JUDGMENT G.H. Guttal, J. 1. The question in this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is whether a grant of higher time scale of pay to the Engineering Graduates holding the post of Engineers (Electrical) in preference to the diploma holders in Engineering holding the same post is discriminatory. The question arises in the circumstances set out in the next paragraph. 2. The respondent No. 1 is a company managed and controlled by the Government of India. The petitioners hold diploma in Electrical Engineering. They were appointed as Technicians in 1967. They were promoted and appointed to the post of Engineers (Electrical) on 17-5-1979 and were confirmed in those posts on 17-11-1979. The time scale of pay of this post is Rs. 1060-50-1250-60-1950. The next higher post to which Engineers (Electrical may be promoted is Assistant Plant Engineer, the pay scale of which is Rs. 156060-2280. The respondent No. 1 also recruited persons holding first class degree in Electrical Engineering to the post of Electrical Engineers. The appointments were made after group discussion, interview and selection. Engineering graduates so appointed, naturally were considered more competent and therefore taken over as management trainees. Upon completion of the training of about 2 years they were posted as engineers (electrical) in the time scale of pay of Rs. 1060-50-1210-60-1930. Upon their appointment as Engineers (Electrical) the Diploma holders and the graduates had a common list of seniority and belonged to the same cadre. The respondent No. 1 granted to the graduate engineers the higher time scale of pay of Rs. 1560-60-2280, upon their completion of 3 years service as Engineers (Electrical). This "promotion" was granted pursuant to the scheme of recruiting 1st class graduates as management trainees to man the managerial cadre. The petitioners are denied this "promotion" upon completion of three years' service as Engineers (Electrical). The reason is that the petitioners are diploma holders and not engineering graduates. 3. When the petitioners and the graduate engineers were appointed to the post of Engineers (Electrical) they were appointed to the same cadre and in a common pay scale. The diploma holders and graduates were both qualified for appointment as Engineers (Electrical). The graduates were directly appointed and the diploma holders were promoted through the rank of technicians. 4. Since discrimination and violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India is alleged, two factors must be considered. The diploma holders and graduates were both qualified for appointment as Engineers (Electrical). The graduates were directly appointed and the diploma holders were promoted through the rank of technicians. 4. Since discrimination and violation of Art.14 of the Constitution of India is alleged, two factors must be considered. Firstly whether the petitioner's and the graduate Engineers are equals. Equality and equal treatment is a right of equals. The Engineers - diploma holders and graduates - were appointed on the same pay scale. There is no qualitative difference between the duties and responsibilities of graduates and diploma holders in their performances as Engineers (Electrical). Engineers (Electrical), whether graduates or diploma holders are members of one cadre with a common gradation list. The respondent too considered the two sets of the engineers as equals. That is way after 1984 the higher pay scale has been given to diploma holders - Engineers (Electrical) also. There is no doubt that the two sets of Engineers (Electrical) are equals. It is permissible to differentiate la the matter of pay scale, provided such differentiation is based on classification. This means different classes of employees may be paid in different pay scales. If the respondents action of paying the graduates & higher pay scale, is based or reasonable classification having nexus with the object sought to be achieved, such differentiation may not amount to discrimination and a breach of the equality clause. Qualitative differences between two sets of employees may justify differential treatment. Such differences relate to different aspects of performance and evaluation Higher reliability, responsibility or even higher educational qualification may necessitate differential payment of salary. Then the differentiation must have a rational nexus with the object of differentiation. But the respondents have not even alleged such differences in quality, efficiency or responsibility between diploma holders and graduates. Thus the preferential payment of higher pay scale to graduates is not based on permissible classification. 5. If was suggested that the graduates, equipped with superior educational qualification and training with the respondent, possess superior technical ability to perform the job of Engineers (Electrical). This suggestion does not stand scrutiny. The petitioners had behind them the technical experience of 12 long years when they were appointed as Engineers (Electrical) Thus the initial advantage which the Engineering Graduates had is matched by the long experience of the diploma holders. This suggestion does not stand scrutiny. The petitioners had behind them the technical experience of 12 long years when they were appointed as Engineers (Electrical) Thus the initial advantage which the Engineering Graduates had is matched by the long experience of the diploma holders. This factor made them equals in the post of Engineers (Electrical). The respondent rightly accepted them as equals, paid them in the same time scale and maintained a common seniority list. 6. As I have already stated the Engineers (Electrical) is one cadre. The graduates and diploma holders are all members of this cadre. The nature of the duties of Engineers (Electrical), be they graduates or diploma holders is identical. The affidavit of the respondent No. 1 does not reveal that the graduate engineers upon their appointment to this cadre shouldered a responsibility greater than that shouldered by the diploma holders. Nor is there classification of the two sets of employees based on rational considerations. Upon their coming into the same cadre there was no distinction between graduate and non graduate engineers (Electrical). This is the principle which emerges from Abdul Basheer v. Karunakaran, (Abdul Basheer v. Karunakaran (1989 (2) KLT (SC) 3)) Govindankutty v. State of Kerala, (Govindankutty v. State of Kerala ( 1990 (1) KLT 479 ) and Basavalingappa (State of Mysore v. Basavalingappa ( AIR 1987 SC 411 ). 7. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the cases of S. Sreenivasa Rao and Others (State of A. P. and Others v. G. Sreenivasa Rao and Others ( 1989 (2) LLJ 149 ), Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association (Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India ( 1989 (2) LLJ 506 .), Mew Ram Kanojia (Mew Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Science and Others ( 1989 (2) LLJ 578 )) and Girish Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union (Girish Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India and Others ( 1991 (1) LLJ 349 ). Those cases arose out of different sets of facts. The case before me is a case of employees in the same cadre who were accepted as equals by the employer None of the cases cited by counsel for the respondents is applicable to the circumstances of this case. 8. Those cases arose out of different sets of facts. The case before me is a case of employees in the same cadre who were accepted as equals by the employer None of the cases cited by counsel for the respondents is applicable to the circumstances of this case. 8. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs I allow this petition, I direct the respondents to grant to the petitioners the higher scale of pay of Rs. 1560-60-2280 with effect from the date on which they completed 3 years of service.