UMESH CHANDRA BANERJEE, J. ( 1 ) FAIR play and fair treatment ought to be the most accepted methodology of a Governmental action. This is no longer in the realm of consideration but a well-settled principle of law. It is a 'soul of natural justice' and as such would have to be given a full play in all Governmental actions and in the event of there being a departure therefrom, Law Courts ought to rise up to the occasion and declare the same as being opposed to justice, equity and good conscience. To remedy the wrong is a plain exercise of judicial power and there ought not to be any hesitancy in that direction. ( 2 ) THE observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India seem to be very apposite. The Supreme Court observed:"natural justice is a great humanising principle intended to invest law with fairness and to secure justice and over the years it has grown into a widely pervasive rule affecting large areas of administrative action. Thus the soul of natural justice is fair play in action and that is why it has received the widest recognition throughout the democratic world". ( 3 ) IN Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Ltd. , Assistant Apprentices and Ors v. Bharat Process and Mechanical Engineers Ltd. reported in (1977-II-LLJ-404) this Court observed (p. 413): "arbitrariness cannot and ought not to be the basis of any Governmental action since arbitrariness embraces inequality in all force and that is what is forbidden in law" ( 4 ) HAVING discussed the law on the subject, let us now consider the factual aspect briefly in order to appreciate the contentions raised. The two petitioners in Civil Order Nos. 169 (W) of 1984 and 170 (W) of 1984 respectively had been serving under the respondent Company in the rank of Assistant Supervisors of the Civil Engineering Department. The petitioners were called for an interview on 24th February, 1981 and 25th February, 1981 respectively for promotion to the post of Junior Engineers in the Department and by an order dated 13th March, 1981 both the petitioners obtained the promotion in the post effective from 1st March, 1981 in the scale of Rs. 640-35-920-45-1325. Both the petitioners were, however, fitted at a basic salary at the bottom of the revised scale of Rs. 640-1325. 640-35-920-45-1325. Both the petitioners were, however, fitted at a basic salary at the bottom of the revised scale of Rs. 640-1325. Incidentally it is to be noted, the other Assistant Supervisors with lesser pre-promotion pay had been fitted at the basic salaries of Rs. 710-745 at the revised scale. It is also to be noted that the other Assistant Supervisors had been promoted after the petitioners. Since the petitioners were promoted on 1st March, 1981, the other Assistant Supervisors were promoted on 1st April, 1981. This disparity is the basis of the writ petitions under consideration. Whereas the petitioners contended that utter discrimination and adoptation of policy of pick and choose amongst the employees, the respondent contended that by reason of Garden Reach Shipbuilders and Engineers' Officers' Pay Fixation Rules coming into force with effect from 24th December, 1980, the fixation of the petitioners" pay was effected in accordance with Rules 2 and 3 of the above noted Rules. As regards the other Assistant Supervisors, the respondents submitted that they were interviewed in 1980 earlier than the petitioners and as such pay fixations were effected differently. Admittedly, however, the letter of promotion at the higher grade was issued at a later date, though said to be due to administrative reasons. The respondents contended that the date of interview ought to be the relevant date for the purpose of fitment into the grade and the fixation of pay and not the date when the letters were issued for the higher grade. The tactual aspect, therefore, may be summarised thus that some employees were interviewed earlier though no appointment letter was issued until after the rules came into vogue and were fitted on a higher scale in the grade whereas some others were interviewed after the rules came into vogue and were fitted at a different scale in the grade. As such there is no escape for some differentiation but the same is said to be neither arbitrary nor, as contended by the respondents, can be termed to be an administrative ipsi dixit or on the basis of a pick and choose policy. It is this differentiation however, which has been staled by the petitioners to be wholly arbitrary and diseriminatory in nature. Admittedly some officers have been given higher benefits and some officers have been given lower scales. It is this differentiation however, which has been staled by the petitioners to be wholly arbitrary and diseriminatory in nature. Admittedly some officers have been given higher benefits and some officers have been given lower scales. It is at this juncture, however, a comparative statement of basic fitment for Assistant Supervisors promoted to Junior Engineers or Junior Accounts Officer ought to be noted :- S. No. Name Promotion offered from: Fixation Ir. no. 1. Sri Jalaluddin Ahmed Khan 1. 4. 81 Rs. 571/- Rs. 745/- AO/s/324/81 dt. 1-5-81 2. Sri Subrala Kumar Niyogi 1. 4. 81 Rs. 549/- Rs. 745/- AO/s/325/81 dt. 4. 5. 81 3. Sri Satya Ranjan Ghosh 1. 4. 81 Rs. 549/- Rs. 745/- AO/s/330/81 dt. 4. 5. 81 4. Sri Niranjan Samaddar 1. 4. 81 Rs. 505/- Rs. 710/- AO/s/331/81 dl. 4. 5. 81 5. Sri Amarendra Nath Bairagi 1. 4. 81 Rs. 505/- Rs. 710/- AO/333/81 dt. 4. 5. 81 6. Sri Rabin Banerjee 1. 4. 81 Rs. 505/- Rs. 710/- AO/s/332/81 dt. 4. 5. 81 7. Sri Pradip Kr. Saha 1. 4. 81 Rs. 549/- Rs. 710/- AO/s/329/81 dl. 4. 5. 81 8. Sri Asoke Kr. Chatterjee 1. 3. 81 Rs. 549/- Rs. 710/- AO/s/327/81 dt. 4. 5. 81 Pre-promotion basic Basic offered 9. Sri Shyamal Kr. Bhattactarjee 1. 3. 81 Rs. 549/- Rs. 640/- AO/s/328/81 dt. 4. 5. 81 10. Sri Kalipada Muzumdar 1. 3. 81 Rs. 527/- Rs. 745/- . ( 5 ) THE position of the petitioners herein being at Serial Nos. 8 and 9, therefore, appears to be that though promotion was offered at an earlier point of time having pre-promotion basic pay higher atleast in some cases than the other officers, these two petitioners have been fitted at the minimum level of the grade, whereas the others have been given some increments in the same scale by reason wherefor the pay packet falls below the desired level as regards the writ petitioners as compared to other officers. Incidentally it is to be noted that there is no grievance or complaint against the writ petitioners being in any way inefficient or having any adverse report. It is now well-settled, and I need not dilate much on the score, that equal pay ought to be given for equal work. Incidentally it is to be noted that there is no grievance or complaint against the writ petitioners being in any way inefficient or having any adverse report. It is now well-settled, and I need not dilate much on the score, that equal pay ought to be given for equal work. Once they are promoted in the same cadre, they all ought to be treated alike on the same footing without any differentiation, since they all belong to the same unit or the undertaking or the organisation and circumstanced equally. As noted above, the Governmental action must be fair. reasonable and in consonance with the concept of justice in the absence of which, however, Law Courts would strike down an action as being violative of the basic principles of law. ( 6 ) IN my view, considering the factual aspect, the deprivation complained of has some basis and ought not to be ignored. One section of the employees having the same qualification and the post gets a higher pay, whereas equally circumstanced another section of the employees starts with a lower pay-can this be said to be justiciable-can it be said to be in consonance with law-in my view, the answer ought to be in the negative. Question of fixation of pay in terms of the rules which creates an artifical discrimination, can no longer be said to be in accordance with equity, good conscience and justice. The significant feature ought to be noted here is that the promotion was effected in April, 1981 as regards the one section of employees and another in March, 1981 and whereas, the pre-promotion basic pay was higher in regard to those employees promoted in March, 1981 the others promoted in April, 1981 though having lesser pre-promotion basic were having higher basic pay does not seem to be justified. Arbitrariness reigns supreme in such an action which, considering the well-settled principles of law, cannot be allowed to continue. ( 7 ) IT is, however, to be noted that as a matter effect, there was another writ petition being Civil Order No. 171 (W) of 1984, but the respondents-authority has agreed to meet the grievance of the petitioner. As such the writ petition was not pressed as regards the Civil Order No. 171 (W) of 1984. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the above, in my view, there exists justification for the petitioners' grievances for such deprivation. As such the writ petition was not pressed as regards the Civil Order No. 171 (W) of 1984. ( 8 ) CONSIDERING the above, in my view, there exists justification for the petitioners' grievances for such deprivation. In the premises, the fixation of pay in the revised scale with effect from 1st March, 1981 is set aside and quashed. The respondents are directed to fix pay of the writ petitioners in the same scale as with the other officers and similarly circumstanced and promoted on 4th March, 1981 as more fully detailed in Annexure 'b' to the petition. It is clarified that such fixation of pay should be effected from 1st March, 1981. The arrear payment by reason of such a fixation of pay be made available to the writ petitioners within a period of eight weeks from the date hereof. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) BOTH the writ petitions are thus disposed of accordingly. As regards C. O. No. 171 (W) of 1984, however, the same is dismissed as not pressed. ( 10 ) MR. Banerjee, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, has prayed for stay of operation of the above order and the said prayer is rejected.