JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, A.C.J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 is a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. Petitioner No. 2 is a Sweepers and Petitioner No. 3 is a Sweeper serving under the Cuttack Municipality. They have filed this writ application for the quashing of Government Order No. 27951/HUD dated 29-8-1980 as per Annexure-7 so far as that denied the benefits arising under the Surrender leave Scheme for a period prior to 1-6-1979 and for a mandamus directing the opposite parties to make the benefits available under the Surrender leave Scheme to the Petitioners 2 and 3 from such dates from which the benefits were made available to other employees of the Municipality. 2. Class IV category of employees under the Cuttack Municipality comprises of Peons, Sweepers, Scavergers, lighters, Road Gang, Drain Gang, Dhais and Watchmen etc. The Government by resolution dated 21-7-1973 (Annexure-1) made certain provisions for surrender and encashment of leave earned. It laid down the scope and extent of the benefits and the conditions under which those could be availed of soon after the benefits were granted to Government employees, the employees under the Municipalities and Notified Area Councils, which are otherwise called as local-self-Government clamored for realisation of the benefits. The Government by letter dated 15-6-1974 as per Armexure-2 recommended to all Municipalities and N. A. Cs. to adopt the resolution after passing resolution in the Council to that effect. The Cuttack Municipality by an unanimous resolution resolved on 27-7-1974 to make the benefit available to all its employees. Strangely and curiously though no exception had been indicated in the Government order or in the unanimous resolution of the Municipality, the benefits were not made available to the Sweeper and Sovengers the lowliest of the low in the hierarchy those whom we cannot do without. Though they have been imploring through their representatives for years to relieve them of the invidious discrimination and treat them on to with the employees but in vain until the Government decided by Annexure-7 that they would have the benefits of revised E.L. with effect from 1-1-1980 and surrender leave with effect from 1-6-1979. 3. The short question that has been raised basing on the principle of equality is : Was the Municipality justified in denying them the benefits initially? 3. The short question that has been raised basing on the principle of equality is : Was the Municipality justified in denying them the benefits initially? and was the Government justified in denying them the benefits for the period prior to 1-6-1979, i.e.; for the period for which the other employees of the Municipality received the benefits. They have challenged the decision as ultra vires on the ground of rank discrimination without any intelligible differentia having any nexus with the object sought to be achieved. There is no counter: Therefore, there is no traverse. The discrimintion is too patent. We cannot comprehend how the Government could decide that the scavengers and Sweepers should receive the benefits from 1-6-1979 and not from an earlier period before 1-6-1979. Had the Municipality not discriminated against them, they would have received the benefits from the date the other employees of the Municipality received the same of the Municipality erred, the Government could not affix its seal of approval by granting the same from 1-1-1980. 4. Neither the Government order in Annexure-2 nor the Municipality in its resolution, referred to above, treated the Scavengers and Sweepers as a class separate from the other employees who received the benefits. Neither did the Government nor the Municipality decide that the Sovengers and Sweepers would be excluded from the benefits. It seems strange how the Government order was so interpreted by the Municipality as to exclude them. In Purshottam Lal and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held that where in a pay Commission's Report recommendation has been made in respect of all Government employees and the Government accepts it, it is bound to implement the recommendation in respect of all the Government employees. If it does not implement the report rearguing some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. The decision, therefore, is vulnerable as offending the principle of equality. No material has been pointed out as to why a different consideration was made in the else of Sweepers and Scavengers. We have not been enlightened as to what was the differentia and how was the differentia justified having regard to the object sought to be achieved. 5. The decision, therefore, is vulnerable as offending the principle of equality. No material has been pointed out as to why a different consideration was made in the else of Sweepers and Scavengers. We have not been enlightened as to what was the differentia and how was the differentia justified having regard to the object sought to be achieved. That apart, when the Government and the Municipal Council decided to confer the benefits on all employees, it was not permissible to exclude the Sweepers and the Scavengers. Rather, they being the lowliest should have received the benefits first before the benefit was conferred on the higher ups. That unfortunately is not remembered and borne in mind often by persons occupying higher stations in life while taking decision relating to the fate of persons occupying lower ranks. That is a pity. 6. In the result, the writ application is allowed. There would be no order for costs. K.C. Jagadeb Ray, J. 7. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed