Judgment A. K. Ganguli, J. 1. The petitioner no.1 is an organisation of the Basic health Workers in the State of Bihar. Petitioners No.2 and 3 are the President and general Secretary of the working Basic Health Workers (hereinafter referred to as the said B. H. Ws ). This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for similar scale of pay to the Auxiliary health Workers (hereinafter referred to as the said A. H. W. S ). 2. The case of the petitioners is that both the A. H. Ws. and B. H. Ws were the Basic Health Workers and doing the same nature of work. Further case of the petitioner is that the posts of A. H. Ws. were created earlier than the B. H. Ws. and the basic qualification for appointment to the post of A. H. Ws. was simply matriculate and two years training in basic health. 3. Thereafter in the year 1974 the posts of B. H. Ws. was created with prescribed qualification of second division matriculate in science and before appointment they had to undergo a crash programme of ten and half months intensive training. The petitioner case is that the said training period of ten and half months covers the entire syllabus of training which has to be given to the A. H. Ws. Thereafter an examination was taken and on the basis of such examination only successful candidates were appointed to the post of b. H. Ws. It is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as B. H. Ws. on the basis of such qualifications, namely, second division matriculate in science and on the basic of such intensive training of ten and half months and they were given scale of pay of Rs.220-315 and at the relevant point of a. H. Ws. were given Rs.240-396. 4. The said disparity in the scale of pay between two groups was maintained from the very beginning and after appointment the petitioners made various representations against such disparity. Further case of the petitioners is that despite those representations by the petitioners to the Health Commissioner the matter was kept pending consideration before the pay Anomalies Committee around the year 1981-82 but the Pay anomalies Committee while giving its report in the year 1984 kept silent about the anomalies in the scale of pay of b. H. Ws. and A. H. Ws. and A. H. Ws. Thereafter the matter was again perused by the petitioners and recommendations were made by the Health Commissioner for removing the anomalies in the scale of pay of B. H. W. s and A. H. W. s. and actually recommendation was made for granting the scale of pay of Rs.680-965 to the petitioners which was admissible to the a. H. Ws. However, after such recommendation the advice of the Finance department was sought in the matter. At this juncture the Finance Department decline to give any advice in the matter as the report of the Pay Anomalies committee was pending consideration before the State Government. 5. The governmental decision, however, did not help in the removal of the aforesaid anomaly in the pay scale between B. H. Ws. and A. H. Ws. even though there was recommendation of the Health Commissioner in favour of the removal of such anomaly. At this stage, however, the petitoner No.1 made a representation before the Minister, health, Government of Bihar, inter alia, praying for removal of such anomaly in the pay scale. The said representation of the petitioner was considered by the Health Department of the State Government and the deputy Secretary to the State Government, Department of Health, placed a memorandum dated 12-5-1988 before the 5th Pay Revision committee with relevant facts. In the said memorandum it was stated that the qualification prescribed for B. H. Ws. was higher and the B. H. Ws. and A. H. Ws. perform the same work and that there should be equal pay for equal work. A copy of such recommendation has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ petition. 6. The grievance of the petitioners is that even though the Pay Revision committee has acknowledged the fact that the B. H. Ws. and A. H. Ws. were doing equal work but the demand of equal pay was not granted to the b. H. Ws. inter alia, on the ground that b. H. Ws. had never been in the pay scale which is given to the A. H. Ws. it has also been referred to in paragraph-14 of the writ petition that the matter was referred to the Pay Anomaly Removal committee which considered the matter and came to the conclusion that since b H. Ws. and A. H. Ws. had never been in the same scale of pay. B. H. Ws. it has also been referred to in paragraph-14 of the writ petition that the matter was referred to the Pay Anomaly Removal committee which considered the matter and came to the conclusion that since b H. Ws. and A. H. Ws. had never been in the same scale of pay. B. H. Ws. cannot be granted pay scale at par with the A. H. WS. 7. Raising, inter alia, the same grievance petitioner No.2 previously came before this Court in the capacity of President of petitioners association and the said writ petition was numbered as C. W. J. C. No.3149/91 and ultimately was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 14-8-91 with a direction to the Health Commissioner to consider and dispose of the petitioners representation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the representation. 8. Petitioners positive case is that pursuant to the said order dated 14-8-91 the petitioner No.2 filed a representation on 5-9- 91 but the same was not disposed of within three months as ordered by this Court. Thereafter, the petitioners sent two reminders to the health Commissioner on 15-2-92 and 1-6-92 but no decision has been communicated by the authorities concerned to the petitioners and he was compelled to come to this Court on 10th July, 1992. 9. When the matter was kept pending at the stage of admission, this Court on 28th June, 1993 directed the State counsel to disclose the reasons why the representation has not been disposed of. The State Counsel was further directed to disclose the reason why the result of such representation was not communciated to the petitioners in the event of the disposal of the same. Similar opportunity was also given to the State Counsel on 12th July, 1993 to state before this Court whether the representation has been actually disposed of. Again on 2nd of August 1995 when the matter was taken up the position did not improve as on that date also the State counsel did not inform the Court about the disposal of the representation. Thereafter the matter was admitted lor final hearing on 17th January, 1994. 10. Again on 2nd of August 1995 when the matter was taken up the position did not improve as on that date also the State counsel did not inform the Court about the disposal of the representation. Thereafter the matter was admitted lor final hearing on 17th January, 1994. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents by the one section Officer, it has been stated in paragraph-14 that the original file dealing with the petitioners representation has been misplaced somewhere and could not be traced out. In the said paragraph it is also stated it is difficult to say on the basis of memory anything definite about the fate of the representation filed by the writ petitioners. The said paragraph has been affirmed as true to the knowledge. This shows the casual manner in which the directions of this Court are dealt with by the respondents. 11. This Court by its order dated 14-8-91 directed the respondent authorities to dispose of the petitioners representation within the stipulated time and pursuant to that the petitioner made representation and sent two reminders. Thereafter the representations were kept pending and as no decision was taken this writ petition was filed. As pointed earlier, on three occasions this Court gave time to the respondents to disclose the fate of such representation. In the background of these facts the statement of one section officer in the counter-affidavit is very irresponsible and unfortunate. 12. This court in no uncertain terms condemns the aforesaid casual and cavalian fashion in which the administrative authorities are dealing with this matter in which the court repeatedly gave the aforesaid directions. Those directions have vital connections with the rights of the citizens. But the concerned officer of the department are totally unconcerned about all these. The aforesaid state of affairs in the Health department of State of Bihar are highly disturbing and shake the conscience of this Court. To say the least, this does not speak highly of the manner in which the administration is run in that particular department. 13. Now coming to the merits of the case, this Court finds that the case of the petitioners in paragraphs 5 and 20 of the writ petition is that the a. H. Ws. and B. H. Ws. are doing the same work and performing the same function. This has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. 13. Now coming to the merits of the case, this Court finds that the case of the petitioners in paragraphs 5 and 20 of the writ petition is that the a. H. Ws. and B. H. Ws. are doing the same work and performing the same function. This has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. No where in the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the nature of work performed by the petitioners and the A. H. Ws. is not the same. 14. A two-fold stand has been taken in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondents which can be summed up as follows : (i) B. H. Ws. are to receive training for ten and half months whereas the A. H. Ws. are receiving training for two years. (ii) The B. H. Ws. and A. H. Ws. cannot be placed in the same scale of pay as their pay scale were all along different. 15. The aforesaid stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit is nothing new inasmuch as the aforesaid facts are already therein the writ petition. No explanation has been given either in the counter-affidavit or in the course of argument why recommendations made by the State Government to the Fifth Pay Revision committee for similar pay scale for two categories of employees, namely, a. H. Ws. and B. H. Ws. are not acceptable and the same should not be followed. In annexures 2 and 3 of the writ petition, cogent materials have been disclosed by the petitioners in support of their claim that the nature of work performed by both categories of employees, namely, A. H. Ws. and B. H. Ws. is the same. 16. It is of course true that the court will not and cannot decide whether the nature of work which is performed by these two categories of employees is the same. But in this case the Court can proceed on the basis of clear findings of the relevant authorities, namely, the Health Commissioner and the Deputy Secretary, health Department, that both categories of employees, namely, a. H. Ws. and B. H. Ws are doing the same nature of work. There is also no denial of the fact that they are not doing the same work in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. and B. H. Ws are doing the same nature of work. There is also no denial of the fact that they are not doing the same work in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. As such, this court on the basis of the materials comes to the conclusion that both the categories of employees are doing the same nature of work. 17. Now, if same work is done the same scale of pay has to be offered. This principle under Article 39 (d) of the constitution of India has been elevated to the status of a fundamental right by the Supreme Court. In several judgments of the Apex Court, it has been held that mere artificial difference between two group of employees cannot stand in the way giving the treatment of equal pay for equal work particularly when both categories of employees are doing the same nature of work. Reference may be made to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of dhirender Chamoli and another V/s. The state of U. P. , reported in (1980) 1 S. C. C. page 637 in the case of Surinder Singh and another V/s. Engineer-in-Chief, c. P. W. D. and others, reported in (1986) 1 s. C. C. Page 639, and in the case of jaipal and others V/s. The State of Haryana and others, reported in A. I. R.1988 supreme Court page 1504. 18. In this case the Court cannot refuse the relief to the petitioner on the ground of alleged pendency of the representations of the petitioner. As noted above the respondents have dealt with the representations of the petitioner in a very casual manner and they have stated that the representation of the petitioner has been misplaced. Therefore, the representation cannot be said to be pending before the respondents. In that view of the matter, this Court has entertained this writ petition. 19. This writ petition, thus, succeeds. This Court, therefore, directs that the petitioners should be placed in the same pay scale which is made available to the A. H. Ws. from the date of filing of this writ petition which is with effect from the month of July, 1992. 19. This writ petition, thus, succeeds. This Court, therefore, directs that the petitioners should be placed in the same pay scale which is made available to the A. H. Ws. from the date of filing of this writ petition which is with effect from the month of July, 1992. The arrear of pay which is admissible to the petitioners on the ground of placement in scale of pay as stated above, should be made available to them within six months from the date of receipt production of a copy of this order. From the month of April, 1996, the petitioners must be given the pay scale of A. H. Ws. 20. This writ-petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Cost of rupees 5000 is aw?-ded against the state of Bihar to be paid by it within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment in favour of the legal Aid Committee, Patna High court. The State is however at liberty to recover the said amount from the officers who are responsible for the casual manner in dealing with the representation of the petitioner as pointed out above. Petition Allowed.