Order: Paschimbanga Rajya Krishi Prajukti Sahayak Samity is an association of the Krishi Prajukti Sahayaks who are employees under the Director of Agriculture. Government of West Bengal. Petitioner no. 1 is the General Secretary and the other petitioners are members of the said Samiti. They are drawing salary in the revised scale No.6 (Rs. 1040-1920/-) of the ROPA Rules, 1990. They claim that they should be given the higher pay scale No. 10 matching the burden of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post. It appears from Annexure-J to the writ petition that the Third Pay Commission set up by the Government of West Bengal recommended in their report that the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak should be assigned the scale No.7. The Pay Commission clearly observed that in view of the recruitment qualification, elaborate training arrangement for the incumbent to the post and the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the post, the Commission was of the view that the post should have a higher scale of pay than the existing one and accordingly recommended scale No. 7 for the said post. The gravamen of the petitioners is that inspite of such specific recommendation of the Pay Commission the State Government did not provide them the higher scale of pay and has arbitrarily given them the pay scale no. 6 which is the pay scale for the post of the lower division clerk also although they have to discharge more onerous responsibilities enumerated in paragraph-14 of the writ petition and although they have to compulsorily take pre-service training of a duration of six months and further training for six months thereafter which the lower division clerks who are also enjoying the same pay scale No. 6 are not required to undertake or undergo. It is the contention of the petitioners that ignoring the recommendation of the Pay Commission the State Government has arbitrarily bracketed them with the lower division clerks without; taking into consideration the higher responsibilities and duties required to be discharged by them and the compulsory training requirement attached to the post, both pre-service and in-service. Unfortunately, the State of West Bengal or for that matter any of the respondents did not file any affidavit-in-opposition challenging the averments made in the writ petition nor did anybody appear on behalf of the respondents to contest the writ petition. Unfortunately, the State of West Bengal or for that matter any of the respondents did not file any affidavit-in-opposition challenging the averments made in the writ petition nor did anybody appear on behalf of the respondents to contest the writ petition. The respondents also did not produce any records inspite of specific direction. In the circumstances, the Court has to decide the matter on the basis of the unchallenged averments appearing in the writ petition. 2. The method and procedure of selection of trainees for appointment to the posts Krishi Prajukti Sahayak has been described in paragraph-4 of the writ petition. The essential educational qualification is School Final. Higher Secondary or equivalent. The candidates who will qualify in the written test will appear for oral test for the posts of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak and thereafter the selected candidates will have to undergo a training in agricultural technology in the Gram Sevak Training Centre for six months during which they will get a stipend of Rs. 100/- only per month and then an examination is held at the end of the training period and the Director of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal, issues certificate in favour of the successful candidates for the said training course in agricultural technology in Part-I. Those who come out successful in the Part-I examination are posted within a period of one year from the publication of the result of the said examination and after that the posted candidates have to go in training again for six months and to appear in Part-II examination at the end of the said training. Thereafter the Director of Agriculture issues certificate in agricultural technology in Part-II in favour of the successful candidates. In paragraph-l4 of the writ petition grounds have been catalouged in justification of the claim of the petitioners for higher scale of pay. There it has been mentioned inter alia that after the training in Part-I and Part-II as mentioned above the Krishi Prajukti Sahayaks have to undertake monthly and fortnight training regularly in scientific method of agricultural technology during the service period and they have to conduct and supervise various types of trials and demonstrations under their own responsibility. The petitioners also filed representation before the Third Pay Commission claiming higher pay scale for them. The petitioners also filed representation before the Third Pay Commission claiming higher pay scale for them. From what is appearing in the record it is seen that apart from having the minimum educational qualification of School Final Or Higher Secondary which is also the minimum educational qualification for the lower division clerks the Krishi Prajukti Sahayaks after selection on the basis of written and oral tests have to cross the additional hurdle of undergoing agricultural technology training for six months conducted by the Director of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal and to pass the examination held at the conclusion of such training before they are found qualified to join the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. This training is obviously an additional requirement which the lower divisions clerks enjoying the same scale of pay are not required to undertake. The significant feature of the process is that one who will not come out successful in the examination at the end of the pre-service training will not be entitled to appointment to the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. This is a factor which distinguishes the position of the Krishi Prajukti Sahayak from that of the lower division clerks. Then they have to undergo an in-service training after joining the service for another six months and to pass the examination held at the end of that training. Their duties also have distinct peculiarities mentioned in the writ petition. 3. The Pay Commission, it appears, took note of all those factors and recommended a higher scale for the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. Pay Commission is an official body which the Government constitutes at intervals for considering and recommending revision of the pay scales and other service conditions and benefits for the different categories of its employees. The task of the Pay Commission being a highly responsible one requiring sagacious and coordinated exercise of different processes of complicated nature such as, the processes of evaluation, differentiation, categorisation, rationalisation etc., of different factors covering a wide range of fields, the Government constitutes Pay Commission with persons of accredited merits suited to the job. It is therefore not only meet and proper but rather incumbent that the Government shall bestow due consideration to the recommendations of the Pay Commission before revising the pay-scales of its employees. It is therefore not only meet and proper but rather incumbent that the Government shall bestow due consideration to the recommendations of the Pay Commission before revising the pay-scales of its employees. This is however not to say that the Government is bound by the recommendations of the Pay Commission and must ,implement, without consideration, all its recommendations. There is no doubt that the Government for reasons relevant to the matter may, on consideration, refuse to accept or act upon any or many of the recommendations of the Pay Commission. But this the Government cannot do arbitrarily without consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Commission; particularly if such refusal has the effect of relegating any category of its employees to be shelved in any discriminatory classification of whimsical import in utter disregard of the reasoned classification recommended by the Pay Commission on consideration of factors relevant to such consideration. If in revising the pay-scale of any category of its employees the Government assigns such category a pay scale lower than that recommended by the Pay Commission, but without considering the recommendation of the Pay-Commission and rather ignoring the same in silence, this may result in a hostile discrimination or in a callous discrimination of arbitrary nature equated to hostile discrimination in which case the aggrieved persons may certainly approach this Court in its writ jurisdiction for proper redress. 4. The Pay Commission constituted by the Government puts in a lot of labour, deliberation and consideration and gives hearing to all concerned before fixing or recommending the pay scales and other benefits for the different categories of the employees. The Pay Commission also keeps in view amongst others the directive principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India in formulating' different pay scales for different categories of employees. The converse' proposition which inheres in the directive principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is that there should be difference in pay between groups of employees whose works are not of the same or equal nature. The converse' proposition which inheres in the directive principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is that there should be difference in pay between groups of employees whose works are not of the same or equal nature. The Pay Commission indeed has to see that where the nature of the work-load and the quality of responsibility of two groups are markedly different, the difference being not unsubstantial, nominal or marginal only, the pay scale for the two groups also should not be ordinarily the same and the difference in the work-load and the quality of responsibility is reflected in the difference of pay scales commensurate with the magnitude or extent of such difference relating to the work-load and quality of responsibility. The Pay Commission has thus to discharge a very onerous task, not only in fixing the pay scales of different categories of the employees but also in fitting different types of employees into different categories consistent with the nature of the duties and responsibilities required to be discharged by them. In this connection, the following observation of the Supreme Court in Delhi Veterinary Association vs. Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1221 is very illuminating: "In addition to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', the pay structure of the employees of the Government should reflect many other social values. Apart from being the dominant employer, the Government is also expected to be a model employer. It has there fore to follow certain basic principles in fixing the pay scales of various posts and cadres in the Government service. The degree of skill strain of work, experience involved, training required, responsibility undertaken, mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness .of the task, hazard attendant on work and fatigue involved are, according to the Third Pay Commission, some of the relevant factors which should be taken into consideration in fixing pay scale. The method of recruitment, the level at which' the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational and technical qualifications prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the public, avenues of promotion available and horizontal and vertical relativity with other jobs in the same service or outside are also relevant factors". The method of recruitment, the level at which' the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational and technical qualifications prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the public, avenues of promotion available and horizontal and vertical relativity with other jobs in the same service or outside are also relevant factors". It may be mentioned here that although the Third Pay Commission referred-to in the observation quoted above is the Third Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government, yet the principles on which any Pay Commission works, whether appointed by the Central Government or the State Government are substantially the same. There is no difficulty in appreciating that in formulating different pay scales and categorising different categones of employees recommended; for the different pay scales, the Third Pay Commission of the State Government also took into consideration all relevant factors and with reference to the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak the Third Pay Commission appointed by the State Government made the following observation: "13.2.18. The minimum recruitment qualification for the post of Krishi Prajikti Sahayaks is a pass certificate of School Final or equivalent examination. An incumbent to the post has to undertake six months pre-service training after selection. Thereafter also he is required to have another six month's training. In view of the recruitment qualification, elaborate training arrangement for the incumbent to the post and the nature of the duties and responsibilities attached to the post, we are of the view that this post should have a higher scale of pay than the existing one. We therefore recommend that our suggested scale No. 7 should be assigned to this post". 5. The position obtaining in the matter may be summarised thus. The incumbents to the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak must not only have the qualification of School Final or equivalent examination which is also the qualification for the post of lower division clerk, but they must qualify both in written and oral tests for being selected. Again mere selection on the basis of written and oral tests would not entitle an incumbent to an appointment to the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. Again mere selection on the basis of written and oral tests would not entitle an incumbent to an appointment to the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. He shall then have to undergo a pre-service training in agricultural technology under the Department of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal for a period of six months and after such training he has to appear and pass an examination in which case he is issued a certificate in agricultural technology, Part I by the Director of Agriculture Government of West Bengal. During this period of pre-service training he only gets a stipend of Rs. 100/- per month but is not placed in any pay scale. If he fails to pass the said training examination he becomes disqualified for appointment. It is thus evident that he is appointed to the post only if he passes the examination after pre-service training in agricultural technology, Part-I. In other words, for being entitled to an appointment the incumbent has to acquire additional qualification through pre-service training in agricultural technology. The requirement of this additional training qualification deserves consideration in determining as to whether the incumbents should be placed in the same category of employees having only similar basic educational qualification but not required to have any additional training qualification as is the case with the Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. They are also required to undergo an in-service training for another six months in agricultural technology, Part-II after joining the post. Their nature of duties also distinctly different from the duties required to be performed by the lower division clerks. Having regard to all these distinguishing features the Pay Commission thought it fit that they should not be equated in respect of their pay scales with the lower division clerk, and accordingly while the Pay' Commission recommended scale No. 6 for the lower division clerk, for Krishi Prajukti Sahayaks Scale No. 7 was recommended. The Government, however, did not, as it seems, accept the recommendation of the Pay Commission and assigned to the Krishi Prajukti Sahayaks the same pay scale No. 6 which was given to the lower division clerks. The petitioners made several representations to different Authorities in the matter but the same proved ineffective. Nothing however is forthcoming as to why the Government turned down the recommendation of the Pay Commission regarding the pay scale for the post of the Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. The petitioners made several representations to different Authorities in the matter but the same proved ineffective. Nothing however is forthcoming as to why the Government turned down the recommendation of the Pay Commission regarding the pay scale for the post of the Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. Pay scale of Government employees is a matter of vital concern for them. The very purpose of appointing a Pay Commission is to get the matter regarding the pay scales of its employees thoroughly considered and looked into so that there may not he any undue discrimination or deprivation of the employees or any group or section thereof. 6. There is no doubt that the Government is not bound in any matter by the recommendation of the Pay Commission. But the Government also obviously cannot act whimsically or arbitrarily in the matter of fixing the pay scale of any section of its employees ignoring the recommendation of the Pay Commission without adverting its attention thereto. Even in this writ proceeding the Government has not come forward to explain as to them hat prompted them to ignore the recommendation of the Pay Commission regarding the pay scale for the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak. In the absence of any reason forthcoming from the Government as to why the recommendation of the Pay Commission regarding the pay scale of the petitioners could not be accepted and why the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak has been assigned a pay scale lower than the pay scale recommended by the Pay Commission, it must be held that the Government acted arbitrarily and with callous discrimination of arbitrary nature equating to hostile discrimination in awarding a lower pay scale to the petitioners for whom the Pay Commission, for good reasons assigned by it awarded a higher pay scale, namely, the pay scale No.7. The petitioners of course claim pay scale No. 10 for them. Since however the Pay Commission did not consider it fit to award the said scale for them, I do not think that they have been able to make out any good case for awarding scale No. 10 to them. But having regard to the recommendation of the Pay Commission the Government, I am of the opinion, acted arbitrarily and with callous discrimination of arbitrary nature equating to hostile discrimination in refusing to give the petitioners the recommended pay scale No. 7 of the ROPA Rules, 1990. But having regard to the recommendation of the Pay Commission the Government, I am of the opinion, acted arbitrarily and with callous discrimination of arbitrary nature equating to hostile discrimination in refusing to give the petitioners the recommended pay scale No. 7 of the ROPA Rules, 1990. The respondents are accordingly directed to issue within two months from the date of communication of this order necessary circulars/notifications/office orders awarding the pay scale No. 7 of the ROPA Rules, 1990 for the post of Krishi Prajukti Sahayak in super-session of the previous circular/notification/office orders awarding them the pay scale No.6, with retrospective effect from the date from which they were awarded the benefit of pay scale No.6. The respondents will also take other necessary steps in respect of matters incidental or consequential to the implementation of the above direction. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly. No order as to costs however is made. Application allowed with direction upon the respondent.