ORDER: However strong may be the criticism for delay in disposal of cases, it was at least necessary for this writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to add a few years to its age to see that what was once merely a Directive Principle of State Policy has matured into a fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution. 2. It was in 1980 that the petitioners came forward with the instant application demanding equal pay for equal work after having failed in their attempt to evoke any response from the State and now in 1986 when the matter has come up for hearing, a host of judicial decisions have emerged laying down very firmly that there all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently And now to the facts: 3. The petitioners are Assistant Operators in the River-lift Irrigation Scheme under the Directorate ate of Agricultural Engineering in the scale of Rs.145 3 205 5 230 Academically their qualifications vary from School Final to Arts and Science Graduates. 4. The petitioners are posted in different Blocks along with the other classes of employees. viz, (i) Operator cum-Mechanic and (ii) Chowkidar. 5. As Assistant Operators the petitioners are required to do the following jobs: (i) To operate the machines for irrigation; (ii) To supervise the proper distribution of water, (iii) To carry on the minor works of repairing and maintenance of the machines, and (iv) Writing of log-books at times 6. Besides the petitioners there are also other Assistant Operators posted in different other Blocks in the River-lift Irrigation Scheme under the same Directorate of Agricultural Engineering, who have similar academic qualifications as the petitioners, received the same training as the petitioners did and perform the same nature of duties But they have been given the pay scale of Rs. 160 3 205 5 250/-. The respondent No. 6 is an Assistant Operator of the said class. 7. The Operators cum-Mechanics working in the Blocks along with the petitioners also possess the same academic qualifications like the petitioners, received the same training and perform exactly similar duties like the petitioners, but are in the pay scale of Rs. 180 5 245 7 350. The respondent no 7 is a representative of this class. 8. 7. The Operators cum-Mechanics working in the Blocks along with the petitioners also possess the same academic qualifications like the petitioners, received the same training and perform exactly similar duties like the petitioners, but are in the pay scale of Rs. 180 5 245 7 350. The respondent no 7 is a representative of this class. 8. Against the aforesaid discrimination of pay scales the petitioners made several representations before the authorities concerned but without effect. 9. Thereafter on August 8, 1980, the petitioners through their Advocate demanded justice from the respondent no. 1 which also having yielded no result they have come up before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents nos. 1 to 5 to grant to them the pay-scale of Rs. 160-3-205-5.250/-. and also to treat them equally in all respects Including the fixation of pay scale with the Operators-cum-Mechanics by way of granting them the same designation of Operators-cum-Mechanics. 10. None of the respondents, both State and private, having appeared in spite of service of the notice, the matter was taken up for ex parte disposal. 11. Coming to the merits of the case, the uncontroverted facts are that there are two classes of Assistant Operators in the River-lift Irrigation Scheme under the Directorate of Agricultural Engineering drawing different scales of pay in spite of their being similarly circumstanced in all respects Similarly, there is yet another class of employees designated as Operators cum Mechanics. who also are similarly qualified as the petitioners and perform the same nature of duties, but are given a still higher scale of pay. 12. Regarding the pay-scale of the other class of Assistant Operators, the petitioners have annexed the order of appointment of the respondent no. 6 (Annexure 'B') which shows that he is in the pay scale of Rs. 1603-205-5-250/-. 13. So far the Operators cum-Mechanics are concerned, the petitioners have annexed the appointment order of respondent no 7 (Annexure 'D') to show that he is in the pay-scale of Rs. 180-5-245-7-350/- 14. 6 (Annexure 'B') which shows that he is in the pay scale of Rs. 1603-205-5-250/-. 13. So far the Operators cum-Mechanics are concerned, the petitioners have annexed the appointment order of respondent no 7 (Annexure 'D') to show that he is in the pay-scale of Rs. 180-5-245-7-350/- 14. Now, the uncontroverted averments of the petitioners in the writ petition being that the other class of Assistant Operators and the Operators cum-Mechanics are similarly circumstanced in the sense that they possess the same academic qualifications, received the same training and perform the same nature of duties as the petitioners, there can absolutely be no rational basis to discriminate the petitioners with the other two classes of employees regarding the scale of pay. 15. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" was given effect to by the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 . There the petitioner, a Driver Constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration demanded that hi. scale of pay should at least be the same as the scale of pay of other drivers in the service of the Delhi administration. This was allowed by the Supreme Court since the Drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. And while doing so, the Supreme Court overruled the contention of the respondents that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do with Article 14. 16. Following its earlier decision in Ranadhir Singh's Case (supra) the Supreme Court in P. Savita v. Union of India, 1985 Lab l. C. 1221= AIR 1985 SC 1124 held that where all relevant commiserations are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently. In the said case, the Supreme Court held on facts that the classification between two groups of Senior Draughtsmen was without any basis since they did the same work and performed the same duties. 17. Similarly in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637 , the Supreme Court applied this principle to some casual workers on daily wage basis performing the same duties as Class IV employees. 17. Similarly in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637 , the Supreme Court applied this principle to some casual workers on daily wage basis performing the same duties as Class IV employees. While doing so, the Supreme Court observed that Article 14 of the Constitution declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for equal work of equal value. 18. And the in again in Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D. (1986) 1 SCC 639 the Supreme Court reiterated the same principle holding that daily wage workers of the C.P.W.D. were entitled to wages equal to regular and permanent employees employed there to do identical work. The Supreme Court observed that the Central Government, the State Governments and likewise all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as that the principal of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law should ill-come from the mouths of the State and the State undertakings. 19. So far the instant case is concerned, one simply wonders how under the same designation two different sets of posts carrying different scales of pay could be created in spite of their possessing the same academic qualification and doing the same nature of duties. 20. The facts remaining uncontroverted, the petitioners as Assistant Operators cannot be denied the same scale of pay as the other set of such Operators, i.e. Rs. 160-3-205-250/- 21. Not only this, the petitioners even if not designated as Operator-cum-Mechanic, are entitled to be treated at par in all respects with the said class of employees being similarly circumstanced. I am in complete agreement with Mr. Ganguly, the learned Advocate representing factor between two classes of employees otherwise similarly circumstanced in all respect. These Operators-cum-Mechanics of whom the respondent No. 7 is a representative, perform the same nature of duties as the petitioners and are also similarly qualified academically but by sheer good luck as it is, are in the pay-scale of Rs. 180-350/- This discrimination has absolutely no rational basis. At least, the State respondents have not come forward to explain this disparity between two similar groups of employees. 22. 180-350/- This discrimination has absolutely no rational basis. At least, the State respondents have not come forward to explain this disparity between two similar groups of employees. 22. Thus, the discrimination in the pay scales between the petitioners and the two other classes of employees being clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the writ application succeeds and the Rule is made absolute. 23. The State respondents nos. 1 to 5 are directed by the issue of a writ of Mandamus to grant to the petitioners the pay scale of Rs. 160-3-205-5-250/- with all benefits related thereto from the date of their joining the River-lift Irrigation Scheme. The said respondents are further directed to treat the petitioners equally in all respects including the fixation of pay-scale, with the Operators-cum-Mechanics. 24. This should be done within a period of four months from the date of the communication of this order to the said respondents including payment of all arrear to the petitioners. Let copies of this order be communicated to the State respondents as expeditiously as possible. No order is made for costs. Rule made absolute; direction given.