JUDGMENT - V.A. MOHTA, J.:---"Equal pay for equal work" is no more mere Constitutional goal enshrined in Article 39-D of the Constitution. The above principle is deducible from the equality provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16. If two persons are doing identical work under the same employer in identical service conditions, it would be impermissible to give them unequal return on the basis of arbitrary classification. The burden of establishing the rational behind the classification and its co-relation to the object lies on the State. 2. In the light of the above settled legal position we have to examine whether the letter and spirit of the said principle is violated in the case at hand. This question cannot be decided only on the basis of doctrine de hors the basic facts and hence noticing them will be essential. Petitioner K.U. Pachghare is working as Issue Assistant in the library of the Visvesvaraya Regional College of Engineering, Nagpur (VRCE), first respondent, since 19th March, 1966 on the pay-scale of Rs. 100-3-170. Pay Scales of issue Assistants in the Government Colleges since 1962 was Rs. 100-10-5-150-5-200. On the basis of the recommendation of Badkas Pay Commission, the State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 2) brought about revision of pay scales. The Maharashtra Civil Services (Revision to Pay) Rules, 1969 were made in exercise of the powers conferred by proviso of Article 309 of the Constitution. They were retrospectively brought into force from 1st April, 1966. Pay Scale of Issue Assistants was raised to Rs. 150 10-230-EB 10-270-15-300. Respondent No. 1 took policy decision of revising the pay scales of its employees on the basis of 1969 Rules. By a resolution dated 31st August, 1970 scales of several categories of its employees were revised. The revision in the petitioner's case was Rs. 115-4-135-5-160-E.B.-5-185-6-215. The principal of VRCE as well as the Sub-Committee specially appointed, examined the matter and was of the opinion that revision in the case of the petitioner was not as per Rules of 1969 and that his pay scale should be revised to Rs. 150-300. The matter remained pending for several years at the level of Chairman of VRCE Minister for Education. The petitioner made several representations. He received several replies that the matter was under consideration. 150-300. The matter remained pending for several years at the level of Chairman of VRCE Minister for Education. The petitioner made several representations. He received several replies that the matter was under consideration. Final decisions rejecting his representation as well as recommendations of the Principal as well as the Sub-Committee was communicated to the petitioner on 20th August, 1979. 3. In the meanwhile the State Government had appointed Bhole Commission to further reconsider the pay-scales. On the recommendations of that commission, Maharashtra Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1978 were made and brought into force with effect from 1st April, 1976. As per 1978 Rules, pay-scale of Issue Assistant in the Directorate of Libraries under the Education and Youth Services Department was revised from Rs. 150-10-230-E B-10-270-15-300 to Rs. 290-10-390-15-465-Extn-15-540 and that of Issue Assistant in Vidarbha Mahavidyalaya Amravati to 365-15-500-20-660-Extn.20-760 VRCE also revised the pay-scales of its employees on the basis of 1978 Rules vide Resolution dated 23rd October, 1979. The petitioner's pay-scale was revised to Rs. 290-540. 4. The petitioner's contention that Issue Assistants in the VRCE discharge the same functions, shoulder the same responsibilities and their essential qualifications and other service conditions are identical, is not controverted in the return filed by the VRCE. The State Government, respondent No. 2, has chosen not to file any return. VRCE has not disputed that its Principal and Sub-Committee was of the view that pay-scale of the petitioner ought to have been on the basis of 1969 Rules at Rs. 150-300. However, it has tried to justify the stand of the Government, which perhaps it was obliged to do, on the ground that several other categories in the pay-scale of Rs. 100-3-170 were also given pay scale of Rs. 115-125. 5. Now it is pertinent to notice that the categorical statement about the nature of duties, functions, qualifications service conditions etc. is not seriously disputed by the VRCE. It will have to be presumed that when it recommended the revision of pay-scale to Rs. 150-300 it was on the basis that Issue Assistant in the Government Department as well as Issue Assistants in VRCE discharges the same functions shoulder the same responsibilities and their essential qualifications and Service Conditions were identical. The Chairman has not communicated the reason for rejecting after several years the recommendation of an expert body. 150-300 it was on the basis that Issue Assistant in the Government Department as well as Issue Assistants in VRCE discharges the same functions shoulder the same responsibilities and their essential qualifications and Service Conditions were identical. The Chairman has not communicated the reason for rejecting after several years the recommendation of an expert body. Not only this, even before us no material is placed in support of the rejection which emplies that functions, responsibilities, qualifications and Service Conditions of the Issue Assistants working with the Government and with the VRCE were different. Bhole Pay Commission is another expert body which recommended the revision of pay-scale of Issue Assistant to Rs. 290-540, barring Issue Assistant in Vidarbha Mahavidyalaya, for whole different pay-scale was prescribed. The respondents applied, vide resolution dated 23-10-1979, the pay-scale of Issue Assistants serving with the Government, to the petitioner which means that even the respondents accepted in Principle that the two issue Assistants had to be placed at par. If that be the actual position, it is difficult to see any jurisdiction in the Chairman's decision in not accepting the recommendation of the Principal and Sub-Committee for revision of the pay-scale of the petitioner to Rs. 150-300. There is no substantial difference between the two so as to justify the different groupings. 6. True it is that equation of posts and equation to pay for different groups is essentially an executive function. But this does not mean that the courts cannot interfere in justified cases. This aspect of the matter has been pithyly dealt with in the case of (Randhir Singh v. Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1982 Supreme Court 879, by observing:- "We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay of matters primarily for Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to say that 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 their pay merely because they belong to different departments." Following the ratio in Randhir Singh's case, in the case of (P. Savita and others v. Union of India)2, A.I.R. 1985 Supreme Court 1124 it has been held that grouping Draughtsmen differently in the matter of pay-scales merely on the ground of their seniority was violative of Article 14. It is observed: "There is no denial anywhere that both these types of Draughtsmen do the same work and discharge the same functions and duties. According to the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission, a Draughtsman has to get Rs. 330-10-380-EB-12-500-EB-15-560 while Senior Draughtsman, like the appellants, who have become so on promotion, will continue to get the same scale of pay and not the higher scale of pay. In other words, the promoted persons like the appellants, are without any monetary benefit to them. The pay that they would get as Senior Draughtsman, would get under the Third Pay Commission. That is, for the same work and the same functions, the appellants would get less pay than the other group of Senior Draughtsman. The explanation is that this division is based on seniority. This cannot be accepted as sufficient to meet the requirements of law. By seniority, a Senior Draughtsman will get higher pay with the increments that he earns proportionate to the number of years he is in service. Here that is not the case. It is the classification of the Senior Draughtsman into two groups, that is responsible for the higher pay. For this classification, the Government must be able to satisfy the Court to certain other tests which are non-existent, in the case, since it is not in dispute that Senior Draughtsmen, belonging to the two Divisions, do equal and same work. In view of the total absence of any plea on the side of the respondents, that the Senior Draughtsmen who are placed in the advantageous group, do not (sic.) perform work and duties more onerous or different from the work performed by the appellants, group, it will have to be held that this grouping violates Article. 14 of the Constitution." In the case of (D.S. Nakara v. Union of India)3, A.I.R. 1983 Supreme Court 130 classification in revised pension formula between pensioners on basis of date of retirement specified in memoranda was held to be violative of Article 14. 7. In our judgment, the ratio of the aforesaid three decisions substantially applies to the case of the petitioner. There was no justification whatsoever for not revising the pay scale of Rs. 150-300 as recommended by the Sub-Committee. The Government Resolution. Annexure 'B', revising the pay-scale of the petitioner at Rs. 7. In our judgment, the ratio of the aforesaid three decisions substantially applies to the case of the petitioner. There was no justification whatsoever for not revising the pay scale of Rs. 150-300 as recommended by the Sub-Committee. The Government Resolution. Annexure 'B', revising the pay-scale of the petitioner at Rs. 115-215 thus is quashed an set aside and the respondents are directed to give to the petitioner pay-scale of Rs. 150-300 with effect from 1st April, 1966 and to adjust all his emoluments till Bhole Pay Commission's recommendations were applied to the petitioner by revising his pay scale to Rs. 290-540. The respondents are also directed to fix the pay-scale of the petitioner on the basis that his revised pay-scale was Rs. 150-300 and not Rs. 115-215. The arrears, if any, be paid to the petitioner within a period of six months from today. 8. To conclude, the petition is allowed and rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. ------