JUDGMENT : R.C. Patnaik, J. - Does the denial of allowances to engineers serving under the Orissa State Electricity Board on deputation though discharging the same duties and working under similar hazardous conditions as the engineers on its own cadre violate the equality provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ? This short nonetheless important question has been posed for an answer in this action. The fits, in brief, are: 2. When Talcher Thermal Power Station was set up as a constituent of the Orissa State Electricity Board for the purpose of generating electrical energy from coal, engineers were brought on deputation from the Irrigation and Power Department of the Government. The total number of such posts was 299. With a view to having its own cadre of engineers who would ultimately run the power station, the Board constituted pursuant to a decision of the Government dated 19-7-1983, the Orissa Electricity Board Service (of Power Engineers of Thermal Generation) Regulation, 1984. The regulation provided the quantum of allowances payable to engineers. Option was thereafter called for from the deputationists-engineers serving under the Board to join the cadre. Though some volunteered to join, majority did not evince any desire. 3. The Board, having regard to the nature of duties, expertise necessary, the hazardous conditions and arduous nature of work, granted allowances to the engineers both cadre engineers and the deputationists engineers, but the rates were different. The cadre engineers were given higher rate. The deputationists olamoured for equal treatment since the factors which were considered relevant for payment allowances were common to both the groups. 'They moved the General Superintendent who in his letter dated 15-9-1984 as per Annexure-5 recommended their case to the Chairman for favourable consideration. He stated therein that the deputationists were continuing because of non-availability of officers, on the Thermal Cadre and most of the cadre engineers were inexperienced in operation and maintenance of Thermal units and both the groups were working under similar hazardous conditions. The Chairman, in turn, made a reference to the Government as per Annexure-6 dated 21-9-1984 and by communication dated 27-9-1984 as per Annexure-7, Government conveyed its decision turning down the plea of the deputationists for equalisation. 4. The Chairman, in turn, made a reference to the Government as per Annexure-6 dated 21-9-1984 and by communication dated 27-9-1984 as per Annexure-7, Government conveyed its decision turning down the plea of the deputationists for equalisation. 4. Both the Board and the State of Orissa have justified the differential treatment on the ground that whereas the engineers on the cadre opted to join the cadre, the deputationists did not. The service conditions and psychological approach of both the categories are different. 5. Mr. J. Patnaik, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners (Petitioner No. 1 being Association of Orissa Electrical Engineers Service) has urged that both the categories of engineers perform the same nature of work, discharge, the same responsibilities and the arduous nature of work and the unhygienic conditions in which they work being the same, the two sets of allowances one higher, the other lower-are violative of the equality clause of the Constitution Payment of allowances at a lower rate smack of intimidatory tactics on the part of the employer. He relied upon a few decisions, reference to which shall be made by us. Mr. G. Rath, the learned Counsel for the opposite parties, has on the other hand, urged that it, was' open to the Board to prescribe two rates of allowances one for the cadre engineers and the other for the deputationists. The cadre engineers belong to a class by themselves. No distinctions has been made among the deputationists which can be assailed as discriminatory. The service conditions of the deputationists and those of the cadre engineers being different, differential treatment in the matter of allowances is permissible. He has further urged that having regard to the provisions contained in Clause (b) of Rule 226 of the Orissa Service Code the deputationists cannot Claim any higher emoluments than those sanctioned by Govt. He has further submitted that having regard to the provisions contained in Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. 6. There can be no dispute that the factors, namely, the nature of the job, the duties to be performed, the expertise required, the hazards to be faced and the conditions in which service is performed, operate equally as regards the cadre engineers and the deputationists. 6. There can be no dispute that the factors, namely, the nature of the job, the duties to be performed, the expertise required, the hazards to be faced and the conditions in which service is performed, operate equally as regards the cadre engineers and the deputationists. The State Government in its return has admitted that both the categories "are essentially doing the same nature of job" (para-9), "the job specification for both is same" (para-10) and "the professional skill is the same" (para 11). Both the 'categories', therefore, are equally situated. Can refusal of the deputationists to join the cadre be a justifiable ground for denying them allowances when they perform' the same work etc.? Mr. Rath has strenuously urged that the service conditions of the deputationists were more attractive and better than those governing the cadre engineers. It is difficult to say so. Nor can there be a justifiable distinction on the ground that the psychological attitude of the cadre engineers would be different from the deputationists. Thermal allowance is paid for the unhygienic conditions prevailing. Both the categories work under the same condition. Allowance towards an attendant in lieu of an orderly peon and conveyance allowance pertain to the nature 0.? the job and the duties performed etc.. In regard to such allowances, a differential treatment can have no rational and it is stated by the General Superintendent that the cadre engineers were inexperienced in operation and maintenance of thermal units and both the categories work under similar hazardous conditions. 7. In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others it has been observed: ...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. In M.P. Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others which is an apposite one, the question that arose for consideration was if different rates of special pay to deputationists and non-deputationists was violative of the equality clause. In M.P. Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others which is an apposite one, the question that arose for consideration was if different rates of special pay to deputationists and non-deputationists was violative of the equality clause. It was held that since special pay was being paid for the arduous nature of duties that were to be performed, classification of the officers into two groups, merely, deputationists and non-deputationists for paying different rates of special pay did not pass the test of classification permissible under Articles 14 and 16, as it did not bear any rational relation to the object of classification. We are, therefore, of the view that the classification has not been founded on any intelligible differentia which distinguished one category from the other and the differentia has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. If the object is performance of duties with skill and expertise in the same hazardous conditions, there cannot be any distinction in the matter of payment of allowances. Any such distinction would amount to invidious discrimination coming within the mischief of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. Rule 226(b) of the Orissa Service Code posits that no government servant shall receive, during the period of deputation, any remuneration or enjoy any concession which is not so specified, in the order sanctioning transfer unless it is clearly admissible to him during deputation under the rules of the Government of Orissa. The provision is, no doubt, dear. That was the reason why the Chairman of the Board solicited sanction of the Government so that the Board would pay the allowances at the same rates as it is paying the cadre engineers. The act and conduct of the board would go to indicate that the Board was then favourably disposed and would have granted the allowances to the deputationists on par had not the Government turned down its proposal. In as much as the decision of the Government did not allow the Board to wipe out the discriminatory treatment out perpetrated it, the decision of the Government is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The decision of the Government should have been in accord with the principles contained in the equality clause of the constitution. 9. The last submission of Mr. The decision of the Government should have been in accord with the principles contained in the equality clause of the constitution. 9. The last submission of Mr. Rath was that on the establishment of the State Administrative Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the matter being a service matter concerning the members of a service, should be transferred to the tribunal. 10. Section 15 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, defines the scope and ambit of the jurisdiction, power and authority of the State Administrative Tribunal. It confers jurisdiction on the tribunal in relation to recruitment and matters concerning recruitment, to any civil service of the State or to any civil post under the State and in relation to all service matters concerning a person not being a person referred to in Clause (a) of sub -Section (1) of Section 15, or a member, person or civilian referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 14 appointed to any civil service of the State or any civil post under the State and pertaining to the service of such person in connection with the affairs of the State or of any local or other authority under the control of the State Government or, of any corporation or society owned and controlled by State Government and all service matters pertaining to service in connection with the affairs of the State concerning a person appointed to any service or post referred to in Clause (b), being a person whose services have been placed by any such local or other authority or corporation or society or other body as is controlled or owned by the State Government, at the disposal of the State Government for such appointment. The question is: If the matter relating to claim for allowances from the Orissa State Electricity Board under whom the engineers are serving on deputation is cognizable by the State Administrative Tribunal. Is it open to such engineers to sue the Board before the tribunal for the reliefs sought (If the answer is in the negative, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter and the case is not to be transferred. Is it open to such engineers to sue the Board before the tribunal for the reliefs sought (If the answer is in the negative, this Court has jurisdiction to decide the matter and the case is not to be transferred. In our opinion, the matter of the deputationists from Government suing statutory authority for pecuniary benefits is not a matter, jurisdiction in respect of which has been vested in the tribunal, for, the claim for allowances from the Orissa State Electricity Board is not a matter in relation to recruitment or concerning recruitment to any civil service of the State, or to any civil post under the State, nor does it relate to any service matter concerning the deputationists in connection with the affairs of the State. We see, therefore, no force in the submission of the learned Counsel that this Court does no more possess the jurisdiction to decide the matter. 11. In the result, we hold that the differential rate of allowances is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, The deputationists are entitled to allowances on par with the cadre engineers, from the date the allowances at higher rate was paid to the latter. We accordingly direct the Government issue appropriate order to enable the Board to act as aforesaid and remove the discrimination.. The writ application is accordingly allowed. There would be no order as to costs. K.C. Jagadeb Roy, J. I agree. Writ application allowed. Final Result : Allowed