JUDGMENT R.P. Singh, J. - By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the special allowance to the members of Uttar Pradesh Lok Sewa Ayog Karmachari Sangh, Allahabad in accordance with the Government order dated 10-6-1982 asispayable to the employees of the Secretariat of the State Govt. and thus have based their claim on the equality doctrine embodied in the Constitution of India which according to the petitioners is attempted to be flouted by the respondents of this case and thus denying the petitioners by way of special allowance what is being paid to the employees of the Secretariat of the State Govt. The claim of the petitioners is that they are discharging similar duties and responsibilities as are discharged by the employees of the Secretariat of the State Government of the corresponding rank and hence on the basis of parity, they are also entitled to the benefit as is available to the Secretariat staff under the Government Order issued on 10th June, 1982. 2. As long back as on 25-9-1986 time was granted to the Standing Counsel to file a counter affidavit. Again on 7-1-1987 time was granted to file a counter affidavit and later on, on 4-8-87 it was ordered that the writ petition shall be listed for admission on 11th Aug. 1987 peremptorily and it was ordered that the petition will be decided finally on that date. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the learned standing counsel and the learned counsel for the Commission also did not file any counter-affidavit and hence we proceed on the assumption that the averments made in the writ petition which are un-controverted, are correct. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and proceed to dispose of the writ petition finally. 3. The petitioner 1 i.e. Uttar Pradesh Lok Sewa Ayog Karmachari Sangh Allahabad is a registered association which is comprised of all the members of class III and class IV services of the U.P. Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred to as the Commission. The petitioner 2 is the President of the aforesaid association and is a lower division assistant in the office of the Commission in the grade of 470-735 corresponding to the same grade of lower division assistant in the office of the Secretariat of the State Government, Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as the Secretariat. The petitioner 2 is the President of the aforesaid association and is a lower division assistant in the office of the Commission in the grade of 470-735 corresponding to the same grade of lower division assistant in the office of the Secretariat of the State Government, Lucknow, hereinafter referred to as the Secretariat. The petitioner 3 is the upper division assistant in the office of the Commission in the grade 570-1100 corresponding to the same grade of the upper division assistant in the office of the Secretariat. The petitioner 4 is the personal assistant in the office of the Commission in the grade of 570-1100 corresponding to the same grade of personal assistants in the office of Secretariat. The petitioner 5 is the librarian in the office of the Commission in the grade 515-840 corresponding to the same grade of librarian in the office of the Secretariat. Petitioner is technical assistant in the office of the Commission in the grade of 625-1240 corresponding to the same grade of Technical Assistant in the office of Secretariat. Petitioner 7 is the punch verifier operator in the office of the Commission in the grade of 430-685 corresponding to the same grade of Punch verifier operator in the office of the Secretariat. The petitioner 9 is security guards driver in the office of the Commission in the grade of 330-490 corresponding to the same grade of security guard/driver in the office of the Secretariat. The petitioner 10 is cycle-operator/Jamadar/Daftari/Tubewell operator/ Attender Jamadar in the office of the Commission in the grade of 315-440 corresponding to the same grade of cycle-operator/Jamadar/Daftari/Tubewell operator/ Attender Jamadar in the office of the Secretariat and petitioner 11 is peon in the office of the Commission in the grade of 305-395 corresponding to the same grade of peon in the office of the Secretariat. Thus according to the allegations in the writ petition all the employees in different grades in the Commission are performing similar duties as are performed by the employees of the Secretariat of the State Government of the corresponding rank and it is further averred that the employees of the Commission and the employees of the Secretariat of the corresponding rank are mutually transferable. Thus, a parity between the employees of the Commission and the employees of the Secretariat has been established from the very inception of the Commission in the State i.e from 1937 and it is further averred that the employees of the Commission have always been paid their salary in the same grade with the same increment as the employees of the corresponding rank of the Secretariat. 4. The petitioners have in support of their case shown parity between the employees of the Commission and the Secretariat of the corresponding rank. They have also quoted the extract of the U.P. Pay Rationalization Committee of the year 1964-65 that employees of the Commission and the employees of the Secretariat have been placed in one group. It reads as under : "Chapter - IX Ministerial Services The last pay Committee though it is extremely difficult to bring all the offices in the State on the same level in respect of pay of the ministerial staff as the volume, if not the nature, and to some extent the standard, of work varied, from office to office and the method of recruitment was also different in some cases. They divided the ministerial services into the following four main groups : (i) Secretariat, office of the Public Service Commission, Offices of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly Departments, Governor's Secretary's Office and Military Secretary's Office, ................." 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the salaries and allowances paid to the employees of the Commission are at complete par with those of the employees of the Secretariat of the corresponding rank but now by G.O. dated 10-6-1982 a special allowance of varying rates is sought to be given only to the employees of the different categories of Secretariat and the employees of the Commission of the corresponding ranks have been clearly excluded from the benefit of the said Government Order and thereby the equality doctrine, embodied in the Constitution has been violated by the respondents under the cover of an artificial division without any justification and denying the employees of the Commission the benefit of the special allowance as contemplated by the G.O. dated 10-6-1982 which has been given only to the employees of the Secretariat alone. It is urged that the petitioners and other employees of the Commission have repeatedly met the Chairman of the Commission with the request that they are also entitled to the special allowance in the same manner as is admissible to the employees of the Secretariat but the Chairman expressed his inability on the ground that he has no jurisdiction to extend the benefit of the same to the employees of the Commission. It has been averred that the petitioners repeatedly went to Lucknow and met the officers concerned in connection with their demand or the special allowance which is being paid to the employees of the Secretariat alone but of no avail. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that equal pay for equal work is an important directive principle under Article 39( T) of the Constitution that non payment of the said special allowance to the employees of the Commission amounts to discrimination against the employees of the Commission which violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It was submitted that since the employees of the Commission have always been treated on complete parity with the employees of the Secretariat of the corresponding rank in matters of their duties, functions and payment of emoluments and allowance and hence the petitioners are entitled to the special allowance which is being paid to the employees of the Secretariat alone vide Government Order dated 10-6-82. Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the payment of equal salary and allowance for the employees performing similar duties and functions in the State is an important directive principle of our State Policy as enshrined in the preamble, Articles 37, 39 and 40 of the Constitution of India. It is stated that in fact the appointment process of the employees of the Commission and the employees of the Secretariat of the corresponding rank is the same and generally the employees of the both are being selected on the basis of the same advertisement, same written test and same interview and they are posted according to the option of the candidates and their merits. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to recent decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to recent decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 643 of 1983, J.P. Upadhya v. State of U.P., whereby the employees of this Court and of the office of the Advocate General of the State of U.P. have also been ordered to be paid the same special allowance as is payable to the employees of the Secretariat vide Government Orders dated 10th June, 1982 on the ground of parity in the terms and conditions of the employees of the Secretariat with that of the employees of the High Court and of the office of the Advocate General of the State of U.P. In Writ Petn. No. 643 of 1983 decided by a Bench of this Court on 31-3-1986 after dealing with the parity in the conditions of service of the employees of this Court and of the office of Advocate General of the State of U.P. with that of the corresponding employees of the Secretariat. this Court held in a detailed judgment that it stands concluded by a series of Supreme Court decision that the person performing same kind of work and similar duties are to be paid identical salaries and emoluments and that no discrimination can be made between two sets of employees on the ground that they belong to different off ices and hence allowed the writ petition holding that it was not open to the State Government to disturb that parity by indirectly changing the emoluments payable to the Secretariat employees by issuing the impugned G.O. dated 10th June, 1982 under which special allowance was payable to the employees of the Secretariat a lone. 8. We are in respectful agreement with the decision given by this Court in Writ Petn. No. 643 of 1983, in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 : 1982 Lab IC 806 their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under : " 'Equal pay for equal work' is not a mere demagogic slogan. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies, by the enforcement of constitutional rights. So the petitioner claims, so the petitioner asserts. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims, as a Directive Principles, the Constitutional goal of 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women. It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies, by the enforcement of constitutional rights. So the petitioner claims, so the petitioner asserts. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims, as a Directive Principles, the Constitutional goal of 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Articles 14 and 19 guarantee respectively the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment and Article 32 provides the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental rights ...................." "It is true that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the 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 their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of 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 complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same." This Rule of equal pay for equal work has been again reiterated by the Supreme Court in Surendar Singh v. Engineer in Chief C.P.W.D., AIR 1986 SC 584 : 1986 Lab IC 551 and Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., reported in 1986 UP LBEC 254. It will be noticed that it is not the case of the State Government or the Commission that the employees of the Commission are not entitled to the identical scales of pay as the corresponding employees of the Secretariat. Once the parity in the scale of pay is granted to the employees of the Commission with that of the corresponding employees of the Secretariat, it is not open to the State Government to disturb that parity by directly enhancing the emoluments payable to the employees of the Secretariat by issuing the impugned G.O. dated 10th June, 1982 under which the special allowance is made available to the Secretariat employees only. 9. 9. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is accordingly allowed and writ in the nature of mandamus is issued to the respondents directing them to pay to the petitioners and other employees of the U.Y. Public Service Commission of the same grade the special allowance as is payable under the notification No. Va-Aa-2128/Das-1982-42-M- 80 of the State Government dated 10-6-1982 with effect from the date of issuance of the notification dated 10-6-1982 as part of their salary as is payable to the employees of the Secretariat of the State Government. 10. There will, however, be no order as to costs.