the ground of arbitrariness in treating unequal to be the equals while considering the case of the assistants working in the Secretariat whose minimum qualification for appointment is Intermediate with that of the petitioner whose minimum qualification for appointment is graduate. The action of the State Government, therefore has been challenged on the ground of arbitrariness in treating unequal to be the equals while considering the case of the assistants working in the Secretariat whose minimum qualification for appointment is Intermediate with that of the petitioner whose minimum qualification for appointment is graduate. The IVth Pay Revision Committee having accepted at para 103 of Chapter VII that while reducing pay scale due consideration should be given to the duties and responsibilities of the post the State Government acted arbitrarily in not taking into consideration the nature of the work of the members of the petitioners. In 1981, the IVth pay Revision Committee report recommended the corresponding pay scale of Rs.348-730 when other assistants who were getting less pay scale i.e. Rs.260-296 and 335 have been given a corresponding revised pay scale of Rs.840/- which is higher than the member of the petitioner. Thus the demand of the petitioner is that they should be given same pay scale of Rs.850-1360/- which have been given to all graduate assistants working in different department of the State of Bihar pursuant to the recommendation of IVth Pay Revision Committee. 6. It appears from the report of the pay Anamoly Removal Committee at page 316 that the Committee did not after thoroughly going through the report of the IVth Pay Revision Committee final any discussion of the pay scale recommended for the High Court assistants. The statement in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, Commissioner, in the Department of Finance, Bihar is inconsistent with the above finding of the Pay Ansmolies Removal Committee, wherein it is stated that the Government have sanctioned the revised scale of pay to the Assistants of the High Court as per the recommendation of the IVth pay Revision Committee. 7. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to a comparative chart showing the old and the new scale of pay recommended by the pay Revision Committee for different departments in the State. This is Annexure-1 to the writ application. Few instances have been referred to show obvious discrimination. From the said chart it would appear that various posts which were carrying small pay scale of Rs.296-460 and Rs.335-555/- have been recommended higher pay scale of Rs.850-1360/. This is Annexure-1 to the writ application. Few instances have been referred to show obvious discrimination. From the said chart it would appear that various posts which were carrying small pay scale of Rs.296-460 and Rs.335-555/- have been recommended higher pay scale of Rs.850-1360/. The Assistants of the High Court in the erstwhile pay scale at Rs.348-570/- have been turned into pay scale of Rs.730-1080/-. Reference was made to Chapter 67.31 and onwards in order to show that individual cases of each department was considered whereas Chapter 67.31 dose not show any such individual consideration of pay scale of the assistants like member if the petitioner. It dose not appear from Chapter 67.31 of the pay Revision Committee Report as to what was the consideration for this recommendation of Rs.730-1080. According to G.P.I. appearing for the State, status and responsibility of all the graduates similarly appointed in each branches of the department may not be similar. That may be so but it does not appear what were the factors and be appear what were the factors and criteria adopted ether by the IVth pay revision Committee or pay Anamoly Committee. It is difficult to venture as to way and on what basis these authorities fixed no the scale of Rs.730-1080 for the assistants of the High Court, why were they isolated and their individual case not discussed and considered. Reference may be made to the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others wherein. Their Lordship, of the Supreme Court held:- "Construing Article, 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d), it ill clear that the principle ''Equal pay for Equal work" is deducible form those Articles and may be property applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of way do identical work under the same employer. It is true that equation or post and equation of pay are matters primarily for Executive Government and expert bodies like the pay Commission and not for Courts but where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of the repay merely because they belong to different departments or course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to com lain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same." 8. In the present case, it does not appear what, consideration prevailed with the authorities and of course, it does not appear from the report either of the pay Anamoly Removal Committee or the IVth Pay Revision Committee that they considered the case of the members of the petitioner with those others holding similar status in different department of the State Government. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while considering the case of the State of Mysore and another Vs. P. Narasinga Rao held that "higher educational qualifications are a relevant consideration for fixing a higher pay scale and, therefore, matriculate tracers could be given a higher pay scale than non-matriculate tracer though their duties were identical. Logically if person recruited to a Common cadre can be classified for purposes of pay on the basis of their educational qualifications there could be no impediment in classifying them on the same basis for purpose of promotion.” 9. It is well settled principle that in a court of equity, wrongful acts are no passport to favour. There is obvious discrimination and arbitrariness in treating the member of the petitioner differently than other graduate Assistants in other departments of the State Government. There members of the petitioner are entitled to the same scale of pay of Rs.850-1360/- which have been given to other graduates in other departments of the State Government. Their case has not been considered. There is obvious discrimination and arbitrariness in treating the member of the petitioner differently than other graduate Assistants in other departments of the State Government. There members of the petitioner are entitled to the same scale of pay of Rs.850-1360/- which have been given to other graduates in other departments of the State Government. Their case has not been considered. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, discussion, the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar (Respondent no.1) and the commissioner of Finance (Respondent no.2) are directed to consider the case of the members of the petitioner as early as possible and preferably within three months from the date of the communication of this order. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with the directions indicated above but in the circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.