JUDGMENT 1. - This Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been filed against the judgment of Hon'ble Single judge dated 22.4.1985, by which the Writ Petition of respondent was allowed. 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the respondent filed a writ petition with the allegations that with the establishment of a permanent bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, it became necessary to establish a library for the use of Judges, of the nature and size, established at main seat of High Court at Jodhpur; that the respondent applied for the post of Assistant Librarian and she was selected by the Selection Committee, constituted by the High Court and was appointed on the said post, by order dated 15.7.1977 that the respondent was confirmed on the same post vide order dated 24.1.79; that after acquiring the necessary experience prescribed for the post of Librarian and as the nature of duties, work, responsibilites and functions etc. relating to the post of Asst. Librarian and the Librarian are identical, the respondent submitted a representation to Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 3-9-1980, requesting for upgrading the post of Assistant Librarian to that of Librarian but the respondent's request was not accepted by Hon. Chief Justice. The petitioner again on 4.4.1981, submitted representation for upgrading the post of Assistant Librarian. Later on, she came to know that her representation was forwarded by Hon'ble Chief Justice to the Government for upgrading the post but the recommendation made by the Hon'ble High Court with regard to the respondent's request for upgrading the post of Assistant Librarian were not communicated to the Govt. while forwarding the representation. Hence by letter dated 22.4.81, the Law Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan sought certain information from the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. On receipt of the letter from the Registrar, seeking information on the points raised by the Government, the Additional Registrar immediately sent the information required by the Registrar. The Additional Registrar mentioned as under. HINDI MATTER 364578 3. That despite the clear recommendations of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court for up-gradation of the post of Asst. Librarian to that of Librarian, the State of Rajasthan without any reason, refused to grant sanction for upgrading the post. The respondent further asserted that academic qualifications prescribed for the recruitment of the posts viz., Librarian and Asstt. HINDI MATTER 364578 3. That despite the clear recommendations of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court for up-gradation of the post of Asst. Librarian to that of Librarian, the State of Rajasthan without any reason, refused to grant sanction for upgrading the post. The respondent further asserted that academic qualifications prescribed for the recruitment of the posts viz., Librarian and Asstt. Librarian, being the same and the nature of duties, work and responsibilities of both the posts being the same, the respondent cannot be denied equal pay, which is paid to the Librarian on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The respondent prayed that it may be declared that the nature of duties, work, responsibilities, functions etc. being discharged by the respondent in her capacity as Asst. Librarian at Jodhpur, are identical she is entitled for the same pay which is paid to the Librarian at Jaipur Bench and those being discharged by Librarian at Jodhpur, are identical she is entitled for the same pay which is paid to the Librarian at Jodhpur. She further prayed that State of Rajasthan be directed to upgrade, the post of Asstt. librarian, High Court Bench at Jaipur to that of Librarian, for the purposes of giving effect to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 4. The State of Raj. and the Raj. High Court submitted a joint reply to the writ petition. In their reply, they alleged that there were about 34,000 books at Jodhpur, whereas in the library at Jaipur there were 25,000 books only. The post of Librarian is altogether different. The qualifications for both posts are different. The work of Librarian at Jodhpur, and Asst. Librarian at Jaipur, cannot be equated. In Para 22 of the reply, it was admitted that the Additional Registrar sent information to the Registrar but it was further stated that there was nothing on the record to show that the same was further communicated to the State Government. 5. In para 23 of the reply, it was mentioned that it was not admitted that there were any clear recommendations made by the Hon. High Court in favour of the respondent. It was further mentioned that it was not correct to say that the respondent State refused to upgrade the post of Assistant librarian to that of Librarian. 5. In para 23 of the reply, it was mentioned that it was not admitted that there were any clear recommendations made by the Hon. High Court in favour of the respondent. It was further mentioned that it was not correct to say that the respondent State refused to upgrade the post of Assistant librarian to that of Librarian. It was mentioned that the matter was considered by the B.F.C. at the time of framing of the budget for the year 1982-83, but no decision was taken. It was also mentioned that the conditions of service of Officers and Servants of the High Court can be prescribed only by making rules. Under the Rajasthan High Court Condition of Service (Staff) Rules 1953 (for short the "rules") there is one post of Assistant Librarian at Jaipur. It was also mentioned that under the proviso to Article 229 of the Constitution of India, approval of the Governor was mandatory for upgrading the post of Assistant Librarian. It was further mentioned that the Government did not turn down the recommendations and when Hon. Chief Justice or Hon. High Court makes recommendations to the State Government it would be given the greatest respect and would be considered more sympathetically. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that duties, responsibilities, obligations etc. of Asst. Librarian at Jaipur and that of Librarian at Jodhpur are same. The quantum of work at both the places is also same and as such principle of 'equal pay for equal work' will apply in the present case. The learned Single Judge further held that. the petitioner respondent was entitled for the same scale of pay which was paid to the Librarian at Jodhpur w.e.f. 1-1 -82. The learned Single Judge further directed the State Govt. to amend the rules or the schedule accordingly. 7. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment, the State of Rajasthan filed the present appeal. 8. Mr. Agrawal, learned Advocate General argued that the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the duties, responsibilities and nature of work of the Asst. Librarian at Jaipur Bench is equal to that of Librarian at Jodhpur. He further argued that the Librarian under the rules possesses higher-qualifications and is senior and matured person in comparison to the Asst. Librarian and as such both posts cannot be equated. Librarian at Jaipur Bench is equal to that of Librarian at Jodhpur. He further argued that the Librarian under the rules possesses higher-qualifications and is senior and matured person in comparison to the Asst. Librarian and as such both posts cannot be equated. He further argued that Hon. Chief justice never recommended that the post of Asst. Librarian be upgraded to that of Librarian. He argued that under the rules framed by the Hon. Chief Justice under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India, there is only one post of Asst. Librarian at Jaipur. He argued that under the rules framed by the Hon. Chief justice. under Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India, there is only one post of Asst. Librarian at Jaipur. He argued that under these circumstances, the State of Rajasthan cannot be directed to upgrade the post. He argued that proviso to Article 229 (2) provides that the rules framed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State and unless the up-gradation of post is approved by the Governor, the post of Assistant Librarian cannot be upgraded to that of Librarian. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the following judgments : M. Gurumoorthy v. The Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland & others, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1850 , The State of Assam v. Bhudhan Chandra Datta and another, A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 889 ; State of Andhra Pradesh and another V. T. Gopal Krishan Murthi and others, A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 123 I.P.K. Ramchandra layer & others v. Union of India & others, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 541 and Muilikarjuna Rao & others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 1251. He further argued that the Governor never approved for upgrading the post of Asst. Librarian at Jaipur, and as such there was no question of upgrading the post of Asst. Librarian, Jaipur, to that of Librarian. 9. In reply. Mr. Paras Kuhad argued that from the document marked Ex. P. 4, letter addressed by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur to the Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, Judicial Deptt., it is apparent that the Hon. Chief justice recommended that the post of Asst. Librarian at Jaipur Bench Jaipur, is required to be upgraded to that of Librarian. Mr. Paras Kuhad argued that from the document marked Ex. P. 4, letter addressed by the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur to the Secretary to the Govt. of Rajasthan, Judicial Deptt., it is apparent that the Hon. Chief justice recommended that the post of Asst. Librarian at Jaipur Bench Jaipur, is required to be upgraded to that of Librarian. He argued that the learned Single Judge after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case gave a definite finding that the Hon. Chief justice of this Court recommended to the Government for upgrading the post. He argued that it is immaterial as to whether post is upgraded or not, the respondent is interested in the payment of equal pay to that of Liberian, as the work of the respondent is equal to that of Librarian at Jodhpur. He argued that the work discharged by the Incharge of the Libraries at both the places is identical as such the principle of "equal pay for equal work" will apply and as such the respondent should be paid the same salary, which is paid to the Librarian at Jodhpur. He further argued that the Government has arbitrarily refused to consider the recommendations of the Hon. Chief Justice for upgrading the post an as such Hon. Single Judge has rightly issued mandamus to the Govt.for upgrading the post. He argued that in similar circumstances, this High Court, after considering the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Natwar Lal Thanvi v. State of Raj. & Others, 1988 (1) RLR 932 , directed the Government to grant pay scales to the P.S. to Hon. Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court equal to that of the Secretaries of the Govt. Secretariat. 10. In State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Gopal Krishnan Murthi (supra), the facts were that the Chief Justice of Andhra Pradesh High Court recommended the Government to equate the pay scales of High Court staff with those of equivalent posts in Secretariat. The Govt. refused the recommendations of the Hon. Chief Justice. The petitioner filed a writ of Mandamus. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Government to equate the pay scales of High Court staff with those of equivalent posts in Secretariat. The Govt. refused the recommendations of the Hon. Chief Justice. The petitioner filed a writ of Mandamus. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Government to equate the pay scales of High Court staff with those of equivalent posts in Secretariat. The State of Andhra Pradesh went in appeal before the Hon. Supreme Court and the Hon. Supreme Court held that High Court was not justified in issuing mandamus to Govt. to implement recommendations. This case is based on the earlier judgment of Hon. Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 S.C. 1850 and also A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 889. 11. In Mullikarjuna's case (supra), it has been held that the Apex court & the Service Tribunals cannot even indirectly require executive to exercise its rule making power. 12. In all these authorities principle of "equal pay for equal work" was not taken into consideration. 13. In the present case the petitioner-respondent has filed the writ petition on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" as enshrined under Article 14, 16 read with Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. For the first time this principle was enunciated in the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others, AIR 1982 S.C. 879 , wherein it has been held as under : "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 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 & the powers, duties & responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complaint of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same." 14. This principles was again followed in U.P. Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. U.P. v. Its Workmen, 1990 (1) SLR 183, wherein the Apex Court held that juniors and seniors were doing same nature of work, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work" must prevail. 15. In Dr. Ms. This principles was again followed in U.P. Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. U.P. v. Its Workmen, 1990 (1) SLR 183, wherein the Apex Court held that juniors and seniors were doing same nature of work, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work" must prevail. 15. In Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India, 1990 (1) SLR 297, the facts were that 'A' Category Scientists in non-medical wing of the Director General of Health Services were not receiving the same benefit of promotion and pay etc. as were being received by the same category of officers in other Ministries like Ministry of Science and Technology. While allowing the writ petition, the Hon. Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India directed the Union of India to frame appropriate rules on the doctrine of rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology. 16. In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 S.C. 1173 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "Equal pay for equal work not expressly declared by the Constitution as a fundamental right but in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy as contained in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution, "equal pay for equal work" has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising oral employment within a reasonable period has been accepted by the Supreme Court as constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern. It has ceased to be Judge made law as it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of State providing equal opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similarly placed employees of the State. The Supreme Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right of equal pay for equal work in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social justice." 17. In Natwar Lal's case (supra), the Division Bench of this Court after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 123, and relying on the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court reported in A.I.R. 1982 S.C. 879, held that the petitioners were denied their right of equality as enshrined under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. This Court further held that even after the recommendations of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the Government did not amend the rules. The Court further found that the action of the Government was arbitrary and as such this court directed the Government to amend the rules on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 18. In the present case, the learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the work discharged by the incharge of libraries at both places i.e. at Jodhpur and Jaipur is similar. Duties, responsibilities, and functions of both of them are identical and as such the work of the petitioner-respondent is equal to that of the Liberian at Jodhpur. In view of this, the petitioner-respondent cannot be denied pay scale which the Librarian is getting at Jodhpur. We are also of the view that there are 13 Judges at Jaipur, whereas there are only 10 Judges at Jodhpur, excluding Hon. the Chief Justice. The arrears of cases and institution of new cases is more at Jaipur Bench in comparison to Jodhpur. The work of the respondent in quality-wise and quantity-wise is not less than of the Librarian at Jodhpur. We are also of the view that Hon'ble Chief justice recommended for upgrading the post of Asst. Librarian to that of Librarian and inspit of the recommendations of the Hon'ble Chief Justice, the State Government instead of accepting the same, left the matter to he decided by the B.F.C. and the said Committee did not decide any thing. The State Government in arbitrary way refused to consider the recommendations of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. On the one hand, Government in its reply took the stand that if the Hon'ble Chief Justice or Hon'ble High Court makes recommendations to the State Government, it will be received with the greatest respect and will be considered sympathetically and on the other hand, when the Hon'ble Chief justice recommended to the Government for upgrading the post of Assistant Librarian to that of Librarian, the Government sent the same to the B.F.C. which shows that the Government did not pay any respect to the recommendations of the Hon'ble Chief Justice. It is pertinent to note that the financial burden in upgrading the post is only Rs. 1440/- yearly. It is pertinent to note that the financial burden in upgrading the post is only Rs. 1440/- yearly. In view of this, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge rightly directed the appellant to pay the same pay scale to the respondent which is being given to the Librarian at Jodhpur and further to amend the rules or the schedule. 19. Consequently, we do not find force in this appeal and the same is dismissed. 20. Both the parties shall bear their own costs.Special appeal dismissed. *******