Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing of an office Order No.63, dated 8-7-1985 as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application and order, dated 14-8-1985 as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application, whereby and whereunder the petitioners representation was rejected and also an order, dated 24-9-1986 as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. The State of Bihar established an Engineering Cell on 12-2-1973 with certain posts including that of Senior Accounts Clerk and Junior Accounts Clerk at the then prevalent scale of pay of Rs.284-372 and Rs.220-315 respectively. By an order, dated 18-2-1981 the aforementioned cadres of Senior Accounts Clerks and Junior accounts Clerks were merged with retrospective effect from 1-5-1980 and a scale of pay of Rs.260-408 was fixed for the aforementioned post. It has been stated that the said decision of the State of Bihar relating to merger of the cadres of Juaior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk were given effect to by all concerned. It has further been asserted that the aforementioned scale of pay of rs.260-408 payable also to an Accounts Clerk, where a candidate was initially appointed Senior Accounts Clerk in the establishment of respondent No, 3 at all materials time even prior to the acceptance of the recommendation of the 4th Pay revision Committee. 3. It is admitted that the State of Bihar has accepted the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Commission by a Memo bearing No.10770 dated 30th december, 1981 with retrospective effect from 1-4-1981 as a result whereof the aforementioned scales of pay of Rs.260-408 was revised to the scale of pay of rs.730-1008. The petitioner has also asserted that even after the financial year 1984-85, the State of Bihar again sanctioned a scale of Rs.730-1080 for the post of Accounts Clerk for the year 1985-86 and 1986-87 as are evident from annexures-4 and 4/1 to the writ application. 4. Certain posts of Accounts Clerk having fallen vacant, applications were invited by issuing an advertisement in a Daily Hindi News Paper aaj in the scale of pay of Rs.730-1080. The petitioner pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement submitted their applications and were eventually appointed in the aforementioned scale of pay of Rs.730-1080 on various dates. 4. Certain posts of Accounts Clerk having fallen vacant, applications were invited by issuing an advertisement in a Daily Hindi News Paper aaj in the scale of pay of Rs.730-1080. The petitioner pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement submitted their applications and were eventually appointed in the aforementioned scale of pay of Rs.730-1080 on various dates. Copies of the offer of appointment of the petitioners are contained in Annexure- 6 series to the writ application. From perusal of Annexure-6 to the writ applicatioa, it appears that one of the conditions mentioned therein was that the appointee shall be paid such salary as may be approved by the State of Bihar or may be revised from time to time. 5. The respondents have stated that Senior Accounts Clerks who were appointed prior to 1-4-1981 made several representations on the ground that they having been appointed on higher scale of pay should not be equated with Junior accounts Clerks and the dispute arising out of the said representation was referred to the Anomaly Removal Committee. The Anomaly Removal Committee submitted its report which was accepted by the State of Bihar on 15-1-1987. The anomoly Removal Committee recommended the scale of pay of Rs.535-766 with effect from 1-4-1981 and 580-860 with effect from 1-3-1986 for such accounts clerk who were appointed after 31-3-1981. The respondents relying on or on the basis of the aforementioned recommendations of the pay Anomaly Removal Committee directed that the salary payable to the petitioners would be in the scale of rs.535-765, although as it appears from their offer of appointment that they were initially appointed on a scale of pay of Rs.730-1080. The said letter is contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application. It was further directed by the said tetter that the excess salary paid to them would be adjusted from their monthly salary. 6. The petitioner No.1 thereafter with other Accounts Clerk ; fled a representation but the same was rejected by an order, dated 14-8-198 5 and as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ application. The petitioner Nos.2 and 6 agaio filed a representation on 11-8-1986, which was also rejected by an order, dated 24-9-1986. A copy of the said order, dated 24-9-1986 is contained in annexure-10 to writ application. 7. The petitioner Nos.2 and 6 agaio filed a representation on 11-8-1986, which was also rejected by an order, dated 24-9-1986. A copy of the said order, dated 24-9-1986 is contained in annexure-10 to writ application. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised the following contentions: (a) The impugned order as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application is illegal as prior to passing of the said order no opportunity of hearing was given to them. (b) The impugned order as contained in Annexure-7 to the application does not have the sanction of the State of Bihar. (c) The Senior Accounts Clerks, who were appointed prior to 1-4-1981 have been getting the salary in the scale of pay of Rs.730-1080, but the petitioners who were appointed in the said post after the said date, are being paid less salary and as such have been discriminated against and further the petitioners are entitled to the same scales of pay on the basis of the equal pay for equal work. 8. Mr. S. N. Jha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that in view of the fact that the petitioners were appointed on the condition that they would be paid their salaries as may be fixed/revised from time to time, the scale of pay of Rs.535-765 having been fixed by the Pay anomaly Removal Committee and as the same is binding upon the petitioners ; no question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners arises in this case. The learned counsel further submitted that the very fact that the recommendation of the pay anomaly removal committee was accepted by the State of bihar amounts to an order/sanction thereof by the State of Bihar itself and in this view of the matter the question of any further order in this regard does not arise. The learned counsel has further submitted that the State of Bihar was entitled to fix different salaries for the different class of employees with reference to their respective dates of appointment. In other words the authorities were entitled to fix a different scale of pay for the employees, who were appointed in the post of Senior Accounts Clerks prior to 1-4-1981. According to the learned counsel such classification is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. 9. In other words the authorities were entitled to fix a different scale of pay for the employees, who were appointed in the post of Senior Accounts Clerks prior to 1-4-1981. According to the learned counsel such classification is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. 9. From a perusal of the offer of appointment as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ application, it is evident that although initially they were appointed on scale of pay of Rs.730-1080, but it was specifically stated therein that they would be paid such salary as may be revised by the state of Bihar from time to time. It is admitted that pursuant to the representation made by a sections of employees, the matter was referred to the anomaly removal committee. In view of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Revision Committee and the resolution adopted by the State of Bihar accepting the said recommendations it clearly goes to show that such action was permissible in law inasmuch as in terms of the report of the 4th Pay Revision Commission, the Finance Department of the State of Bihar was empowered to fix the scale of pay and refer to the Pay Anomaly Removal Committee such matters wherein some anomalies in the scales of pay are detected. 10. Apparently, the grievance of a section of employees as to whether those who were appointed after 1-4-1981 in the post of Accounts Clerk should be given, the same scale of pay as it was being paid to those persons, who was initially appointed as Senior Accounts Clerk could become the subject-matter of decision of the pay anomally removal committee. Admittedly the Pay Anomaly removal Committee submitted a report to the effect that with effect from 1-4-1981, the concerned employees should be placed in ths scales of rs.535-765 and Rs.580-860 with effect from 1-3-1986. 11. In this view of the matter, in my opinion it was permissible for the state of Bihar to agree to the recommendation of the report of pay anomaly removal committee and as such the question of giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners did not arise as no separate order Was required to be passed for that purpose, nor only independent order was required to be passed by the council of ministers. 12. 12. However, it is clear that the State of Bihar made an advertisement for filing up of the post of Accounts Clerk at Rs.730-1080. The petitioners were appointed in the past and were given the same scale of pay. It is also admitted that there had been a merger of cadres of Senior Accounts Clerk and the Junior accounts Clerk with effect from 1-5-1980. It is also admitted that the State of bihar by its Memo No.10770, dated 30th December, 4981 accepted the recommendations of the 4th Pay Revision Committee with retrospective effect from 1-4-1981. In this view of the matter there is absolutely no doubt that the cadres of Junior Accounts Clerk and Senior Accounts Clerk merged into one joint cadre with effect from 1-5-1980 and the petitioners admittedly had been appointed in thesaid joint cadre i. e. , in the post of Accounts Clerk after 1-5-1980 and also after 1-4-1981 when the recommendation Of the 4th Pay Revision Commission came into force. 13. The petitioners have categorically stated that the persons who were appointed after 31-3-1981 and before 31-3-1981 are doing the same lype of job and working in the same post. In such a situation there cannot be any doubt that the doctrine ofequal pay for equal workshall apply. It is well settled that the State cannot create a class within a class making discrimination amongst employees with reference to their date of appointment. In my opinion, the same is not within the domain of the State and the same if done would be hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 14. Admittedly a joint cadre was created with effect from 1-5-1980 and the petitioners and all other employees, whether appointed prior to 31-3-1981 or thereafter formed a class by themselves. 15. Plainly enough, the State of Bihar has absolutely no jurisdiction to creat a class within the said class. All the employees who were within the aforementioned joint cadre irrespective of their date of appointment were entitled to be treated alike and no discrimination could have been made amongst them for less with reference to their date of appointment. The same is evidently impermissible in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india. The aforementioned principles is now no longer res-integra. 16. The same is evidently impermissible in the teeth of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of india. The aforementioned principles is now no longer res-integra. 16. Reference in this connection may be made to the case of D. S Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 SC 130 , in J. P. Chaturvedi V/s. Union of India, air 1984 SC 1247 and in the case of Union of India V/s. Bidhubhusan Malik and others, AIR 1984 SC 1177 and in the case of M. L. Jain and others V/s. Union of india, AIR 1985 SC 619 and in the case of Sant Ram and another V/s. O. P. Singla and another, AIR 1985 SC 617 and a recent decision of this Court in the case of Ram Ratan Singh V/s. Union of India, CWJC No.1106 of 1987 disposed of on 14-1-1988. 17. Further there cannot be any doubt that the petitioners are also entitled to invoke the doctrine of equal pay for equal work as embodied under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. The rule 6f equal pay for equal work is now firmly routed. 18. In the case of State of Mysore V/s. B. Basapaligappa, AIR 1987 SC 411 it has been held that different scales of pay cannot be prescribed on the basis of educational qualification between the persons holding same posts. Reference in this connection may also be made to the case of Surindra Singh and another V. The Engineer in Chief, C. P. W. D. and others, AIR 1985 SC 584, wherein the supreme Court has held that the doctrine for equal pay for equal work is also applicable to the persons employed on a daily wages basis and such employees are also entitled to the same wages as other similarly employed employees have been getting. 19. Recently, the same view was reiterated in Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P. and T. Department V/s. The Union of India and others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 122 . 19. Recently, the same view was reiterated in Daily Rated Casual Labour employed under P. and T. Department V/s. The Union of India and others reported in (1988) 1 SCC 122 . It is also useful to mention that a Division Bench of this court in Gay a Prasad Pandey and another V/s. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1972 PLJR 404 he held that if persons are substantively appointed to, one grade in service, any discrimination made between them merely on the basis that they were promotees or direct recruits would be discriminatory in nature and vioiative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. 20. In my opinion, the same principles shall also apply in the instant case. 21. In the result the impugned order as contained in Annexure-7 cannot be sustained and it is accordingly quashed, and the writ application is allowed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.