JUDGMENT 1. - . The petitioner retired as Chief Public Analyst and Chemical Examiner of the State of Rajasthan. While working on that post, he was made to work for the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur, for the period from 1st March, 1982 to 29th February, 1984, when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The officers, who worked on that post between the period from 23rd December, 1964 to 29th February, 1970, were all granted special pay at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month, for working for the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur, as well. After 10th February, 1970, one Ashok Bhattacharya, was appointed as the Chief Public Analyst and Chemical Examiner, in the State of Rajasthan, but, he did not claim any amount by way of special pay, and no amount was paid to him as such. The petitioner, after taking charge of the above said post, and being asked to work for the Excise Commissioner, prayed that he be paid special pay for the period of his service, for which he worked for the Excise Commissioner as well. His case was recommended by the Medical & Health Department, under which, he was working as Public Analyst, for grant of special pay, but the Special Secretary, (Revenue), Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan turned down the proposal, with the result that special pay was not granted to the petitioner, who retired from the service on 29th February, 1984. In spite of various representations,.the petitioner not having been granted the special pay for the period in question, he has approached this Court by filing this writ petition, in which, it has been stated that the persons appointed after his retirement, have been granted special pay, and that the special pay was paid at the rate of Rs. 300/- with effect from 2nd November, 1989, and at the rate of Rs. 500/- with effect from 1st April, 1993, and has sought a direction from this Court, to the respondents, for grant of special pay to him, at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum, for the period that it remained unpaid. 500/- with effect from 1st April, 1993, and has sought a direction from this Court, to the respondents, for grant of special pay to him, at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month, with interest at the rate of 24 per cent per annum, for the period that it remained unpaid. The writ petition was admitted on 28th August, 1992, and notices were given to the State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary to the Government, Medical & Health Department, Rajasthan, the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur, and to the Special Secretary (Revenue), Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 respectively). Only the respondent No. 1 has filed a reply to the writ petition, and neither any reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, nor has anyone cared to appear on their behalf. In the reply, the respondent No. 1 has not disputed the position that the persons who were made to work for the respondent No. 2, were given special pay at the rates mentioned above, for the periods in question, and it is also not disputed that the case of the petitioner was also recommended, but, it has been stated that the respondent No. 3, Special Secretary (Revenue), Finance Department, had turned down the recommendation, with the result that the special pay could not be granted to him. 2. As noted above, none has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3, the Special Secretary (Revenue), Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan, on whose behalf, no reply has also been filed, to enable this Court, to understand, why the petitioner was treated differently, and why his case was not considered worth granting of special pay, when, the officers, who were appointed earlier than him and the officers, who were appointed later than him, and who had claimed special pay, were granted the same. It is true that the Medical & Health Department could not have granted the special pay to the petitioner, but, unless some reasons are coming forward, and which could not be furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent No 1, this Court cannot come to the conclusion that the case for grant of special pay to the petitioner, had not been rejected arbitrarily, but, on some good grounds. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has also not been able to give good reasons as to why the case of the petitioner for grant of special pay, was rejected by the respondent No. 3, and rightly so, because, he has not been given any instructions in this regard. In my view, the petitioner had a right to be treated equally and to be given the special pay. Admittedly, the special pay was being granted at the rate of Rs. 150/- per month up to the month of February, 1970, and it has been increased to Rs. 300/- per month, with effect from 2nd November, 1989, and since no record has been produced, and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 is unable to say anything about it, it would be proper to direct the respondent No. 3, to fix the special pay, which cannot be less than Rs. 150/- per month, for the relevant period, i.e., from 1st March, 1982 to 29th February, 1984, for which, the petitioner worked for the respondent No. 2 also. The case of the petitioner should be considered by the respondent No. 3, within a period of two months, from the date of receipt of this order, a copy of which should be sent by this Court to the respondent No. 3, and the entire amount, so fixed, should be paid to the petitioner, with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum, from the date that it became due, till the date that the payment is made, by the respondents. The petitioner would also be entitled to the costs incidental to this writ petition, assessed at Rs. 1,500/-. The writ petition is decided accordingly, with the above-said directions, issued to the respondents.Writ Petition Decided Accordingly *******