JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THIS writ petition challenges the validity of the M. P. Work-Charged and contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on the ground that in so far as they provide two scales of pay -one existing and the other revised, are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Rules were published in the M. P. Gazette Extraordinary, dated 3-3-1984. However, clause (b) of Rule 1 provides that the Rules shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of April 1982. ( 2. ) THE writ petition has not been filed by any person who may have been affected by the alleged discrimination, but by Karyabharit Evam Dainik Vetan Karmachari sangh, Bargi Nagar, Jabalpur which claims to be a duly constituted union registered under the Trade Unions Act, having a vast following in a Project known as Bargi project. Its case is that certain persons who are its members, were appointed under the bargi Project Scheme on various posts of work charged category on different dates after 1-4-1982 on the existing scales of pay which were lower than the revised scales of pay fixed by the Rules. According to the petitioner, its aforesaid members were entitled to the revised scales of pay according to the Rules, but no heed was paid to the requests made in this behalf. ( 3. ) THE case of the petitioner is that since the Rules were made applicable with retrospective effect from 1-4-1982, its aforesaid members even though appointed after that date, were entitled to the revised pay scales fixed by the Rules. The petitioner asserts that the classification contained in the Rules justifying two scales of pay for the same posts, is unreasonable. ( 4. ) A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents and their case is that the classification being based on length of service and the prescribed qualifications is reasonable. It has also been asserted in the return that the petitioner is not a recognised union and is not entitled to file the writ petition in a representative capacity. Further, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute. ( 5. It has also been asserted in the return that the petitioner is not a recognised union and is not entitled to file the writ petition in a representative capacity. Further, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute. ( 5. ) AS regards the last stated plea, suffice it to point out that since the validity of the Rules has been challenged in the writ petition, it does not deserve to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. We are also not inclined to dismiss it on the ground that the petitioner is not a recognised union in view of the certificate of registration filed as Armexure P-1 to the writ petition. ( 6. ) IN order to consider the respective submissions of counsel for the parties on the question as to whether the qualification for maintaining the two scales of pay, viz. the existing and the revised is reasonable or not, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rules. Rule 3 which deals with scope and application of the rules, reads as under : "3. Scope and application. These Rules shall apply to all members of the work-charged and contingency paid employees service, drawing pay in the existing scale on 1st April, 1982 : provided that a temporary employee shall be governed by these rules only, if he fulfils the requisite qualifications shown in column (4) of Annexure II in respect of the posts mentioned in column (2) thereof : provided further that a temporary employee who does not possess the requisite qualifications, will continue to get his emoluments in the existing scale till he becomes permanent member as per clause (g) of Rule 2. " Rule 4 provides that the existing scale and revised scale of pay on various posts shall be as given in columns 2 and 4 respectively of Annexure I appended to the Rules. " Rule 4 provides that the existing scale and revised scale of pay on various posts shall be as given in columns 2 and 4 respectively of Annexure I appended to the Rules. Rule 5 which deals with drawal of pay in the revised scale, reads as follows : "drawal of pay in the revised scale - Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a permanent employee of the workcharged and contingency paid employees service and a temporary employee possessing requisite qualifications, shall draw pay in the revised scale applicable to the post which he holds : provided that he may elect to continue to draw his pay in the existing scale until the date on which he earns next or any subsequent increment in existing scale or until he vacates his post or ceases to draw pay in the scale. " The terms permanent employee and temporary employee have been defined in Rule 2 (g) and 2 (k) respectively as hereunder : "2 (g ). permanent employee means a member of the workcharged and contingency paid employees service who has completed ten years of service or more on 1st April, 1982 and drawing pay in the existing scale. Employees who will complete ten years of service after 1st April, 1982, shall attain the status of permanent employee from such date on which he completes the aforesaid period of service. 2 (k ). Temporary employee means a member of the workcharged and contingency paid employees service who has not attained the status of permanent employee but drawing pay in the existing scale. " The requisite qualifications for various posts which entitle even a temporary employee to the revised scale of pay, are as pointed out in Rule 3 contained in Annexure II appended to the Rules. ( 7. ) THE conspectus of the Rules referred to above indicates : (i) All permanent employees, viz. those who had completed 10 years service on 1-4-1982, are entitled to the revised pay scales. (ii) All temporary employees also who possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in annexure II appended to the Rules, are entitled to the revised scale of pay. (iii) Even those temporary employees who do not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in Annexure II aforesaid, will start getting revised scale of pay with effect from the date on which they complete 10 years of service and thereafter become automatically permanent. ( 8. (iii) Even those temporary employees who do not possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in Annexure II aforesaid, will start getting revised scale of pay with effect from the date on which they complete 10 years of service and thereafter become automatically permanent. ( 8. ) THE contention of counsel for the petitioner is that since the nature of work with regard to the posts concerned is same, the classification that the revised scale of pay shall be payable only to those who possess the requisite qualifications prescribed in annexure II aforesaid or who have completed or in due course would complete 10 years service which gives them the status of permanent employee, is unreasonable. ( 9. ) THE contention of counsel for the respondents on the other hand is that since the classification is based either on a fixed length of service applicable equally to all or on prescribed requisite qualifications again applicable equally to all, the same is reasonable and a well recognised one under service jurisprudence. Which of these two rival contentions has substance, is thus the question which falls for consideration in the instant case. ( 10. ) INRANDHIRSINGHVS. Union of India and others, AIR 1982 SC 879 it was held in para 6 of the report as under : "we concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commissions and riot 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. " (Emphasis supplied)It was further held in para 7 of the report as under : "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 qualifications for the 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 Art. 14 if sought to be applied to them. " ( 11. The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Art. 14 if sought to be applied to them. " ( 11. ) IN State of Mysore vs. B. Basavalingappa, AIR 1987 SC 411 the respondents. Basavalingappa who was the petitioner in the writ petition before the Karnataka High court, was appointed as a Workshop mechanic in B. D. T. College of Engineering, devangere in the year 1953. He was promoted to the post of Workshop Instructor by order dated 7-8-1959 in the pay scale of Rs. 100-200. In 1961, the pay scales were revised with effect from 1-1-1961, Diploma holders were given the pay scale of Rs. 150-320 and certificate holders Rs. 150-250 in the cadre of Workshop Instructor. The respondent who was a certificate holder and not a Diploma holder, was accordingly given the pay scale of Rs. 150-250. By a notification dated 5-5-1964, the Government of Mysore made rules known as Mysore Education Department (Technical Education Department) (Recruitment) Rules and it is alleged that at about the same time, the Government of india, after accepting recommendations of the All India Council for Technical education, suggested revised pay scales of pay of Workshop Instructors and in these recommendations also the Workshop Instructors with second class Diploma or equivalent qualifications with 10 years experience, were given the pay scales of Rs. 260-500 and it is alleged that as the respondent was not entitled to this pay scale, he was not given. It is alleged that in 1969 the respondent made a representation to the State government and when he did not succeed in spite of repeated representations, Be filed a Writ petition in the High court of Karnataka, Bangalore alleging that by not giving the pay scale to the respondent the Government of Karnataka had discriminated. The writ petition was allowed by the High Court. The appeal filed by the State of Mysore was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground that when the respondent was recruited as a Diploma Holder or a Certificate Holder, both were entitled to be recruited as an instructor on the same pay scale which indicated that in those days, the two were considered to be alike. The appeal filed by the State of Mysore was dismissed by the Supreme Court on the ground that when the respondent was recruited as a Diploma Holder or a Certificate Holder, both were entitled to be recruited as an instructor on the same pay scale which indicated that in those days, the two were considered to be alike. It was further held in para 7 as under : "there is also no material to indicate that when the pay scales were revised and subsequently when they were further revised, it was done on the basis of some material indicating that the diploma became a better qualification than the certificate holder. In fact, we have no further material to examine the question in the broader aspect. It appears that it was because of this that the learned Judges of the High Court accordingly disposed of the matter on the facts of this case alone and, therefore, did not go into the general question as to whether on the basis of educational qualifications different pay scales can or could not be prescribed and in absence of any material, it will not be possible for us to go into that question. Apart from it, that question is not material for decision of the present appeal, it is not necessary for us to examine the matter which will merely be an academic exercise. " ( 12. ) FROM the aforesaid decisions, the following principles emerge : (i) Equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the executive government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the Courts. (ii) Where all things are equal, there has to be equal pay for equal work. (iii) Higher qualifications for higher grade which may be either academic qualification or experience based on length of service reasonably sustain the qualification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. (iv) If on the date of recruitment two persons having different qualifications (e. g. Diploma Holder and Certificate Holder as in case of B. Basavalingappa supra) were equally entitled to be recruited on a post on the same pay scale. On revision of pay scales, both deserve to be given the revised pay scale in the absence of material that on the date of revision of pay scale, or qualification had become better than the other. On revision of pay scales, both deserve to be given the revised pay scale in the absence of material that on the date of revision of pay scale, or qualification had become better than the other. (v) The question generally as to whether on the basis of educational qualifications, different pay scales for the same post would be prescribed or not, was not answered in the negative, but was left open in case of A Basavalingappa (supra) and the decision was given on the peculiar facts of that case. ( 13. ) THE relevant facts in the instant case are : (i) The executive Government while determining equation of posts and equation of pay at the time of framing the Rules, was of the view that the revised scales of pay were to be made applicable not to all the temporary employees, but to only those who had either completed 10 years service on 1-4-1982 and had thus become permanent employees with effect from the date on which they completed 10 years service unless they were possessed of the requisite qualifications specified in Annexure II appended to the Rules. (ii) The classification thus was based either on a fixed length of service applicable equally to all or on prescribed requisite qualifications again applicable equally to all. (iii) Since the Rules were enforced retrospectively with effect from 1-4-1982, the aforesaid classification, by legal fiction, would be deemed to be in existence when the petitioners aforesaid members were appointed on various dates thereafter so that they could be entitled to the revised pay scales only if they fulfilled either of the two qualifications referred to above. ( 14. ) THE submissions made by counsel for parties have to be considered in the aforesaid legal and factual background. The nature of the respective submissions has already been indicated above. In support of the submission that the rule of equal pay for equal work applies to the petitioners members aforesaid counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Randhirsinghs case (supra ). The principles of law enunciated in this case have already been referred to above. Randhirsingh, the petitioner in that case, was a driver in Police Force. In support of the submission that the rule of equal pay for equal work applies to the petitioners members aforesaid counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Randhirsinghs case (supra ). The principles of law enunciated in this case have already been referred to above. Randhirsingh, the petitioner in that case, was a driver in Police Force. It was pointed out in para 6 of the report that the counter affidavit filed in that case, did not explain how the case of the drivers in Police Force was different from that of the drivers in other departments and what special factors weighed in fixing a lower scale of pay for them. The only justification which was pointed out for discrimination was that the circumstance that the person belonged to different departments of Government, was itself sufficient. This circumstance, however, was not accepted as a valid justification. It was thus a case where there was really no basis at all for classification. ( 15. ) RELIANCE was then placed on P. Savita and others vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 SC 1124 . That case, in our opinion, is distinguishable. There, senior draughtsmen in the Ministry of Defence Production were classified in two groups with different pay scales not on merit-cum-seniority basis, but only on seniority-cum-fitness basis. The unfair treatment meted out to the appellants of that case was highlighted in para 11 of the report as hereunder : "it has to be borne in mind that this differentiation is not based on any intelligible ground. The group of Draughtsmen entitled to the higher scale of pay, is not selected by any process, nor is it based on any merit-cum-seniority basis, but is based only on seniority-cum-fitness. 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-15-660, while Senior Draughtsmen, 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 draughtsmen, would be the same as a Draughtsman would get under the third Pay Commission. In other words, the promoted persons like the appellants, are without any monetary benefit to them. The pay that they would get as Senior draughtsmen, would be the same as a Draughtsman would get under the third Pay Commission. That is for the same work and same function the appellants would get less pay than the other group of Senior Draughtsmen. 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 Draughtsmen into two groups, that is responsible for the higher pay. For this classification, the Government must be able to satisfy the Court of certain other tests which are non-existent, in this 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 Art. 14 of the Constitution. " As regards legal principles, it may, however, be pointed out that the observations made in para 7 of the report in case of Randhirsingh (supra) which have been reproduced above, were quoted with approval in case of P. Savita in para 13 of the report. ( 16. ) COUNSEL for the petitioner lastly placed reliance on Surinder Singh and anothers. The Engineer-in-Chief, C. P. W. D. and others, AIR 1986 SC 584 . That was a case where for doing the same work, certain others for want of suitable number of regular posts, were employed on dairy wage basis. Even though they were doing similar work, the employees on daily wage basis, were being paid lesser pay. That was not a case of fixation of a higher scale of pay either on the basis of uniform length of qualifying service, ur on the basis of any educational or other qualifications. The discriminatory treatment was thus not justified by any reasonable qualification whatsoever. That was not a case of fixation of a higher scale of pay either on the basis of uniform length of qualifying service, ur on the basis of any educational or other qualifications. The discriminatory treatment was thus not justified by any reasonable qualification whatsoever. Similar was the position with regard to writ petitions Nos. 4821 and 4817 referred to therein. ( 17. ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, on the facts of the instant case, we are of the opinion that the classification contained in the Rules on the basis of uniform length of sen ice or requisite qualifications enumerated above, is a reasonable classification, the basis being higher merit. It is something in the nature of grant of higher grade on the basis of merit. It is true that it has not been so described in the Rules, but in such cases, it is the substance and not the form which matters. Even if the petitioners members aforesaid may not be entitled to the revised pay scales now they shall automatically become entitled to the same as soon as they either acquire the requisite qualifications prescribed in Annexure II appended to the Rules or complete 10 years service. There is no fortuitous, uncertain or arbitrary circumstance involved which may come in their way of getting revised pay scales. ( 18. ) IN the result, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount be refunded to the petitioner. Petition dismissed.