JUDGMENT BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1989 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in Matter No. 4008 of 1988. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. In the writ petition the appellant/petitioner's case was that they were denied equal pay for equal work. The appellant/writ petitioner was Naik Radio Operator in the Central Reserve Police Force and that they were aggrieved by the pay scale given to them on the basis of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission at Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-25-1400 with allowance of Rs. 40/- per month. The case of the appellant is that the Signal personnel in CRPF besides performing technical duties of providing communication, looking after the repair and maintenance of equipment, providing crypto cover to pass classified traffic have also to perform executive duties along with the General Duty Personnel and undergo the some hazards and lead the nomadic life typical to the CRPF. The minimum rank of a Radio Operator in the CRPF is a Naik Radio whereas personnel with the same technical qualifications and experience and looking after provisions of communications in State services, where the frequency of movements is lesser and better facilities of accommodation/workshop are available, are granted the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector with higher emoluments. Radio operators working in the office of Director of Police Wireless, Central Water Commission and other Government agencies are placed in the grade of Rs. 380-560 per month, as against the grade of Rs. 225-308 with Rs. 40/- as special pay for a Naik RO, Similarly, Cipher Operator who have to handle the pay scale of Rs. 380-640 in DCPC and CWC. As the minimum qualification, standard of technical training and working conditions of these trades are identical, our request before the Commission is that the pay scales may be so fixed that the disparity in pay with DCPW /CWC employees is removed in that their pay scales are kept at a higher level than those working in State Government to attract suitable talents for these jobs. 2. It is not in dispute that the Naik Radio Operators had to acquire higher academic qualifications but they alleged that they were enjoying lesser benefits in comparison with Naik (GD) employee in CRPF. 3. The appellant petitioner was performing much more harzardous job but he was getting lesser pay. 2. It is not in dispute that the Naik Radio Operators had to acquire higher academic qualifications but they alleged that they were enjoying lesser benefits in comparison with Naik (GD) employee in CRPF. 3. The appellant petitioner was performing much more harzardous job but he was getting lesser pay. His claim is not for higher pay but for equal pay for equal work. 4. It is submitted that the principle for equal pay for equal work is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court. The first case on this point was the case reported in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 , followed up by various case laws on this point. 5. On behalf of the respondents an attempt was made to show that the Signal Personnel in the Central Reserve Police Force perform technical duties and also look after the repair and maintenance equipment and other ancilliary duties along with the general duty personnel and furthermore it was stated that they perform some hazardous duties of technical nature but the particulars whereof had not been disclosed and as such the respondents case was that it is the case where the appellant was not entitled to equal pay with that of their counter-parts. The Learned Trial Judge have held that the appellant petitioner's basic duty as Naik Operator is to operate radio equipment and not to carry out any repair work of equipment for which head constables known as radio machanics are there. The learned Judge also noted that the respondents had recommended for higher pay scale for Naik Radio Operator before the Pay Commission but the Pay Commission did not grant the said pay as recommended by the respondents. 6. The learned Trial Judge on considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the appellant/petitioner was originally appointed as a constable and subsequently was promoted to the rank of Naik and as the appellant/petitioner being Naik was working as Radio Operator he was getting same special pay but cannot get the same pay scale of that of Radio Operator of Central Water Commission and Director of Police which is a promotional post. On that ground the learned trial judge has turned down the prayer of the appellant. 7. On that ground the learned trial judge has turned down the prayer of the appellant. 7. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that when the Radio Operators of Central Water-Commission or the Director of Police Wireless were getting higher pay in that event the appellant performing the same nature of duties and responsibilities and it was further submitted that the appellant was also performing more hazardous duties which might cause danger to his life but he was not given equal pay to that of his counter-parts in the other organisation. It was submitted that the facts and circumstances of the case is fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1982 SC 879 (supra). The principle for equal pay for equal work can only be denied in a case where the responsibilities are different but in the instant case it is not in dispute that the appellants were performing the same works and discharging same responsibilities but the learned Trial Judge held that if higher pay scale is given to him in that event it will become equal to a promotional post that is not the criteria. The principle for equal pay for equal work is part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Admittedly the appellant was performing technical duties and performing more hazardous jobs apart from the fact that because of the nature of his work he might have to face some danger. 8. The Central Reserve Police Force is engaged for the purpose of maintaining law and order under a peculiar circumstances where the nature of the duties may in some cases be continuous. They are to discharge functions where the riot broke out and where their services may be required for the purpose of maintaining public order and tranquility. Whereas the other persons similarly situated in other organisations they have not to perform such peculiar nature of jobs the basis of the materials on record. It cannot be disputed that they were not only performing the similar nature of duties they were also performing more hazardous duties than that of the Radio Operators of the Central Water Commission or the Director of Police Wireless. It cannot be disputed that they were not only performing the similar nature of duties they were also performing more hazardous duties than that of the Radio Operators of the Central Water Commission or the Director of Police Wireless. The Radio Operators engaged in the Office of the Director of Police Wireless also performed the same, similar and identical nature of works as both the authorities are to deal with public order and for bringing peace in the society and as such, there could not be any basis for making any discrimination between the pay scales of the Radio Operators of the Director of Police Wireless and Naik Radio Operators in the Central Reserve Police Force. 9. It is also on record that the Radio Operators of the Central Water Commission and the Director of Police Wireless perform duties in cities and areas which are safe but the Naik Radio Operators of the Central Reserve Police Force have to work throughout the length and breadth of the territory of India and even in the remote parts away from the locality. 10. The respondents appreciated the position and made a recommendation before the Pay Commission for higher pay scale and after the Pay Commission turned down the decision taken and recommendation made by the State Government before the Pay Commission, the Union of India has now come before this court with a different stand. The respondents cannot take contradictory stands, one stand before the Pay Commission and the different stand before this Court when the decision of the Pay Commission and/or recommendation of the Pay Commission and the decision by the Government has been challenged. 11. It is well settled principle that the parties cannot take any inconsistent stand according to the convenience of the parties and in the instant case the Union of India cannot take such contradictory and inconsistent stand with each other. 12. The Union of India is bound by stand already taken before the pay commission. In any event the recommendation of the Pay Commission is not binding but the Government has to take a decision. 12. The Union of India is bound by stand already taken before the pay commission. In any event the recommendation of the Pay Commission is not binding but the Government has to take a decision. When the Government had taken a decision before the pay commission for giving the petitioner's equal pay for equal work on the basis of facts and analogies put forward before the pay commission, it was a duty of the Government to adhere to for the purpose of doing justice to its employees. It is also the duty on the part of the respondents to see that no diserimination is made in the matter of pay scale. 13. Accordingly, We are of the view that the learned Trial Judge was wrong in rejecting the writ petition on the ground that if equal pay scale for equal work is given in this case in that event the pay of the petitioner will be equivalent to the pay scale of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. It is upto the respondents to revise and/or to reconsider the pay-scale of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. But on that ground the principle of equal pay for equal work could not be frustrated. Accordingly, the order of the learned Trial Judge dated 28th September, 1989 in Matter No. 4002 of 1988 is set aside and the writ petition succeeds. The respondents are directed to fix up the pay of the petitioner at Rs. 1320-2040/- and to revise the same if the same pay-scale has since been revised in order to remove the disparity. 14. Accordingly, in terms of our order the appeal succeeds. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed with directions. I agree.