JUDGMENT B.L. YADAV, J. 1. PETITIONERS, the Block Development Officers have filed present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work and seeking relief for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to pay them the same pay scale (i.e. 850-1720) as payable to other Block Development Officers who perform similar duties. 2. THE portrayal of essential facts are these. THE petitioners 1 to 3 were selected in 1984 on the post of Block Development Officers by the U. P. Public Service Commission. Rest of the petitioners were appointed in 1978 on the said post. Petitioners perform identical duties as performed by other Block Development Officers but their pay scale is less as compared to other officers for which there was no rationale. THE constitutional guarantee of equality was being violated. Earlier it was the post of Deputy Project Executive Officer but lateron it was redesignated as Block Development Officer. THE pay scale was divided into two categories i.e. Rs. 220-400 and Rs. 250-850. THE latter pay scale was admissible to 10 % of the total number of officers on the basis of seniority. These 10% officers were to be posted on special development blocks which involve onerous duties. THE Pay Commission was set up and the pay scale was revised from Rs. 220-400 to Rs. 225-500 and Rs. 250-850 to Rs. 300-900. THE higher pay scale continued to be available only to 10% officers. These pay scales were again revised to Rs. 400-750 and Rs. 550-1200 respectively. THE higher pay scale continued to remain available to only 10 % officers. However, a high level committee, set up to enquire into the pay scales recommended that a higher pay scale of Rs. 550-1200 should be made available to all the Block Development Officers. In the meantime second Pay Commission was constituted. Since 1-8-79 the State Government took a decision that no blocks may be treated as special block. Lateron the pay scale of Rs. 550-1200 was made available to 50% officers. THE practice of placing 50% officers in the scale of Rs. 550-1200 was arbitrary as all other officers were discharging similar duties. There was no rationale basis for granting higher grade to 50% officers. THE second Pay Commission recommended pay scale of Rs. Lateron the pay scale of Rs. 550-1200 was made available to 50% officers. THE practice of placing 50% officers in the scale of Rs. 550-1200 was arbitrary as all other officers were discharging similar duties. There was no rationale basis for granting higher grade to 50% officers. THE second Pay Commission recommended pay scale of Rs. 770-1600 to all the Block Development Officers with a provision of selection grade in the scale of 1200-1720 available to 20% officers. THE State Government however slightly modified the recommendation of the second pay Commission and it was decided to place 50% of the officers in the scale of 690-1420 and remaining 50% in the scale of 850-1720. THE higher pay scale was made available solely on the basis of seniority. Since 1-8-79 all the Block Development Officers in the State could have been transferred from one block to any other block as there were no special development blocks involving onerous duties. THE minimum qualification for the post was same. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that in view of Article 39 (d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution there must be equal pay for equal work as all the Block Development Officers were performing identical duties under the same employer hence they are entitled to the same pay scale of Rs. 850-1720. Reliance was placed on P. Savita v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1124 , Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 and Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2049 . 3. LEARNED Standing Counsel on the other hand urged that the higher pay scale of Rs. 850-1720 was for the senior officers performing onerous duties whereas other pay scale was admissible to other officers. 4. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties the point for determination is whether the petitioners were entitled to the same pay scale of Rs. 850-1720 admissible to the senior officers on the basis of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The nature of duties of all the Block Development Officers are similar. There was no distinction at all between nature of duties of these officers either they are posted at one block or the other. There was no selection for higher pay scale on the basis of merit/seniorify but it appears that the selection was only on the basis of seniority/fitness. There was no distinction at all between nature of duties of these officers either they are posted at one block or the other. There was no selection for higher pay scale on the basis of merit/seniorify but it appears that the selection was only on the basis of seniority/fitness. In any case there was nothing to indicate that all the Block Development Officers do not discharge same duties, and perform same functions. It is manifest that both type of Block Development Officers perform the same work and discharge same duties. Even in respect of transfers there is nothing at present to indicate that so called senior officers can be transferred at particular Blocks only. 5. IT is to be borne in mind that the differentiation in the senior officers entitled to higher pay scale and other officers entitled to lower pay scale was not based on intelligible ground. There was no distinction in the process of selection also. The selection for higher pay scale was not based on merit cum suitability rather it was based on seniority cum fitness. No duty has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel which could be performed only by senior officers having special merit. We are satisfied that both type of Block Development Officers were doing the same work and discharging the same responsibilities. The provisions of Article 16 of the Constitution are wide enough to include the matters of promotion, and we are of the view, that the denial of equality of opportunity for promotion between the citizens holding different posts in the same grade, and performing the similar duties may be on infringement of Article 16 of the Constitution (See Kishori Mohan Lal Buxi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139 ). The doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution did contain the concept of equality before law and equal protection of law under Article 14 of the Constitution. The doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution did contain the concept of equality before law and equal protection of law under Article 14 of the Constitution. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 , relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, following observations are material : "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 thing 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 do not perform dissimilar functions, duties and responsibilities, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay". 6. IN P. Savita v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC 1124 , it was held that even if two groups were created and higher salary was recommended on the basis of seniority cum fitness and not on the basis of merit cum seniority, even though both the groups perform same duties and discharge same functions, the grouping violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It was further held that if persons are holding identical posts and discharging similar duties, they should not be treated differently. In Bhagwandas v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2049 , their Lordships of Supreme Court applied the principle of equal pay for equal work even in the case where the recruitment in the two sets of services was made differently and one department was temporary whereas the other was permanent and the mode of selection was also entirely different. In Bhagwandas v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2049 , their Lordships of Supreme Court applied the principle of equal pay for equal work even in the case where the recruitment in the two sets of services was made differently and one department was temporary whereas the other was permanent and the mode of selection was also entirely different. In the case of temporary government servants i. e. Supervisors in Education Department were selected only from the cluster of few villages whereas the other set of Government Servants were also Supervisors but their mode of selection was through Subordinate Service Board after competing candidates from any part of the country and the persons selected were observed as regular Government Servants but both performed similar kind of work, therefore, were held entitled for equal pay. 7. IN the instant case after perusing the record including para 17 of the counter affidavit we are satisfied that the Block Development Officers getting higher pay scale were also performing the similar duties and discharging similar function. It has been stated in para 17 of the counter affidavit that seniority was the criterion for the purpose of higher pay scale of Rs. 850-1720. It was alleged to provide sufficient provision for promotion in service and to create attraction for highly qualified persons to join rural development services. Both type of Block Development Officers were performing similar duties. Any of them could be posted at any block. IN other words even the senior Block Development Officer entitled to senior pay scales could be posted at the block where junior Block Development Officer was posted and he would also perform the same duties as was being performed by the junior officer. IN this view of the matter there was no rationale behind the grant of higher pay scale to the senior officers. 8. EVEN though Article 39 (d) of the Constitution is a Directive Principle and not a Fundamental Right but it certainly happens to be Constitutional goal and it is more relevant in view of the preamble of the Constitution i. e. socialistic, democratic republic and equality is an integral part of the socialism. Our founding fathers conceived of the idea to achieve socialism through democratic process and equal pay for equal work has been one of the goals. Our founding fathers conceived of the idea to achieve socialism through democratic process and equal pay for equal work has been one of the goals. We would be failing in our humble duties if we permit it to remain just a mere damagoqic slogan. It is to be translated into reality through judicial process. Articles 14 and 16 contemplate fundamental rights to equality before law and equality of opportunity in the matters of public employment. As we have indicated above, the petitioners perform similar duties and discharge similar responsibilities as performed and discharged by other officers of the same rank though seniors to the petitioners but their seniority was based on the principle of seniority-cum-fitness and not on the principle of merit-cum-seniority. As preamble to our Constitution is socialist democratic republic, we find that doctrine of equal pay for equal work is applied in a number of socialist countries i.e. Section 59 of Hungarian Labour Code, section 111, para 2 of Czechoslovak Code, section 40 of German Democratic Republic section 33, para 2 of Rumanian Code. In fact this principle has been incorporated in Labour Codes of several western countries. 9. EQUAL pay for equal work is a formula of mathematical and geometrical exatitude. There is no denying the fact that the computer is increasing its influence in society and social relationship. This would not be over emphasis if we say that equal pay for equal work is a principle incorporated in our Constitution as a preface to the goal of socialism and partly as a result of influence of computer on law and legal relationship. The influence of computer and increasing sophistication of equipment and techniques have brought about noticeable change in so many walks of human behaviour. We believe that computers will further influence warmth of human justice and it would help improve and expand human justice (See Japper's Computer and the Law: Dickerson's some Jurisprudential Implications of Electronic Data Processing, and Allen's Computers and the Law). 10. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5290 of 1982 C.B.L. Srivastav, v. State of U. P. decided on 8-11-1985-See 1986 AWC 462 applied the principle of equal pay for equal work to the post of Deputy Registrars in the High Court. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Writ Petition No. 5290 of 1982 C.B.L. Srivastav, v. State of U. P. decided on 8-11-1985-See 1986 AWC 462 applied the principle of equal pay for equal work to the post of Deputy Registrars in the High Court. In view of the discussions made hereinbefore the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Under the circumstances of the case a direction is issued to the respondents to treat the petitioners entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 850-1720 with effect from April 1987. Arrears would be paid to the petitioners with effect from 1st April, 1987, at an early date. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.