JUDGMENT : 1. Writ Petition No. 8002/92 was initially filed in this court by the Rajasthan High Court Non-gazetted Ministerial Staff Association through its President, Jaipur (petitioner No. 1), the members of ministerial staff i.e., L.D.C.s, U.D.C.s, Office Assistants, Stamp Reporters, Translators and Drivers working under the administrative control of the Registrar of this court (respondent No. 2) at Principal seat at Jodhpur and Bench at Jaipur. The petitioners before this court earlier, who had sought the relief in the matter of fixation/revision of their pay scales in writ petition Nos. 8002/92 and 2653/93 are the officials and servants of the Rajasthan High Court principal seat at Jodhpur and Bench at Jaipur, have moved this court for upward revision earlier and they have sought the relief of mandamus on parity with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 2. During the pendency of the writ petitions the Rajasthan High Court Private Secretaries and Stenographers' Association, Jaipur through its President, moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for being given an opportunity of being heard and for their impleadment as necessary party to the writ petition No. 8002/92 contending inter alia that the Apex Court on the basis of the judgment of Delhi High Court, on the interlocutory applications No. 2/92, 3/92, 4/92 and 5/92 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 801/86 etc. filed by the various Associations of the said court had given them necessary relief in the matter of their pay revisions at par with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court. It was further contended that though, the Rajasthan High Court Private Secretaries & Stenographers' Association had filed a writ petition No. 6724/90 which was decided by the learned Single Judge of this court on 7th Dec. 1992 and an appeal against the said order is also pending before the Division Bench, but that case related to the parity in the pay scales with the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Govt. of India, and the sole basis was the order of Precedence, issued from time to time by the Government of India, wherein Hon'ble Judges of the High Courts have been shown at Sr. No. 17 and the Secretaries to Government of India at Sr. No. 23 whose Private Secretaries are in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500. of India, and the sole basis was the order of Precedence, issued from time to time by the Government of India, wherein Hon'ble Judges of the High Courts have been shown at Sr. No. 17 and the Secretaries to Government of India at Sr. No. 23 whose Private Secretaries are in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500. The application of petitioner No. 2 was allowed by this court vide order dated 24th November, 1994. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 who are working as office superintendents in Rajasthan High Court Bench, Jaipur also moved an application for their impleadment as necessary parties to the writ petition which too was allowed by this court on 8th March, 1995 on the same analogy as referred to above. 3. Writ Petition No. 2653/93 has been filed by the Rajasthan High Court Sahayak Karamchari Sangh through its President, Jaipur in the matter of fixation/revision of pay scales of class IV employees namely, Jamadars, Library Boy, Daftri, Basta Bardar, Peons, Orderlies, Cycle-sawars, Watermen, Chowkidars and Sweepers etc. 4. In both the writ petitions the petitioners have sought a direction from this court directing the respondents inter alia : (i) to pay to the members of the petitioners' associations and petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 salary and all other allowances including dearness allowance equivalent to what is paid to the employees working on the corresponding posts in Delhi High Court and Punjab and Haryana High Court on parity. 5. In writ petition No. 8002/92 petitioner No. 1 Association representing the non-gazetted staff of the Rajasthan High Court principal seat at Jodhpur and bench at Jaipur, is a representative body espousing the cause of its members, i.e., the ministerial staff, while petitioner No. 2, i.e., Private Secretaries & Stenographers' Association is also a representative body and petitioner Nos. 3 to 7, Superintendents of the Rajasthan High Court, bench at Jaipur, have been impleaded as petitioners in their individual capacity. 6. The petitioner-association of the Rajasthan High Court Sahayak Karamchari Sangh, Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2653/93 is also a representative body of class IV employees working in the Rajasthan High Court at principal seat, Jodhpur and bench at Jaipur and is espousing the cause of its members for redressal of their grievances. 7. 6. The petitioner-association of the Rajasthan High Court Sahayak Karamchari Sangh, Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2653/93 is also a representative body of class IV employees working in the Rajasthan High Court at principal seat, Jodhpur and bench at Jaipur and is espousing the cause of its members for redressal of their grievances. 7. Since the background in the context of which the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed, is identical, the questions of law raised are identical, the contentions advanced by the petitioners and their learned counsel as well as the relief sought for is also identical, both the writ petitions are being dealt with together and are disposed of by this single order. 8. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the petitioners in the writ petitions in their true perspective, it will be pertinent to refer to Chapter V of the Constitution of India at the out-set which provides for the establishment of the High Courts in various States of the Union of India. Articles 214 to 231 of the Constitution of India are relevant to be referred in this regard. All the three wings of the State, namely, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary were established with a view to give independent character by the Framers of the Constitution and that is why provision has been made for the establishment of the High Courts in all the States of Union of India and specific provision has been made in this regard under Chapter V of the Constitution with a view to ensure uniformity in their functioning. All the High Courts are armed with power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution over all the courts subordinate to it in the respective States. Article 214 of the Constitution provides that there shall be a High Court for each State of the Union. Judges of the different High Courts also belong to the same judicial fraternity even though there may be slight variation in respect of authorities who are to be consulted at the time of their appointment. Each Judge is appointed to a particular High Court and may be transferred to another High Court only by virtue of express provision under Article 222 of the Constitution. 'High Court' under Article 216 of the Constitution means the entire body of the Judges appointed or transferred to the High Court. Each Judge is appointed to a particular High Court and may be transferred to another High Court only by virtue of express provision under Article 222 of the Constitution. 'High Court' under Article 216 of the Constitution means the entire body of the Judges appointed or transferred to the High Court. Since there is parity in the matter of salaries and allowances admissible to the judges of each High Court of the country, likewise there should be a parity in the matter of pay-scales and allowances as admissible to the officials and servants attached to each High Court to make its functioning smooth and effective, since the staff, gazetted as well as non-gazetted and servants, is appointed with a view to ensure smooth and effective functioning of each High Court and with a view to give independant character to each High Court in so far as its administrative control over its staff including the question of payment of salaries and allowances and pension etc. as admissible to its employees is concerned. 9. However, in order to ensure the budgetary convenience, the rules regarding salary, allowances, leave and pension etc. as admissible to the staff attached to a High Court are required to be approved by the Governor of the respective State in which such High Court is established and all such expenses including its administrative expenses are charged upon the consolidated fund of the State both in respect of officials and servants attached to the respective High Court in accordance with the requirement of Article 229(3) of the Constitution of India and the income accuring to the High Court from various sources including court-fees etc. also forms part of the consolidated fund of the State for meeting the expenses incurred in connection with day-to-day requirements for smooth functioning of the respective High Courts. It would thus be evident that the High Courts have been given entirely independent character under Chapter V of the Constitution of India with a view to ensure their independence and uniformity of pay scales and allowances etc. in so far as then administrative control over their staff and functioning is concerned. 10. It would thus be evident that the High Courts have been given entirely independent character under Chapter V of the Constitution of India with a view to ensure their independence and uniformity of pay scales and allowances etc. in so far as then administrative control over their staff and functioning is concerned. 10. It will be further relevant to mention in this context that members of the staff attached to a High Court are deemed to be "members of a civil service of a State' within the purview of Articles 310(1) and 311(1) of the Constitution of India. The Appointing Authority of the officials and the staff attached to a particular High Court of the Union is the Chief Justice of the High Court or such Judge or officer of the court as the Chief Justice may authorise or direct in accordance with Article 229(1) of the Constitution. Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution provides that subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of the officials and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by Rules made by the Chief Justice of the High Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief justice to make the rules for the said purpose : provided that rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, require approval of the Governor of the State. The object of framers of the Constitution in introducing Article 229 to the Constitution of India was to secure the independence of the judiciary which is a vital organ of the State and which is essential for the democratic form of Government in this country by giving the High Courts absolute control over its staff, subject only to the limitations imposed by the Article itself and also to secure non-interference of other two wings of Union i.e., the Executive and the Legislature. 11. It is thus in context of the above background in consonance with Article 229 of the Constitution that this High Court has framed the rules governing the conditions of service of officials and servants attached to it known as Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" of 1953). 12. 11. It is thus in context of the above background in consonance with Article 229 of the Constitution that this High Court has framed the rules governing the conditions of service of officials and servants attached to it known as Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules" of 1953). 12. Notwithstanding the fact that the Constitution of India envisages uniformity in the manner of functioning of all the High Courts throughout the country, employees working under different High Courts are subjected to different service conditions instead of uniformity especially in the matter of payment of salaries and other emoluments admissible to them under the rules framed by respective High Courts. This anomaly exists in spite of the fact that they are discharging identical duties to the respective High Courts to which they are attached. It is in view of the scenario of prevailing disparity in the matter of pay-scales as admissible to the staff attached to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan principal seat at Jodhpur and Bench at Jaipur in comparison with the officials and staff attached to Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court that the petitioners have voiced there genuine grievances by moving this court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution and have prayed for the relief inter alia to introduce uniformity in the pay-scales and allowances etc. to the officials and servants of this court by introducing uniformity at par with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Articles 39 & 300A of the Constitution. The petitioners have contended that this court should take broad view of the matter by striking down the prevailing disparity and introduce uniformity in the matter of pay-scales and allowances etc. in respect of staff attached to Raj. High Court at par with staff of Delhi High Court. 13. It has been contended in the writ petitions that there is no qualitative and quantitative difference between the two sets of employees attached to the High Court of Rajasthan as well as Delhi High Court, and they are discharging similar duties and functions. High Court at par with staff of Delhi High Court. 13. It has been contended in the writ petitions that there is no qualitative and quantitative difference between the two sets of employees attached to the High Court of Rajasthan as well as Delhi High Court, and they are discharging similar duties and functions. It has been further contended by the petitioners that the consumer price index at Jaipur in contrast to the consumer price index of Delhi would make it clear that members of the petitioners' associations are hard-hit by day-to-day increasing prices and, therefore, there should be a parity in the matter of pay-scales and other allowances of the staff attached to Rajasthan High Court. It has been further contended that the State of Rajasthan had long back taken a decision to pay salary and other allowances as admissible to its employees at par with the pay and other allowances admissible to the employees of the Central Government. It has been contended in this regard that Delhi which was earlier Union Territory and now known as National Capital Government of Delhi having its independent Governor and Chief Minister, the employees of Delhi Administration and Delhi High Court are being paid pay scales and other allowances at par with the employees of the Central Government, therefore, in the matter of comparison or parity of pay scales qua Central Government employees, the officials and servants attached to the Rajasthan High Court are are also to be treated at par with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court which can only be done if parity in pay scales is introduced. It has been further contended that prior to the filing of the writ petitions in this court, the petitioners' association served a legal notice for demand of justice upon respondent No. 2 through its counsel on 1.1.1992 (Annex.1) and having failed to elicit any response or reply to the said notice, the members of the petitioners' association have been left with no alternative remedy except to move this court for enforcement of their funcamental rights under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39 read with Article 300A of the Constitution which have been violated. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners are claiming parity in the matter of pay-scales and other allowances with officials and servants of Delhi High Court and have assailed the denial by the respondents on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' since they are discharging similar duties and responsibilitis which are no less onerous than their counter-parts in the said High Court and there is no qualitative and quantitative difference between the duties and responsibilities discharged by the two sets of the employees, hence there is no justification whatsoever of not paying to the members of the petitioners' association equal pay-scales and other allowances equivalent to the pay-scales and allowances as admissible to the officials and servants of Delhi High Court of corresponding posts. 14. It has been contended by the petitioners that all the High Courts in the country in respect of working and manner of functioning including the matter of payment of salaries to the Judges as well as the officials and servants have autonomous character independent of the Executive which has been done with a view to secure independence of higher judiciary. The further object of safeguarding independence of judiciary is to secure not only complete independence of judiciary in its day-to-day functioning but also to make it free from the interference of the Executive which has got no say whatsoever to decide upon the question of quantum of salary and all other emoluments admissible to the officials and servants of the High Court by virtue of its contribution to the consolidated fund of the State in the form of court fees and administrative expenditure and the Chief Justice being the Head of Institution has got all power to decide himself or through any other Judge of the court as to what quantum of salary should be paid to its officials and servants. Hence there should be no discrimination in the matter of pay scales and other allowances as admissible to officials and servants attached to Delhi High Court and this court particularly when Hon'ble Supreme Court has also extended similar benefits to its officials and servants by agreeing with the ratio of decisions of Delhi High Court. 15. Hence there should be no discrimination in the matter of pay scales and other allowances as admissible to officials and servants attached to Delhi High Court and this court particularly when Hon'ble Supreme Court has also extended similar benefits to its officials and servants by agreeing with the ratio of decisions of Delhi High Court. 15. The petitioners have accordingly sought mandamus from this court or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents (i) to pay to the members of the petitioners' association and other petitioners the salary and other allowances equivalent to what are being paid to the officials and servants working on the corresponding posts in Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court and Himachal Pradesh High Court. 16. For the sake of convenience and ready reference it will be pertinent to refer to the comparative chart indicating the pay scales of the officials and servants of this court and that of the Delhi High Court (See Appendix 1 at page 84 which forms part of this order). 17. The Rules of 1953 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229 off the Constitution of India by the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan with the approval of the Governor of the State of Rajasthan. Rule 5 of the above Rules deals with the rates of pay as admissible to the staff of Rajasthan High Court. Rule 5(1) provides that the pay admissible to the persons appointed to the staff attached to the High Court whether in a substantive or officiating capacity or as temporary measure shall be as shown in Schedule 1 to these Rules as revised from time to time. Rules regulating the appointment and service conditions of the officials and servants of Delhi High Court are known as Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 as revised from time to time (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1972"). 18. Before referring to the relevant Rules it shall be appropriate to refer to the equal status posts in Rajasthan High Court:-GAZETTED POSTS 1. Private Secretaries, Assistant Registrars and Court Officers. 2. Superintendents, Superintendents (Translation Deptt.) and Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writers. NON-GAZETTED POSTS 3. Senior Court Masters. 4. Translators (Senior Scale), Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writers and Accountant. 5. 18. Before referring to the relevant Rules it shall be appropriate to refer to the equal status posts in Rajasthan High Court:-GAZETTED POSTS 1. Private Secretaries, Assistant Registrars and Court Officers. 2. Superintendents, Superintendents (Translation Deptt.) and Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writers. NON-GAZETTED POSTS 3. Senior Court Masters. 4. Translators (Senior Scale), Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writers and Accountant. 5. Court Masters, Office Assistants, Stamp Reporters, Translators (ordinary scales), Court Fee Examiner and Statistical Assistants. 6. Stenographers Gr. II (Hindi & English) & Caretakers. 7. Upper Division Clerks. 8. Lower Division Clerks. 9. Drivers, Motor Mechanic, PBX Operators, Telex Operators, Reference Assistants, Liftmen, Generator Operators, Book Binders, Carpenters, Pump Drivers & Machineman (Technical Posts). CLASS IV SERVANTS 10. Jamadars, Daftries, Record Lifters, Basta Bardars and Library Boys. 11. Peons, Orderlies, Sweepers, Watermen and Cycles Sawars. Equal Status posts in Delhi High Court :GAZETTED POSTS (CLASS II) 1. Principal Private Secretary to Chief Justice-cum-Asstt. Registrar and Assistant Registrars (Selection Posts). 2. Superintendents, Court Masters and the Private Secretaries to Judges (Promotion/Selection posts). CLASS III-NON GAZETTED POSTS 3. Personal Assistant to Registrar and Senior Stenographers. 4. Junior Readers, Assistants, Senior Translators. 5. Upper Division Clerks, Junior Translator and Proof Reader, Personal Assistant to Deputy Registrar and Junior Stenographers. 6. Lower Division Clerks. 7. Restorer, Staff Car Driver, Despatch Van Driver (Rider) Despatch Rider and Senior Gestetner Operator (Posts not in existence in Raj. High Court.) CLASS IV POSTS 8. Junior Gestetner Operator, Usher, Daftry, 'Farash, Book Binder, Peon, Sweeper, Mali and Chowkidar. Appointments to class IV postsAppointment to the post in class IV mentioned in Schedule-I shall be made by the Registrar unless the Chief Justice otherwise directs. Appointment to class IV posts mentioned in Schedule-I may be made by one or more of the following methods, namely : (a) by transfer or deputation of a person serving outside the court in the Union or in connection with the affairs of a State or of the Govt. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi; (c) by direct recruitment. Consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of Administration and subject to availability, 15 percent posts for Scheduled Castes and 71/2 per cent posts for Scheduled Tribes shall be reserved for appointment of class-III & class IV posts on the establishment of this court. of the National Capital Territory of Delhi; (c) by direct recruitment. Consistent with the maintenance of efficiency of Administration and subject to availability, 15 percent posts for Scheduled Castes and 71/2 per cent posts for Scheduled Tribes shall be reserved for appointment of class-III & class IV posts on the establishment of this court. It is further provided in Delhi High Court Rules that all members of the establishment of the High Court shall be governed by the Central Government Servants Conduct Rules in force for the time being except that the Registrar belonging to Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service respectively, shall be governed by the rules applicable to the said Services.The Chief Justice may, by order, dispense with or relax the requirements of any rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as he may consider necessary in any particular case. 19. In Delhi High Court Principal Private Secretary-cum-Asstt. Registrar to the Chief Justice is a selection post and the mode of appointment is by selection on merit from category 4, i.e., Registrar and from confirmed officials of categories 5, 6 & 7 i.e., Superintendent, Court Master and Private Secretary, class II gazetted mentioned in Schedule I of the High Court of Delhi Staff Rules, whereas in Rajasthan High Court Principal Private Secretary (PPS) to the Chief Justice is drawn from Rajasthan Higher Judicial Services (for short 'RHJS'). Any person appointed as Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Justice-cum-Assistant Registrar in Delhi High Court shall work on the said post on a purely temporary and ad-hoc basis for so long as his service may be required in that capacity by the Chief Justice. It is further provided in Delhi High Court Rules that the posts are inter-changeable i.e. a person appointed to a post in one category may be transferred to a post of equal status in any other category. 20. Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer attached to each Judge in Rajasthan High Court is drawn from the cadre of Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer on the basis of seniority. They are drawn from the cadre of Stenographer Grade II which is an initial appointment from which the next promotional post is of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer after passing speed test as prescribed under the Rules and thereafter the next promotional post is that of Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer on the basis of seniority. They are drawn from the cadre of Stenographer Grade II which is an initial appointment from which the next promotional post is of Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer after passing speed test as prescribed under the Rules and thereafter the next promotional post is that of Sr. Personal Assistant on the basis of seniority and subsequently they are promoted to the post of Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer which is again on the basis of respective seniority. 21. In Rajasthan High Court the channel of promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar Admn-Protocal/Record is from two cadres, i.e., (i) Assistant Registrar; and (ii) Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer, Superintendent, Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer and Senior Court Master are drawing one and the same pay scale aim they are equal status posts. Post of Sr. Translator and Personal Assistant carry equal pay-scale. Posts of Court Master, Office Assistant, Stamp Reporter, Translator and Caretaker carry one and the same pay scale. Posts of Jamadar, Daftri, Record Lifter, Basta Bardar and Library Boy carry one and the same pay-scale, while the posts of Peon, Sweeper, Waterman and Cycle Sawar carry one and the same pay scale. 22. In Delhi High Court posts of P.P.S.-cum-Asstt. Registrar, Assistant Registrar, Superintendent, Court Master and the Private Secretary carry equal pay-scale. The mode of appointment to the post of P.P.S.-cum-Asstt. Registrar to the Chief Justice is by selection on merit from Assistant Registrars and from the confirmed officials drawn from the post of Superintendent, Court Master and the Private Secretary. There is joint seniority list of Superintendent, Court Master and the Private Secretary. Appointment on the post of Superintendent (promotion/selection post) is on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability from joint seniority list of Assistant, Senior Translator & Proof Reader, Junior Reader, P.A. to Registrar, Senior Stenographer and Care Taker of class III mentioned in Schedule I and appointments are made on the basis of written test and interview from categories specified in column 3(b)(i). Appointment to the post of Private Secretary (Promotion/Selection Post) is by selection (a) from members of the establishment of the High Court and of the Courts subordinate to the High Court on the basis of written test and interview; or (b) by direct recruitment on the basis of written test and interview. 23. Appointment to the post of Private Secretary (Promotion/Selection Post) is by selection (a) from members of the establishment of the High Court and of the Courts subordinate to the High Court on the basis of written test and interview; or (b) by direct recruitment on the basis of written test and interview. 23. In Rajasthan High Court promotional channel to the post of Superintendent is from (i) Senior Court Master, Office Assistant and Translator and promotion to the post of Senior Court Master is from the post of Court Master and Stamp Reporter respectively. The channel of promotion to the post of Office Superintendent is initially from Lower Division Clerk to Upper Division Clerk and above by promotion-cum-suitability subject to passing prescribed departmental test. 24. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar Shri Paras Kuhad, learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that since the officials and servants attached to Rajasthan High Court are discharging similar functions and duties which are no less onerous and arduous to their counter-parts in Delhi High Court, there should be parity in the matter of pay-scales on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' since unequal pay-scales based on no classification or irrational classification results in breach of principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In this regard learned counsel has contended that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. The higher qualification for higher grade, which may be either on the basis of academic qualifications or experience based on length of service may reasonably sustain the classification of the officials into two grades which carry different pay-scales. But in the case of unequal pay-scales based on no classification or irrational classification will tantamount to a clear breach of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', since unequals cannot be treated as equals and likewise the persons similarly placed should not be treated in a dissimilar manner particularly on the basis of their academic qualifications when they have achieved sufficient experience based on the length of service. Hence there will be no justification to deprive them of the benefit of equivalent pay-scales which are admissible to their counter-parts in Delhi High Court, since they are discharging similar duties and are also carrying similar responsibilities for the equal status posts and hence it will be irrational to deprive them of the benefit of equal pay scales since otherwise it will amount to gross violation of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It was further contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Constitution of India guarantees the right to its citizens right to equal pay for equal work for both men and women under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India which provides that the State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing (d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women which obviously implies that there should be no discrimination in the matter of admissibility of pay scales for the posts carrying same nature of duties and responsibilities. In this regard I am of the opinion that since the petitioners who are the officials and servants of this court cannot be discriminated by the respondents on the basis of their academic or educational qualifications as they are performing the same nature of duties and carrying out the similar nature of responsibilities in no less onerous and arduous manner as their counter-parts in Delhi High Court and hence depriving them the benefit of pay-scales and other allowances as admissible to their counter-parts in Delhi High Court on the ground of either the difference in the matter of educational qualifications or on the pretext that they are serving under different employers or for any other reason will be a gross violation of the principles as enshrined in the fundamental right to equality before the law and equal protection of laws as guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution; and equality of opportunity in matters of public employment under Article 16 of the Constitution. I am further of the opinion that it is a cardinal principle of jurisprudence that any classification in order to sustain its validity should have reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it and applying this principle, denying the benefit to the petitioners of equal pay-scales and allowances as admissible in respect of corresponding posts in Delhi High Court will certainly amount to violation of the said principle with respect to the posts which are carrying similar nature of duties and responsibilities. I am further of the opinion that practicable solution which should be found in such matters is to take a broad view of the matter instead of adopting a narrow technical view or pedantic approach and strike down any discrimination which may result in irrational classification. 25. I am further of the opinion that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined under Article 39(d) in part IV of the Constitution of India is a directive principle of State policy which the framers of the Constitution had promised to citizens of India when it was enacted and adopted and though is not a fundamental right under the Constitution but it is Constitutional goal to be achieved by the State and is based on touch-stone of reasonable classification which should be maintained by instrumentalities of the State while dealing with two sets of individuals who are similarly placed since that would serve as adequate safeguard for upholding not only the validity of classification itself but also to ensure that it has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by it and this can only be done by equalising the pay scales and allowances as admissible to the officers and staff of Rajasthan High Court with that of corresponding posts in Delhi High Court harmoniously. I am further of the opinion that keeping in view the settled proposition of law that equals should not be treated as unequals i.e. persons similarly placed should not be treated in a dissimilar manner, it would be hard and harsh to deny the benefit of equal pay scales to officials and servants of this court for the posts carrying similar nature of duties and responsibilities of Delhi High Court since by virtue of sufficient experience and expertise which the officials and servants of this court have acquired cannot be ignored and has to, be duly considered in extending the benefit of equal pay scales. If this principle is rationally applied, the obvious conclusion which emerges is that the officials and servants of this court are entitled to such benefit of equal pay scales and that the existing disparity in this regard should be removed at the earliest without delay. 26. In support of his above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and others : 1982 (1) SCC 618 , wherein it was held by the Apex Court as under : "'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' in Article 39(d) means euual pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. The word 'socialist' in the Preamble to the Constitution, if does not mean 'to each according to his need', must mean 'equal pay for equal work'. The Directive Principles have to be read into the Fundamental Rights as a mattere of interpretation. The principal of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. But in cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification a breach of the principle is clearly made out." In this case, applying the above principle the Apex Court invalidated the difference of pay scales of Drivers in Delhi Police Force and Administration and Central Government. 27. In the matter of National Museum Non-gazetted Employees Association Vs. 27. In the matter of National Museum Non-gazetted Employees Association Vs. Union of India and others : 1988 (Sup.) SCC 673 , similar question had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court. A writ petition was filed in the Apex Court under Article 32 of the Constitution wherein the petitioners who were the gallery attendants serving in National Museum, New Delhi alleged discrimination with regard to their service conditions by contending that since they were discharging similar duties as record attendants in National Archieves also located in New Delhi in the close proximity of National Musium, yet in regard to pay and allied conditions of service discrimination has been made out in the report of 4th Pay Commission and they are prejudiced on that count. It was held by the Apex Court that since the qualification for the job, nature and conditions of work prescribed for gallery attendants and record attendants in the two institutions is the same and in view of the discrimination made out due to disparity in the matter of pay-scales and other benefits, applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', it was held that the petitioners are entitled to the same pay-scale and other service benefits as of the record attendants in the National Archieves.Likewise in the matter of V.K. Mehta & Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors.: 1988 (Sup.) 5CC 750 and other connected writ petitions the petitioners who were forming three categories of staff Artists of Doordarshan under the Ministry of Information nd Broadcasting, namely, Cameramen Grade II, Sound Records and Lighting Assistant/Lightmen were performing the same duties as their counter-parts in the Film Division but there was disparity in the matter of pay-scales. Applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' it was held by the Apex Court that if this principle is not given effect to in the case of one set of Government servants holding same or similar posts, possessing similar qualification and doing the same kind of work as another set of Government servants, it would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners were therefore, held entitled to the same pay-scales as their counter-parts in the Film Division. 28. In the matter of Bhagwandas & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. The petitioners were therefore, held entitled to the same pay-scales as their counter-parts in the Film Division. 28. In the matter of Bhagwandas & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. : 1987 (4) SCC 634 , before the Apex Court, the education department of the State of Haryana constituted an Adult Education Scheme under over all control of Joint Director, Adult & Non-formula Education Department in the context of the National Adult Education Scheme sponsored by the Government of India. The petitioners had sought the relief inter alia : (i) though they were performing similar work as was being done by their counter-parts in the regular cadre; (i) they were given deliberate break of one day after the lapse of every six months and had thus been treated as temporary Government servants notwithstanding their continuous working ever since their respective appointments. Applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' it was held by the Apex Court that notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners were temporary appointees, since they were discharging similar duties and functions as regular appointees who were in a regular pay-scale, they were to be extended the same benefit in view of similarities in nature of duties and functions and they were held entitled to the regular pay-scales. It was held that disparity in the pay-scales is not justifiable when nature of work performed is not different. 29. In the matter of Food Corporation of India Workers Union Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors., 1990(4) SLR 745 , the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was as to whether the workmen employed at Depots in Bihar, Assam, Orissa, U.P. and Delhi region of the Food Corporation of India are entitled to the same wage structure as is available to their counter-parts at Calcutta Port and at Port City Godown as well as Depots in West Bengal and whether the region-cum-industry formula would be applicable are matters to be considered and dealt with by the Industrial adjudication and are normally not allowed to be agitated before this court in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court while allowing the writ petition directed the Food Corporation of India to revise the wage structure of the departmentalised labour employed at Depots in Bihar, Orissa, Assam, U.P. and Delhi region to bring their wages at the same level as the wages of the departmentalised labour employed at Calcutta Port and Calcutta City Godowns and the Depots of the respondents corporation in the State of West Bengal. 30. In the matter of Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India : 1990(1) SLR 297 , the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was in respect of category of Scientists in Non-medical Wing of the Director General of Health Services who were not receiving the same benefit of promotion and pay-scales etc. as was being received by the same category of officers in other Ministries like Ministry of Science and Technology. The Apex Court while allowing the writ petition issued directions to the respondents to frame appropriate Rules on the pattern of Rules framed by the Ministry of Science and Technology with such alterations as may be necessary. It was further observed by the Apex Court that in a Welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the council and its members and provide promotional avenues for this category of officials. 31. In the matters of Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union Vs. Union of India and Ors. : AIR 1991 SC 1173 , a petition was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner union on behalf of the employees in the Apex Court for a declaration that Grih Kalyan Kendra, where the workers are employed is an instrumentality of the State with the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner union sought a direction from the court directing the Union of India and the respondents to pay regular pay scales in parity with their counter-parts performing similar work, like in New Delhi, Municipal Committee and other departments of Delhi Administration. The petitioner union sought a direction from the court directing the Union of India and the respondents to pay regular pay scales in parity with their counter-parts performing similar work, like in New Delhi, Municipal Committee and other departments of Delhi Administration. The Apex Court while considering the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' held that it is not necessary to find out similarity by mathematical formula but there must be a reasonable similarity in the nature of work, performance of duties, qualifications and the quality of work performed by them, it is permissible to have classification in services posts or hierachy of posts, pay-scale, value of work and responsibility and experience. It was further held that the classification must however, have a reasonable relation to the objects sought to be achieved. The Apex Court while enlarging the scope of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' observed that it has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the Constitutional mandate of equality under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. 32. In the matter of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India and another : 1993 (2) J.T. 271 , Supreme Court, Employees and Supreme Court Class IV Employees, Welfare Associations filed writ petitions in the year 1986 in the Apex Court with a prayer that staff of Supreme Court of India be placed in higher pay-scales than what are admissible to the corresponding staff working in Delhi High Court. A direction was also sought that as an interim measure the staff working in the Registry of Hon'ble Supreme Court be paid the same pay scales as were being paid to the holders of the corresponding posts working in the Registry of Delhi High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition a Committee of Judges of the Apex Court was constituted by the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India. Ultimately an 26th February, 1993 an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Registrar General of the Apex Court stating therein that the Committee has submitted its report to the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India who had passed necessary orders that the said recommendations of the Committee be placed on the record of the case. Ultimately an 26th February, 1993 an affidavit was filed on behalf of the Registrar General of the Apex Court stating therein that the Committee has submitted its report to the then Hon'ble Chief Justice of India who had passed necessary orders that the said recommendations of the Committee be placed on the record of the case. Since the question regarding revision of pay scales of the employees of the Supreme Court was pending in the writ petition w.e.f. 1st January, 1986 and since the employees working on the corresponding posts of Delhi High Court were already getting the benefit of revised pay scales adopting the recommendations of the Committee of the Judges, pay scales were consequently revised by the Apex Court and brought at par with the pay scales of the staff of Delhi High Court. By an order dated 24.7.1989 it was pointed out that under Art.146(2) of the Constitution, the conditions of service of officers and servants of the Supreme Court have to be prescribed by the rules made by the Chief Justice of India. It was further observed by the Apex Court that the recommendations of the Committee of Judges accepted by the Hon'ble Chief Justice cannot be treated as a rule within the meaning of Article 146 of the Constitution and the limitations of interim orders were lifted to enable the Hon'ble Chief Justice to formulate the Rules with a view to remove the existing disparity in the pay-scales of the officers, and servants of the Supreme Court and those of Delhi High Court. While dismissing the Special Leave Petition preferred against the orders of Delhi High Court granting the benefit of enhanced pay scale of the Court Masters and Superintendents of Delhi High Court and the orders of Delhi High Court having thus achieved finality it was observed by the Apex Court that the Section Officer, Librarian, Court Masters & Sr. Assistant Librarian were entitled to the revised pay scales of Rs. 3000-4500 as recommended by the Committee of Hon'ble Judges at par with the holders of corresponding posts in Delhi High Court. The Apex Court while adopting the recommendations of the said committee further extended the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. Assistant Librarian were entitled to the revised pay scales of Rs. 3000-4500 as recommended by the Committee of Hon'ble Judges at par with the holders of corresponding posts in Delhi High Court. The Apex Court while adopting the recommendations of the said committee further extended the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs. 3300-4800 in case of the posts of Assistant Registrar P.P.S. to Chief Justice of India, Assistant Editor Supreme Court Reports, Chief Librarian, Assistant Registrar-cum-Private Secretary to Chief Justice of India, Assistant Registrar-cum-Private Secretary to Hon'ble Judges, Assistant Registrar-cum-Private Secretary to Registrar General of the Supreme Court. The above relief of revised pay scales in respect of abovementioned posts was granted by the Apex Court by way of interim measures subject to the Rules made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India under Article 146 of the Constitution which may finally be approved by the President of India. During the pendency of writ petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court an interlocutory application was filed by the writ petition before Hon'ble Supreme Court Class IV Employees Welfare Association claiming pay scale of 975-1600 as allowed to such employees of Delhi High Court vide its judgment dated 4.11.1991 in C.W.P. No. 3464/90. The Committee of Hon'ble Judges recommended the aforesaid pay scale to Peons; Farash and Safaiwalas employed in Hon'ble Supreme Court fixing them at par with corresponding posts of Peons, Farash and Sweepers in Delhi High Court. Hon'ble Committee also recommended a new and higher pay scale of Rs. 1000-1750 to the Daftries and Jamadars employed in Hon'ble Supreme Court in view of the fact that these posts are promotional posts and are entitled to higher pay scales as the lower pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 has been recommended, to Peon, Farash and Safaiwala in the Supreme Court. The Apex Court accordingly directed that the pay scalers as recommended by the Hon'ble Committee of the Judges may be given from the month of March, 1993 by way of an,interim measure. The Apex Court further observed that since Union of India had preferred S.L.P. against the decision of Delhi High Court dated 4.11.1991 passed in C.W.P. No. 3464/90 and which was pending for consideration in the Supreme Court, it was accordingly directed that the grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 to Class IV staff, i.e., Peon, Farash and Safaiwala and pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 to Class IV staff, i.e., Peon, Farash and Safaiwala and pay scale of Rs. 1000-1750 to Daftri and Jamadar from March, 1993 shall be subject to the final decision by the Apex Court. It was further directed that the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India is free to make rules in exercise of powers under Article 146 of the Constitution of India without any constraint and irrespective of any interim order passed by.the Supreme Court. 33. In the matter of U.P. Rajya Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd., U.P. Vs. Its Workmen : 1990(1) SLR 133 , the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court on reference by the Tribunal under Section.4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was "whether the denial of pay-scales of Rs. 150-250 w.e.f. 1.4.1971 and Rs. 200-450 w.e.f. 1.8.1972 to their workmen mentioned in the Annexure is justified and legal. If not, to what compensation and relief the workmen concerned are entitled and from what date and with what details ?" The finding which was recorded by the Tribunal on the above question was that both the groups of the concerned workmen of the Bank were doing the same type of work which had not been challenged by the employer-bank as it was a pure finding of fact. It was observed by the Apex Court that if irrespective of classification of Junior and Senior groups, the same work was done by both, the principle of equal pay for equal work is definitely attached and on the finding of fact the Tribunal was justified in applying the principle to give the same benefit to those who had been left out. Accordingly no justification was found in the stand of the employer-bank and the appeal was dismissed. 34. In the matter of Rohitash Kumar Vs. Union of India and others : 1991(43) D.L.T. 99 (D.B.) a petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Delhi High Court by the Restorers ad Lower Division Clerks of the court with the prayer that the respondents should be directed to fix the pay of the petitioners in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2200 on the basis of the report given by the 4th Central Pay Commission. 1350-2200 on the basis of the report given by the 4th Central Pay Commission. While extending this benefit, the High Court held that it was not open to the respondents to contend that the petitioners' pay-scales had been wrongly fixed at Rs. 400-600. As already noted the scale of pay of the petitioners had been fixed by he Delhi High Court in Kamla Nand's case and S.K. Sachdeva's case and the said decisions were approved when the Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment in S.K. Sachdeva's case. It was further held that it was not open to the respondents to challenge the correctness of the said decisions and the principle of 'Stare Decisis' would apply and the said judgment having achieved finality cannot be set at naught in the said proceedings. 35. In the matter of A.K. Gulati & Another Vs. Onion of India and Others : 1991(44) D.L.T. 590 (DB) the Private Secretaries attached to the Hon'ble Judges of Delhi High Court filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for upward revision of their pay-scales. It was held that the right of the petitioners to get higher pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500 is based on the report of 4th Pay Commission itself even though the Pay Commission is not directly concerned within fixing the pay scales of the staff of Delhi High Court, it was held that nevertheless as a matter of practice, the pay scales so fixed by non-petitioner, have been applied for the employees of the High Courts. It was held that though the petitioners would be entitled to the same pay scale which has been granted to the Asstt. Registrar, nevertheless these petitioners and other Private Secretaries will not be entitled to be designated as or work as Asstt. Registrar till they are selected for promotion to the post of Asstt. Registrar in their turn and according to the promotion rules. It was further held that Court Masters & Superintendents having rendered large number of years of service as some of them having joined even as L.D.Cs. from which they were promoted to the next higher post of U.D.Cs. Registrar till they are selected for promotion to the post of Asstt. Registrar in their turn and according to the promotion rules. It was further held that Court Masters & Superintendents having rendered large number of years of service as some of them having joined even as L.D.Cs. from which they were promoted to the next higher post of U.D.Cs. and then as Assistant and then to the post of Superintendents or Court Masters while on the other hand the recruitment and the channel of promotion of Private Secretaries is that they are recruited as Junior Stenographers or Senior Stenographers and then promoted as Private Secretaries, it would therefore, be very unfair and unjust if by reason of granting the higher pay scale to the Private Secretaries the High Court was to direct that they should steal a march on their compatriots viz. Court Masters and Superintendents as far as the status is concerned. It was further had that higher pay scale cannot mean that they would become senior or hold higher status than that of Court-Masters and Superintendents. The Common Seniority List will continue to be maintained notwithstanding the higher pay-scale to be given to the Private Secretaries. Since the posts of Court Masters, Superintendents and Private Secretaries are interchangeable and of equal status and common seniority-list was maintained for all the three categories of employees, it was held that they will draw the same pay-scale which was admissible to the Court Masters and Superintendents. 36. In the matter of Rupendra Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab , the petitioners who possessed the qualification of M.A. and B.Sc. 36. In the matter of Rupendra Singh Sidhu Vs. State of Punjab , the petitioners who possessed the qualification of M.A. and B.Sc. Library Science and/or Diploma in Library Science and who were working as Senior Librarians in different colleges and Libraries in the State of Punjab & Haryana filed a writ petition in the High Court Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh claiming parity in the matter of pay-scales pursuant to the revision of the pay scales by the State Government in respect of teachers/lecturers in the University Colleges, since the respondents had failed to offer any justification for making a distinction between the librarians holding posts in the college cadre and since they had failed to point out any distinction with regard to the nature of duties being performed by the two sets of the employees on the basis of their academic qualifications, it was held by the High Court that prescription of different pay scales has resulted in infringement of fundamental rights of equality available to the petitioners under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and the writ petition was partly allowed. It was further held by the High Court that it was not necessary for the employer to equate the two sets of posts on the basis of higher academic qualifications alone and that the experience which has been achieved by an employee during the course of his service should also be taken into consideration, and the employer has to justify the classification on the basis of qualifications which have direct nexus with the duties and if the qualifications have no direct nexus with duties it was held that the classification has been made without any object to be achieved ad such classifications cannot be upheld. The writ petitions were partly allowed with the directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of revised pay scales to the petitioners. 37. In the matter of S.K. Ghose Vs. The writ petitions were partly allowed with the directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of revised pay scales to the petitioners. 37. In the matter of S.K. Ghose Vs. State of Rajasthan : 1984 RLR 966 , the question which had arisen for consideration before learned Single Judge of this Court was in respect of officers of Rajasthan High Court who were holding the post of Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer to Chief Justice/Judges appointed as such by the Chief Justice of the High Court in accordance with the provisions of Article 229 of the Constitution and the rules framed thereunder by the Chief Justice who had been discriminated in the matter of pay scales which were given to the Private Secretaries to the Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government of Rajasthan. Their grievance in short was that inspite of the fact that their duties and responsibilities as Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writers in the High Court are far more arduous and onerous in nature as compared to the Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government of Rajasthan, the authorities concerned acted in 1973 and thereafter in such a manner as to deprive them the benefit of the parity in pay-scales which existed between the two categories of Private Secretaries from 1950 to 1973. The petitioners accordingly sought a writ of mandamus from this court directing the Chief Justice of the Court and the State of Rajasthan to equate them with the Private Secretaries functioning in the Government Secretariat of Rajasthan for the purpose of pay-scales. In view of the disparity in the matter of pay-scales as admissible to the Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to Government of Rajasthan and Private Secretaries to Chief Justice/Judges of this court a writ of mandamus was issued directing the respondents to amend the High Court Staff Rules with a view to remove the disparity in the cadre of Private Secretaries to Chief Justice/Judges of this court carrying pay scale, allowance and status at par with the Private Secretaries to the Commissioners and Secretaries to the State Government w. e. f. 1.4.1984. 38. In the matter of Ghan Shyam Charan Vs. 38. In the matter of Ghan Shyam Charan Vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Anr.: 1987(2) RLR 486 , the question which had arisen consideration of,learned Division Bench of this court was to remove the disparity in the matter of revised pay-scales as admissible to the Librarians of the Government Secretariat under Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 and of the High Court who had been put at par and equal scales were granted to them, while the new pay scales under the rules were allowed to the Librarians of the Government Secretariat w.e.f. 1.1.1970, whereas the same were allowed to the Librarians of the High Court w.e.f. 1.4.1971. It was held by this court that there was no logic or reasoning behind this discrimination and the directions were accordingly issued to the respondents for allowing the benefit of revised pay-scales also to the Librarians of the High Court w.e.f. 1.1.1970. 39. In the matter of Padam Kumar Jain, President RJS Association, Jaipur Vs. State of Rajasthan : 1987(2) RLR 807 (DB) the question which had arisen for consideration of this court was in the context of discriminatory treatment being meted out to the members of State Judicial Service in comparison to those of Executive Services in the matter of pay-scales, while selection scale and super-time scales were allowed to the members of R.A.S., R.Ac.S. and R.P.S. cadre, the same were not extended to the members of R.J.S. cadre. It was held by this Court placing reliance upon the earlier decision of this court in the matter of S.K. Ghose Vs. State of Raj. (supra) wherein parity was granted by this court to the Private Secretaries attached to Hon'ble Chief Justice/Judges of this court so as to bring them at par with Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government in the matter of pay-scales and status and since the Special Leave Petition filed by the State was dismissed by the Apex Court, this court considered it appropriate to grant benefit of revised pay-scales, i.e., ordinary scale, senior scale, selection scale and super-time scale to the members of Rajasthan Judicial Service and the members of R.H.J.S. in terms of the report of Beri Commission so as to bring the members of the said services at par to R.A.S. Officers. 40. In the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mrs. 40. In the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Mrs. Kirti Chhabra : 1992(1) WLC 488 (DB) the question which had arisen in appeal before this court was in respect of a writ petition filed by the Assistant Librarian of this court who had claimed parity in the matter of pay-scale at par with that admissible to the Librarian principal seat at Jodhpur. Since inspite of clear recommendations of this court for upgradation of the post of Asstt. Librarian to that of Librarian, the State Government had without any reason refused to grant sanction for upgrading the said post and the academic qualifications prescribed for recruitment to the post of Librarian and Asstt. Librarian being the same and the nature of duties, work and responsibilities of both the posts being the same, it was held by this court that the respondents cannot deny equal pay which is paid to the Librarian of the principal seat of this court at Jodhpur on the principal of 'equal pay for equal work'. It was further observed in this regard that since the work discharged by the In-charge of Libraries at both the places, i.e., at Jodhpur and Jaipur is similar, duties, responsibilities and functions of both of them are identical hence there should be no difference in the matter of pay-scales being admissible to the Asstt. Librarian of this court and to that of Librarian of principal seat at Jodhpur. This was also in view of the fact that the post of Asstt. Librarian at Jaipur Bench had not been upgraded to that of Librarian in spite of the recommendations of Hon'ble Chief Justice who had recommended for upgradation of the post and since the State Government had arbitrarily refused to consider the recommendations of the Chief Justice, the Division Bench of this court while upholding the order of learned Single Judge held that the respondent was entitled to the same pay scale which was being given to the Librarian at Jodhpur and further directed to amend the rules accordingly and the appeal preferred by the State was dismissed. 41. 41. Shri Paras Kuhad, learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance upon the ratio of the aforesaid decisions, vehemently contended at the bar that the State Government has failed to explain the differentiating factors which would disentitle the petitioners before this court from claiming parity in the matter of pay-scales as admissible to their counter-parts in Delhi High Court as well as Punjab and Haryana High Court, parity should be extended by this court in the matter of pay scale and other allowances which are admissible to the officers and servants of Delhi High Court so as to bring them at par with the officers and servants of this court. Alternatively it was contended by the learned counsel that respondent must explain special factors for fixing lower pay scales or the scales which are currently being paid to the officers and servants of this court in comparison to their counter-parts of Delhi High Court, since the petitioners are exercising no less onerous and arduous duties which are being exercised by their counter-parts in Delhi High Court. It was further contended by the learned counsel that mere fact that employers of both the establishment are different, there would be no justification for continuing with the existing disparity in the matter of pay-scales of the two establishments. It was further contended by learned counsel that valid considerations which should be considered while extending the benefit of similar pay scales to the petitioners are (a) powers (b) duties and (c) responsibilities and since no differentiating factors have been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents with regard to the said considerations and since the officers and servants of this court are exercising similar powers, duties and responsibilities which are no less onerous and arduous than their counter-parts in Delhi High Court, mere nomenclature of the post on higher educational qualifications would not be a relevant factor to deny the parity to the petitioners in matter of pay scales. Alternatively it was contended by the learned counsel that since all the High Courts in the country are creatures of one and the same statute and federal structure of the Constitution does not permit any discrimination how can powers, duties and responsibilities of the assisting staff attached to the Hon'ble Judges of this court and that of Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court can be said to be different ? Further that merely because the location of the said High Courts, i.e., this court, Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court are different would not make any difference in the matter of granting similar pay scales to the officers and servants attached to Hon'ble Judges of Delhi High Court. Even on the basis of geographical reasons it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the State of Rajasthan and Delhi are located within close proximity being immediate neighbours (Delhi & Jaipur-265 Kms.) hence there should be parity in the matter of pay-scales and other allowances, particularly when nature of duties and responsibilities of the staff attached to the two establishments are identical, hence there should be no discrimination. 42. It was further contended by the learned counsel that higher rights flow in favour of the petitioners on the strength of Articles 14 & 39 of the Constitution and for enforcement of the said rights it is not open to State Government to say that Constitutional and fundamental rights of the employees should not be enforced by this court inasmuch as omissions on the part of defaulting respondents should not be allowed to defeat the fundamental rights of the petitioners. It was further contended that omissions or commissions of the executive should not stand in the way of exercise of powers of this court. It was further contended by learned counsel that the enforcement or exercise of federal power of this court cannot be limited or circumscribed by the sole discretion of the Executive. 43. Petitioner Nos. 3 to 7 presently working on the post of Superintendents, have also filed their written submissions in addition to the oral contentions advanced on their behalf by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They have placed a chart Appendix II annexed to this order showing the channel of promotions to various posts and perusal of the chart reveals that the post of Deputy Registrar Admn./Protocol/Records is filled in by promotion from amongst the Assistant Registrar and Private Secretaries. Thus, for the post of Deputy Registrar, the post of Assistant Registrar and Private Secretaries-cum-Judgment Writers are feeder posts. 44. Posts of Assistant Registrar and Court Officer are filled in by promotion from amongst the Superintendent, Chief Accountant-cum-Superintendent and Superintendent (Translation). Likewise the posts of Superintendent/Chief Accountant-cum-Superintendent is filled in from amongst Senior Bench Reader (Senior Court Master) and Office Assistant. 44. Posts of Assistant Registrar and Court Officer are filled in by promotion from amongst the Superintendent, Chief Accountant-cum-Superintendent and Superintendent (Translation). Likewise the posts of Superintendent/Chief Accountant-cum-Superintendent is filled in from amongst Senior Bench Reader (Senior Court Master) and Office Assistant. In the event of non-availability of Senior Bench Reader, the Court Master can also be directly promoted on the post of Superintendent. The posts of Superintendent and Chief Accountant-cum-Sundt. are of equal status posts. If any Superintendent is posted in Accounts Section he is designated as Chief Accountant-cum-Superintendent. The post of Superintendent (Translation) is filled in by promotion from amongst Translators subject to their passing test as prescribed under the Rules. Thus, it is apparent from the perusal of the chart as well as the relevant rules that the post of Superintendent is of higher status than that of Senior Court Master, Court Master and Translator. The posts of Senior Bench Reader and Bench Reader have now been re-designated as Senior Court Master and Court Master respectively. 45. It has been contended by the aforesaid petitioners that in Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court the posts of Junior Readers, Assistants, Senior Translator, Senior Stenographer, Personal Assistant to Registrar are all non-gazetted and are of equal status posts. The posts of Superintendent, Court Masters, Private Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges and Librarian are all gazetted posts and are of equal status; whereas in Rajasthan High Court the aforesaid posts are not of equal status. It has been further contended that if the Court Masters of Rajasthan High Court are allowed higher pay-scale at par with those of Delhi High Court then their pay-scales will be much higher than the pay scales of Superintendents who also at one point of time were holding the post of Court Masters. The petitioners have further contended that the pay scales for the post of Deputy Registrar of this court should be made at par with the pay scale of Deputy Registrar of Delhi High Court/Punjab & Haryana High Court. They have further contended that the pay scale of Senior Librarian, Private Secretary to Hon'ble Judges and Assistant Registrar of this court should be equalised and made at par with the corresponding posts in Delhi High Court. They have further contended that the pay scale of Senior Librarian, Private Secretary to Hon'ble Judges and Assistant Registrar of this court should be equalised and made at par with the corresponding posts in Delhi High Court. It has been further contended that the pay scale of Superintendent, Chief Accountant-cum-Superintendent and Superintendent (Translation) should also be made equal and it should be lower than the pay scale of Assistant Registrar but higher than the pay scale of Court Master. The aforesaid petitioners have further categorised the equal status posts into following groups, i.e., gazetted and non-gazetted as under:-GROUP I (Gazetted) 1. Dy. Registrar (Admn.) 2. Dy. Registrar (Records) 3. Dy Registrar (Protocol) GROUP II (Gazetted) 1. Private Secretary to Judges. 2. Assistant Registrar. 3. Court Officer. 4. Senior Librarian. 5. Senior Accounts Officer. GROUP III (Gazetted) 1. Superintendent 2. Chief Accountant-cum-Superintendent 3. Superintendent (Translation) 4. Sr. Personal Assistant. GROUP IV (Non-gazetted) 1. Sr. Court Master 2. Assistant Accounts Officer (Gazetted) 3. Translator (Sr. Scale) GROUP V (Non-gazetted) 1. Court Master 2. Translator 3. Office Assistant 4. Civil Accountant GROUP VI (Non-gazetted) 1. Stamp Reporter 2. Accountant 3. Statistical Assistant 4. Personal Assistant 5. Care-taker/Manager, Guest House. 45. In pursuance to the show cause notice issued by this court both respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have filed their replies. It has been contended by respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan, that the writ petitions cannot be decided as a public interest litigation nor the Associations can raise grievance of the individual members for the services of the High Court. It has been further contended that while the Constitutional position of the judiciary is not disputed, however with regard to the salary of the staff of the judiciary, it has been contented that the same is under the control of the State Government. It has been further contented that the decision of Delhi High Court, reported in 1991(43) D.L.T. 99 is got helpful to the petitioners and that the High Court had issued mandamus to raise the pay scales of the Staff of Delhi High Court in accordance with CCS (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1986. One the same analogy, the non-gazetted, staff of Rajasthan High Court is already getting, the pay-scales in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil, Services (Revision Pay Scales) Rules. One the same analogy, the non-gazetted, staff of Rajasthan High Court is already getting, the pay-scales in accordance with the Rajasthan Civil, Services (Revision Pay Scales) Rules. With regard to Schedule A to the writ petition, it has been contended that the petitioner having mentioned the facts that special pay as indicated hereunder is admissible to the following staff of this Court w.e.f. l.4.1985 which is not admissible to the Subordinate Ministerial Staff of Rajasthan State:- Lower Division Clerk 55.00 per month Upper Division Clerk 70.00 per month Assistant 85.00 per month Driver 55.00 per month With regard to non-gazetted staff of the High Court it has been contended that the State Government had considered their demands sympathetically in the year 1985 and the pay scales of the ministerial staff of subordinate offices were made equal with other departments of the State w.e.f. 1.2.1985 besides special pay was sanctioned w.e.f. 1.4.1985 and as a matter of fact the staff of the High Court is getting higher salary than the ministerial staff of the State Government. With regard to the question that the officers and servants of Raj. High Court are being discriminated qua the officers and servants of Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, it has been contended that the comparative study chart marked Schedule R.A. reveals that so far as Punjab & Haryana High Court is concerned, the pay-scales of the staff are different than what are mentioned by the petitioners and that the petitioners have infact only given the pay scales of High Court under the head "other High Courts" in the schedule marked as Schedule A. With regard to the pay scale of Lower Division Clerk in Punjab & Haryana High Court, he gets Rs. 950-1800 and not Rs. 1350-2200. In Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala High Courts the pay scales are lower than the pay scales provided to the staff of the Rajasthan High Court. It has further been contended that the pay scales of the non-gazetted staff of Rajasthan High Court have been fixed under Rule 5(1) of the Rules 1953 and since the validity of the said Rules has not been challenged, the petitioners cannot claim any relief. It has been further contended that the fixation of the pay scales depends on various factors and not merely on the nature or volume of work. It has been further contended that the fixation of the pay scales depends on various factors and not merely on the nature or volume of work. It has been further contended that there is vast difference in the qualification and eligibility and the mode of recruitment of various equivalent posts in different High Courts, e.g., under the Rajasthan High Court (Condition of Service of Staff) Rules minimum qualification for recruitment for the post of Lower Division Clerk, a direct recruitment post, is higher secondary and the candidate has to undergo a competitive test in two subjects, i.e., Hindi and English and typing test; whereas in Punjab & Haryana High Court under the Rules of the said High Court, a candidate for the post of clerk must have the degree of B.A./Science or equivalent thereto from a recognised University. Further no candidate shall be eligible to sit in the examination of clerk unless he qualifies preliminary typing test (English) with minimum speed of 40 w.p.m. and he has to take written examination in following six subjects:- 1. English composition, 2. General Knowledge, 3. Precise writing, 4. Hindi, 5. Punjabi and 6. Manuscript reading. Thus, there is vast difference of qualifications for the lost post of L.D.C. In Delhi High Court also the minimum qualification of L.D.C is same as in Punjab & Haryana High Court, while the process of recruitment is 80% by direct recruitment and 20% by promotion. With regard to the post of Bench Reader (now Court Master) in Rajasthan High Court the model of recruitment is by promotion from the post of stamp reporter and court fee examiner on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency and also by transfer from subordinate courts. The minimum qualification for Court Master in Rajasthan High Court is same as that of L.D.C. i.e., Higher Secondary; whereas in Punjab & Haryana High Court the appointment to the post of Court Master, to Hon'ble Judges is made from amongst, law graduates members of High Court establishment serving in the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 for a minimum period of five years, from amongst Law Graduates working in lower "courts with five years' experience and also from Superintendent Grade II Assistant and other staff serving in the High Court for more than 20 years. 1800-3200 for a minimum period of five years, from amongst Law Graduates working in lower "courts with five years' experience and also from Superintendent Grade II Assistant and other staff serving in the High Court for more than 20 years. Likewise minimum qualification for post of Court Master in Delhi High Court is, graduation with five years' service experience while Taw Graduate will be given preference. 46. It has been further contended in the reply that for any appointment in, Delhi High Court, minimum qualification and experience prescribed for the staff is more than the Rajasthan High Court and therefore, non-gazetted staff of Rajasthan High Court cannot claim parity in the matter of pay-scales as admissible to the corresponding staff of other High Courts. Further that the nomenclature of the corresponding posts' in various High Courts is also different, the service conditions, pattern of pay scales are also different and hence cannot be compared favourably with that of the Rajasthan High Court. It has been further contended that the State Government took a decision to allow the pay scales to its employees identical to those posts under the Central Government which may be comparable. It has been further contended that an Equivalence Committee was constituted by the State Government vide order dated 2.3.1989 and the said Committee in its report identified the norms on the bass of which comparison could be determined. The said norms were job requirement; qualifications, mode and source of recruitment etc. On the basis of the report of the said Committee the State Government decided to grant pay scales equivalent to Central Government employees w.e.f. 1.9.1989. In view of the vast difference in qualification, mode of recruitment and pattern of pay scales etc. the employees of Rajasthan High Court cannot be treated at par with the employees of Delhi High Court. It has been further contended that since duties, functions and responsibilities of the employees are different from one cadre of the High Court which is different from that of the corresponding cadre in other High Courts therefore, there cannot be any comparison between the two establishments. 47. By way of additional plea, it has been contended that there cannot be any judicial review of the pay scales as same is based on many factors, some of which are also administrative in nature. 48. 47. By way of additional plea, it has been contended that there cannot be any judicial review of the pay scales as same is based on many factors, some of which are also administrative in nature. 48. In the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2, Registrar, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, it has been contended that the terms and conditions of service relating to non-gazetted staff of different High Courts are entirely different and are governed by different Service Rules and since the employees of the different High Courts cannot be said to be similarly situated, therefore no comparison can be made between non-gazetted employees of one High Court with non-gazetted employees of other High Courts. Respondent No.2 has filed the reply on similar lines as that submitted by respondent No.1 and, therefore, in order to avoid repetition its contents need not be referred or reproduced. 49. Mr. A.K. Bhandari, Addl. Advocate General for the State contended at the bar by taking a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that since the petitioner's association is not a registered body and as such it cannot espouse the cause of its members. It has been further contended that the writ petitions involve disputed questions of fact which cannot be looked into by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 22 of the Constitution of India. He has further contended that service conditions and pay scales of the different employees in different High Courts are altogether different, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any parity in the matter of pay scales and allowances with the corresponding posts in Delhi High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court. In respect of Article 229 of the Constitution it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that legislative sanction is necessary before revision of pay scales and in absence of the amendment of the Rules by the Chief Justice, there can be no revision in the pay scales. With reference to Rule 5(1) of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953, Schedule I and II it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there can be no comparison of duties and mere equation of posts for the purpose of pay scales cannot be done. With reference to Rule 5(1) of the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service of Staff) Rules, 1953, Schedule I and II it has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that there can be no comparison of duties and mere equation of posts for the purpose of pay scales cannot be done. Pay scales of the officers and servants of Rajasthan High Court have been fixed under the Rules and since the validity of the Rules has not been challenged the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit of pay revision on parity with the corresponding posts of Delhi High Court. 50. In support of his contentions advanced at the bar, learned counsel for the respondents Shri A.K. Bhandari placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi and others : AIR 1976 SC 123 and in the matter of S.B. Mathur and others Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and others : AIR 1988 SC 2073. 51. In the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh and anr. Vs. T. Gopalakrishan Murthi and others (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex court was in respect of interpretation of Andhra Pradesh High Court's Staff Rules, 1959, Rule 19 of which deals with the conditions of service of the staff. It was held that if there is a law made by the Legislature of the State then subject to that law, otherwise without it, the Chief Justice or some other Judge or officer of the High Court authorised by the Chief Justice is empowered to make rules laying down the service conditions of the High Court staff. But if the rules made under clause (2) of Article 229 relates to salaries, allowances or pensions then since in them is involved the question of finance the framing of the rules requires the approval of the Governor that means the State Government. One should expect in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Article 229 that ordinarily and generally the approval should be accorded. But surely it is wrong to say that the approval is a mere formality and in no case it is open to the Government to refuse to accord their approval. One should expect in the fitness of things and in view of the spirit of Article 229 that ordinarily and generally the approval should be accorded. But surely it is wrong to say that the approval is a mere formality and in no case it is open to the Government to refuse to accord their approval. It is however not possible to take the view that merely because the State Government does not see its way to give the required approval it will justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution as if the refusal of the State Government was ultra vires or mala fide and arbitrary. In this case the Chief Justice of the High Court wanted the High Court staff to be paid the pay scales equivalent to the posts in the Secretariat staff of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh to which the Government did not agree. The respondents who were the members of High Court service belonged to the categories of Bench Clerks, L.D.Cs., Typists and certain other categories who had filed a writ petition in the High Court for a writ of mandamus against the appellants directing them to implement the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the High Court made to the Government from time to time to fix the pay scales of the various categories of the staff to which the respondents belonged in accordance with the pay scales as revised by the State Government in case of corresponding categories of the Andhra Pradesh Secretariate services. The High Court had allowed the writ petition and directed the Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Chief justice which had not been done. The State of Andhra Pradesh preferred an appeal before the Apex Court. The Apex Court relying upon its earlier decision in M. Gurumoorthy Vs. The Accountant General, Assam and Nagaland and others : 1971 (Sup.) SCR 420=( AIR 1971 SC 1850 , held that Article 229 has a distinct and different scheme and contemplates full freedom to the Chief justice in the matter of appointments of the officers and servants of the High Court and their conditions of services which can be prescribed by the rules made by him. The only exception is that the Governor's approval must be sought to the extent the rules relating to salaries, leave or pension are concerned since finance has to be provided by the Government and to the extent if there is any involvement of expenses of the Government has to be approved by it. While allowing the appeal of Andhra Pradesh Government it was observed by the Apex Court:- "We however, trust and hope that the Government will give their second thought to the matter and see whether it is possible in the State of Andhra Pradesh to blow obliterate distinction in the matter of pay scales between the High Court staff and the Secretariate staff." I am of the opinion that the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court helps in advancing the case of the petitioners rather than the respondents, since in the matter of the officers and servants of the High Court recommending authority is the Chief Justice of the High Court or some other Judge or officer who may be authorised by the Chief Justice, still the Governor of the State is only approving authority required under Art.229 of the Constitution as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension but it cannot be disputed that there can be no revision of pay scales without the prior approval of the Governor of the State which in my considered opinion is not a pre-condition for the revision of pay scales nor it can be a pre-condition to bring the salaries and other allowances of officers and servants of the Rajasthan High Court at par with corresponding posts in Delhi High Court. 52. In the matter of S.B. Mathur and others Vs. Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and others (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was whether treating posts of Superintendents, Private Secretaries and Court Masters in Delhi High Court as equal status posts would be vilative of equality [Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority)] Rules, 1971 and Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972. It was held by the Apex Court that it is an accepted principle that where there is an employer who has a large number of employees in his service performing diverse duties, he must enjoy a certain measure of discretion in treating different categories of his employees as holding equal status posts or equated posts, as questions of promotion or transfer of employees inter se will necessarily arise for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of the organisation. It was further observed that there is, therefore, nothing inherently wrong in an employer treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts provided that, in doing so, he exercises his discretion reasonably and does not violate the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14&16 of the Constitution. While affirming the decision of Delhi High Court it was held by the Apex Court that there was nothing wrong in the High Court Rules to treat the aforesaid posts as equal status posts and in the absence of plea that equation of the said posts was prompted by malafides, treating all the said posts equal status posts cannot be said to be arbitrary. It was further held that the minimum eligibility qualification for appointment on the said posts has to be kept distinct from the zone of consideration and even if there are large number of candidates who satisfy the minimum eligibility requirement, it is not necessary that they should be included in the zone of consideration, it being open to the authority concerned to restrict the zone of consideration from amongst the eligible candidates. It was further held that the above posts which have been treated as equal status posts under Schedule I & H to the Seniority Rules of 1971 and since the said provisions were made with a view to provide transferability amongst the persons holding these posts and to provide for channels of promotion to certain categories of employees who did not enjoy a chance for promotion earlier with a view to avoid stagnation and frustration in the categories concerned, it was held by the Apex Court that there was nothing wrong in the vires of the said Rules, or with regard to employer treating certain posts are equated posts since the discretion has been exercised reasonably and not in violation of the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution. I am of the opinion that the ratio of the above decision of the Apex Court helps in advancing the case of the petitioners rather than of the respondents. In this regard it will be pertinent to refer the comparative statement showing the equal status posts which are carrying equal pay scales in Rajasthan High Court and the corresponding posts in Delhi High Court vide Appendix I to this order. In Rajasthan High Court posts mentioned at serial Nos. 3 to 5 in Appendix I are equal status posts. Likewise posts mentioned at serial Nos. 6 & 7, 8 to 12, 20 to 24 and at serial Nos. 26 to 28 are equal status posts. This equation has been done in accordance with Article 229 of the Constitution and in my considered opinion there is no violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution in making the said equation by this Court. 53. Reliance has also been placed by Shri Bhandari on the decision of this court in the matter of Rajasthan High Court Private Secretary & Stenographer Association Vs. State of Rajasthan & others : S.B.C.W.P. No. 6724/90, decided on 7.9.1992. In this case the petitioners' Association of Private Secretaries & Stenographers had filed a writ petition under Article 226 claiming relief inter-alia in the matter of revision of pay scales from the present scale of Rs. 2500-4250 to Rs. 3000-4500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The case of the petitioners was that they stand at a higher position than that of Private Secretaries to the Commissioners and the Secretaries to the Government of India and other officers and since the Private Secretaries to Secretaries to the Government of India are in higher pay scale of Rs. 3000- 4500 the same pay scale should also be given to them. It was held by learned Single Judge of this Court that principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not applicable since the employers are different as the same principle applies only where the employers are the same. 3000- 4500 the same pay scale should also be given to them. It was held by learned Single Judge of this Court that principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not applicable since the employers are different as the same principle applies only where the employers are the same. In my considered opinion the ratio of this decision is neither attracted nor applicable to this case, since the higher pay scales cannot be denied to the petitioners on the analogy of this judgment since the petitioners are performing onerous and arduous duties than the Private Secretaries to the Chief Secretary, Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government of Rajasthan and while there can be absolutely no comparison between the two sets of employees while comparison can certainly be drawn between the Private Secretaries attached to Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of this court and correspondingly of Delhi High Court and, therefore, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is fully attracted to this case. I am further of the opinion that since respondent No.1 State Government of Rajasthan in para 7 of its reply to the writ petition has made a specific averment to the effect that it took the decision to allow pay scales to its employees identical to the corresponding posts under the Central Government and which are comparable hence applying the said analogy to the petitioners, they are also entitled to the same pay scales which are admissible to the corresponding posts under the Central Government and hence the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is fully attracted to the facts of this case and Hon'ble Chief Justice is competent authority to recommend their pay scales at par with the Central Government employees' pay scales in respect of Private Secretaries of this court, i.e., Rs. 3000-4500. I have been informed that the decision of learned Single Judge of this court dated 7.1.1992 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 6724/1990 is subject matter of appeal before learned Division Bench of this court and which is pending. 3000-4500. I have been informed that the decision of learned Single Judge of this court dated 7.1.1992 in S.B.C.W.P. No. 6724/1990 is subject matter of appeal before learned Division Bench of this court and which is pending. I am of the opinion in this regard that the ratio of the said decision is not attracted to the present controversy since in that case equivalence was sought by the Private Secretaries of this court with the Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to State Government, whereas in this case they have sought equivalence with the pay scales admissible to the corresponding posts in Delhi High Court and since there is no qualitative and quantative difference in the matter of nature of duties, functions and responsibilities of the Private Secretaries attached to Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of this court and those of the Private Secretaries attached to Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges of Delhi High Court and hence on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' they are entitled to revision of pay scale so as to bring them at par with the Private Secretaries of Delhi High Court. I am further of the opinion that perusal of Delhi High Court Staff Rules and Rajasthan High Court Staff Rules reveals that the only difference between them is in respect of educational or academic qualification and also in respect of other staff. In Rajasthan High Court minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer is (i) Higher Secondary, & (ii) minimum speed in English Shorthand 120 w.p.m. and in Hindi 100 w.p.m. and in English & Hindi Typewriting 45 w.p.m. & 35 w.p.m. respectively. Initially they are appointed as Stenographer Grade II and after passing speed test at 120 w.p.m. and having acquired requisite experience on the said post they become eligible for being considered for promotion as Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer and thereafter they are eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of Senior Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer and then to the post of Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer on the basis of seniority. Thereafter ratio is fixed for onward promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar Admn./Protocol/Records. Thereafter ratio is fixed for onward promotion to the post of Deputy Registrar Admn./Protocol/Records. The mode of appointment for P.A.-cum-Judgment Writer is (1) 50% of the post shall be filled in by promotion from amongst Stenographer Grade II on the establishment of the High Court and (b) 50% of the posts shall be filled in by direct recruitment after passing speed test at 120 w.p.m. and 100 w.p.m. in English and Hindi Shorthand respectively and 45 w.p.m. and 35 w.p.m. in English and Hindi Typewriting respectively and the minimum education qualification is Graduate. In Delhi High Court Private Secretary to Hon'ble Chief Justice and Judges is a selection post and the minimum required educational qualification is graduate having five years' service experience in post carrying the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and passing a speed test of not less than 120 w.p.m. in English Shorthand and 45 w.p.m. in English Typewriting. The appointment is made by selection from members of the establishment of the Delhi High Court and of the courts subordinate to the High Court on the basis of written test and interview or by direct recruitment on the basis of written test and interview. 54. With regard to the nature of duties, responsibilities and functions performed by the Private Secretaries to Judges in Delhi High Court as well as in Rajasthan High Court there is no qualitative and quantative difference with regard to the nature of duties and responsibilities of the said post and the only difference being in respect of educational qualification, I am of the opinion that merely because in Rajasthan High Court the Rules prescribe minimum qualification as Higher Secondary for the post of Private Secretary, is no ground to deny the benefit of pay scales which are admissible to the Private Secretaries to Hon'ble Judge in Delhi High Court on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and the same is fully attracted to the case of Private Secretaries in this court is well sounded since both are performing no less onerous and arduous duties and hence they should not be discriminated on this score of educational qualification alone or for any reason. 55. In Rajasthan High Court from the posts of Lower Division Clerks upto the post of Deputy Registrar Admn./Protocol/Records are promotional posts and minimum educational qualification required as per Rules is Higher Secondary. 55. In Rajasthan High Court from the posts of Lower Division Clerks upto the post of Deputy Registrar Admn./Protocol/Records are promotional posts and minimum educational qualification required as per Rules is Higher Secondary. In this regard details are mentioned in Appendix II annexed to this order which shall form the part of this order (See Appendix II). 56. In Delhi High Court post of Court Master is a promotional/selection post and the minimum educational qualification is graduation with five years service experience and preference shall given to Law Graduates. Appointment is made from the posts specified in categories 9, 10, 11 and 16 i.e., Assistant, Senior Translator and Proof Reader, Junior Reader, Caretaker of class III mentioned in Schedule 1 of the High Court Staff Rules. Mode of selection is 75% by selection on merit on the basis of written test and interview and 25% on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from joint seniority list of the categories as mentioned above. 57. With regard to the Translators in Delhi High Court there are two categories i.e., Junior translator and Senior Translator/Proof Reader. A junior translator should be a graduate with good knowledge of English and Hindu/Urdu. Mode of appointment is by direct recruitment on the basis of written test and interview. Senior translator is a promotional post drawn from amongst members of the establishment with five years service experience on the post of category 18 i.e. junior translator and Proof Reader mentioned in Schedule I of the Rules or from members of the establishment of the Delhi High Court with five years service in the said branch or by direct recruitment having minimum educational qualification of graduation with good knowledge of English and Hindi/Urdu. Appointments are made on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability on the basis of written test and interview. 58. In Rajasthan High Court minimum educational qualification required as per Rules for the post of Court Master is Higher Secondary while in respect of the post of Translator minimum qualification required is that of graduation. Thus I am of the opinion that the deficiency in respect of minimum educational qualification for the post of Court Master is made up on the basis of the strength of service experience. Thus I am of the opinion that the deficiency in respect of minimum educational qualification for the post of Court Master is made up on the basis of the strength of service experience. Since the post of Court Master/Senior Court Master is a promotional post and the promotion is made from amongst stamp reporters and court fee examiners on the basis of seniority subject to efficiency and also on the basis of transfer from the court subordinate to the High Court who are equally well experienced before being sent on promotion to the High Court, I am of the opinion that there is no qualitative and quantitative difference either with regard to nature of duties or with regard to efficiency of the court master in Rajasthan High Court and those of Delhi High Court. I am further of the opinion that educational qualification alone is not a criteria to determine the efficiency of a candidate and the service experience should be given due weightage in the matter of promotion for such posts. 59. For the post of Office Assistant and Care Taker in Rajasthan High Court a candidate has to be minimum Higher Secondary and appointments are made on the basis of selection-cum-suitability. Likewise the minimum educational qualification for the post of Upper Division Clerk and Lower Division Clerk is Higher Secondary and the post or U.D.C. is a promotional post from amongst the L.D.Cs. Promotions are made on the basis of seniority. 60. In Delhi High Court minimum educational qualification required for the above posts is graduation with service experience as specified in the Rules. Thus, it is apparent from the above that there is no qualitative and quantitative difference with regard to the nature of duties and responsibilities being performed by the respective candidates of the two High Courts falling in the above categories except the educational qualification, which, in my considered opinion is made up on the basis of service experience which the candidates for the above posts have acquired on the basis of their service experience. 61. In Rajasthan High Court under the Staff Rules of 1953 minimum educational qualification for recruitment for the post of UDC appointment to which is either by promotion from LDC or by direct recruitment is Higher Secondary and the candidate has to undergo the competitive examination in two subjects, i.e., English and Hindi apart from typewriting test. 61. In Rajasthan High Court under the Staff Rules of 1953 minimum educational qualification for recruitment for the post of UDC appointment to which is either by promotion from LDC or by direct recruitment is Higher Secondary and the candidate has to undergo the competitive examination in two subjects, i.e., English and Hindi apart from typewriting test. In Typewriting test minimum speed required in English typing is 30 w.p.m. and in Hindi 25 w.p.m. respectively; whereas in Delhi High Court minimum qualification for L.D.C. is graduation with typing speed required in English is of not less than 36 w.p.m. 80% posts of L.D.Cs. are filled in by direct recruitment on the basis of written test and interview, while 20% vacant posts by promotion from categories 24-A to 32 of class IV mentioned in Schedule 1 on the basis of written test and interview. 62. In Rajasthan High Court the post of Staff Car Driver is a direct recruitment post and no educational qualification is prescribed except a Driving Licence. But in the matter of pay-scale the post of driver is equated with that of L.D.C., i.e., Rs. 950-1680. 63. In Delhi High Court the post of Staff Car Driver is a selection post and is filled in from members of the establishment of High Court having 3 years service experience in any of the post of Despatch Van Driver with driving licence of light vehicle and two years unblemished experience in the line. Preference is to be given to the candidates who can also drive three wheeler van and the motor-cycle. For direct recruitment the minimum qualification required is matric/higher secondary with driving licence of light vehicle and two years unblemished experience in the line. 64. In Rajasthan High Court in the Category of Class IV servants the post of machineman is a technical post; whereas in Delhi High Court the post of Gestetner operator (senior and junior) are technical posts. In this High Court PBX operator, Reference Asstt., mechanic for maintenance of vehicles and generator operator are technical posts which have been introduced w.e.f. 16.12.89. For the post of PBX operator minimum educational qualification prescribed is secondary or its equivalent examination recognised by the Government and working knowledge in PBX or telephone exchange. In this High Court PBX operator, Reference Asstt., mechanic for maintenance of vehicles and generator operator are technical posts which have been introduced w.e.f. 16.12.89. For the post of PBX operator minimum educational qualification prescribed is secondary or its equivalent examination recognised by the Government and working knowledge in PBX or telephone exchange. For the post of mechanic the candidate must have minimum qualification of secondary or its equivalent examination recognised by the Government with holder of certificate from ITI in maintenance of vehicles and three years service experience in the trade of automobile. For the post of Generator operator the candidate must be a holder of certificate having passed TIT in mechanical trade from any recognised institution. 65. In Delhi High Court as well the corresponding posts of PBX operator, mechanic and generator operator are in existence. In this High Court the posts of PBX operator, mechanic for maintenance of vehicles and generator operator are in the same pay scales as that of LDC, i.e., 950-1680. Hence I am of the considered opinion that there is no qualitative and quantitative difference with regard to the nature of duties and functions of the aforesaid posts in Delhi High Court as well as in Rajasthan High Court. 66. During the course of hearing Shri Bhandari, learned Addl. Advocate General of the State has contended at the bar that under the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1953, primacy in the matter of revision of pay-scales of High Court staff vests with the Hon'ble Chief Justice and not with other Judges of this court. It was contended by the learned counsel in this regard that Hon'ble the Chief Justice in exercise of his administrative powers can introduce the revision of pay-scales in consultation with other members of the Administrative Committee and hence it is not the province of this Court to revise the pay-scale by granting parity to the petitioners with the staff of Delhi High Court. It was further contended by Shri Bhandari that no revision of pay-scales can be done or introduced without challenge to the High Court Rules and since the petitioners have not challenged the vires of the Rules of 1953, it is not open to the petitioners to claim relief prayed for. 67. It was further contended by Shri Bhandari that no revision of pay-scales can be done or introduced without challenge to the High Court Rules and since the petitioners have not challenged the vires of the Rules of 1953, it is not open to the petitioners to claim relief prayed for. 67. As regards the first contention of Shri Bhandari, I am of the opinion that the Constitution of India does not make any distinction between the powers of Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court and that of other Judges of this Court in the matter of revision of pay-scales of the staff of the High Court. In this regard it will be pertinent to refer to Article 229 of the Constitution of India. Clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution stipulates as under: "Art. 229(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief justice of the Court or by some other Judge or Officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose : Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State." 68. From the perusal of the above provision it is apparent that the service conditions of the officers and subordinate staff of the High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by the Rules made by Hon'ble Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose. Proviso to clause (2) of Article 229 of the Constitution stipulates that the rules made under this clause in so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pension, when so formulated, require the approval of Governor of the State. Thus, there is no embargo with regard to the exercise of judicial powers by any judge or officer of the court, who may be authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the said purpose. Thus, there is no embargo with regard to the exercise of judicial powers by any judge or officer of the court, who may be authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the said purpose. I am of the considered opinion that the rule making power of either the Hon'ble Chief Justice or of any judge or any officer of the court who may be so authorised by the Chief Justice does not restrict, circumscribe or otherwise limit the powers of any Judge of this Court to revise the pay-scales of the staff of this Court particularly when parity is being claimed with the staff of Delhi High Court since the Constitution does not discriminate in the exercise of judicial powers by the Chief Justice or by any Judge of this court in this regard. I am further of the opinion that the authorisation by Hon'ble Chief Justice is not necessary where the relief has been sought by the staff of the High Court by way of a writ petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution since the said powers can be exercised by any Judge of the High Court dealing with the writ petition. The only distinction which is made under the Constitution between the powers of a Judge of the High Court and that of a Chief Justice is that while the Chief Justice exercises administrative powers over and above the judicial powers vested in him under the Constitution and the Constitution does not permit of any other distinction whereas the Judge of the High Court exercises judicial powers at par with the Chief Justice of the High Court. I am further of the opinion that it will, however, be open to the Chief Justice to nominate or authorise any Judge of the court to act as a member of the administrative committee to formulate or amend the rules in respect of the service conditions of the staff of the High Court. Hence the contention of Shri Bhandari lacks merit and is not tenable. 69. Hence the contention of Shri Bhandari lacks merit and is not tenable. 69. Now with regard to the secon contention of Shri Bhandari, I am of the opinion that it was not necessary for the petitioners to have challenged the rules formulated by this court with regard to the revision of their pay-scales on parity with the staff of Delhi High Court since the principle which has been invoked by the petitioners is principle of 'equal pay for equal work' for which the onus was fully on the petitioners and which they have successfully discharged and hence there is no necessity to challenge the vires of the rules since only parity is claimed by the members of the staff of this court in the matter of their pay revision with the members of the staff of Delhi High Court for the reason that they are discharging similar nature of duties and functions as their counter-parts in Delhi High Court. I am further of the opinion that since no amendment of the rules is required hence no challenge to the vires of the High Court Rules was necessary by the petitioners and for which necessary modification can be done without amending the Rules. 70. Shri A.K. Bhandari, counsel for the respondents, in support of his contentions advanced at the bar has also placed reliance upon the following judgments : Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India and others : AIR 1990 SC 334 , State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopi Kishan Sen : AIR 1992 SC 1754 , State of U.P. and others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia & others. AIR 1989 SC 19 , Delhi Vaterinary Association Vs. Union of India and others : AIR 1984 SC 1221 , State of M.P. & Anr. Vs. Pramod Bhartiya and others : 1993(1) SCC 539 , Ashok Kumar Garg Vs. State of Raj. & others : WLR 1994 Raj. 385 and State of Mysore and Anr. Vs. P. Narasinga Rao : AIR 1968 SC 349. 71. In the matter of Delhi Veterinary Association Vs. Union of India (supra) the question which had arisen for determination of the Apex Court was in respect of pay fixation of the members of Delhi Vaterinary Association representing veterinary Doctors who were residing in union territory of Delhi. Vs. P. Narasinga Rao : AIR 1968 SC 349. 71. In the matter of Delhi Veterinary Association Vs. Union of India (supra) the question which had arisen for determination of the Apex Court was in respect of pay fixation of the members of Delhi Vaterinary Association representing veterinary Doctors who were residing in union territory of Delhi. The Apex Court held that the pay fixation depends on various factors i.e., the paying capacity of the Government, total financial burden which has to be borne by general public, disparity between the income of the Government employees and the incomes of those who are not in Government service etc. The Apex Court whil disposing of the writ petition observed that the petitioner is at liberty to make its representation before the IVth Pay Commission to determine the pay-scales of the Veterinary Doctors. 72. In the matter of State of Rajasthan Vs. Gopi Kishan Sen (supra) the question which had arisen for consideration of the Apex Court was in respect of interpretation of Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 read with Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 whereby a distinction was made in the pay of trained and untrained teachers performing identical duties. Since two categories of the teachers were different, i.e., trained and untrained and the parity was claimed by the petitioners in the matter of pay-scales on the basis of general rules providing for appointment of Stenographers and the special provision providing for fixed rate of pay to untrained teachers, it was held by the Apex Court that the rule of harmonious construction of apparently conflicting statutory provisions is well established for upholding and giving effect to all the provisions as it may be possible and for avoiding the interpretation which may render any of them ineffective of otiose. The special rules were held to prevail over the general rules. 73. In the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Pramod Bhartiya and Ors. (supra) it was held by the Apex Court that principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has to be examined with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution and the burden is upon the petitioners to establish the said right. 73. In the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Pramod Bhartiya and Ors. (supra) it was held by the Apex Court that principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has to be examined with reference to Article 14 of the Constitution and the burden is upon the petitioners to establish the said right. Since the respondents had failed to establish that their duties, responsibilities and functions were similar to those of non-technical lecturers in technical colleges, they were not entitled to the benefit of equal pay-scales on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' I and the Apex Court held the said principle to be inapplicable where there was qualitative difference in the functions and responsibilities, which is not the situation in this case. 74. In the matter of State of Mysore Vs. P. Narasinga Rao (supra) the Apex Court held the validity of the classification of two grades of tracers, one for matriculate tracers with higher pay-scale and another for non-matriculate tracers with lower pay-scales and the classification was not held to be violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution, which again is not the position in this case. 75. In the matter of Ashok Kumar Garg Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) Division Bench of this court while interpreting the doctrine of equal pay for equal work observed that the said question depends upon various factors like, responsibility, skill, condition of work etc. and the plea has to be examined with reference to Article 14 and the burden is upon the petitioner to establish the right to equal pay or plea of discrimination, as the case may be. 76. and the plea has to be examined with reference to Article 14 and the burden is upon the petitioner to establish the right to equal pay or plea of discrimination, as the case may be. 76. I have examined the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court as well as of this court and in my humble opinion the ratio of the aforesaid decisions cannot be interpreted or applied to the disadvantage of the petitioners since onus to claim parity on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' between the employees of two establishments was on the petitioners herein and in my considered opinion the petitioners have successfully discharged his onus by pointing out that there is no qualitative and quantitative difference with regard to the nature of duties, functions and responsibilities being discharged by the two sets of employees and the only difference being the organisational difference which in my considered opinion should not come in the way of the petitioners to claim parity in the matter of pay-scales with corresponding posts of officers and servants of Delhi High Court since both are discharging equally onerous and arduous duties and merely because the employers are different or because there is difference in educational qualifications should not come in the way of the petitioners to get the relief prayed for. I am further of the opinion that the decision of Delhi High Court reported in 1991(43) DLT 99 as well as other decisions referred to above by the learned counsel for the petitioners squarely cover the case of the petitioners. The ratio of the aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court was also followed by the Apex Court in the matter of Supreme Court Employees' case (supra) in which the Apex Court extended the benefit of same pay-scales to its class IV staff as were admissible to the corresponding staff working in Delhi High Court. The ratio of the aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court was also followed by the Apex Court in the matter of Supreme Court Employees' case (supra) in which the Apex Court extended the benefit of same pay-scales to its class IV staff as were admissible to the corresponding staff working in Delhi High Court. hi this respect I am of the opinion that if benefit of the aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court was extended to class IV employees of the Apex Court, there should be no difficulty or embargo for this court to apply the ratio of the aforesaid decision of Delhi High Court as well as of the Apex Court to give the benefit of same pay-scales which are admissible to the employees of Delhi High Court so as to bring them at par with the employees of those courts on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In my considered opinion Rajasthan High Court should serve as a model State by adopting the pay-scales of Delhi High Court and the other High Courts should also adopt the similar pay-scales to their employees with a view to remove the existing disparity in the matter of pay-scales prevalent in different High Courts. 77. The Apex Court has enlarged the scope of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to such an extent so as to extend benefit by invalidating the difference of pay-scales between the permanent and temporary employees or even regular and casual employees so long as they perform similar though not identical work. This sailent aspect of the matter emerges from the decisions of the Apex Court in the matters of Jaipal Vs. State of Haryana (1988) 3 SCC 354 : AIR 1988 SC 1504 , Karnataka State Private Colleges Stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.: (1992) 2 SCC 29 : AIR 1992 SC 677 and Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P.: 1993(Sup.) 1 SCC 525 : AIR 1992 SC 713. 78. In the matter of Karnataka State Private Colleges Stop-Gap Lecturers Association Vs. State of Karnataka & ors. (supra) the petitioners who were temporarily appointed as Lecturers serving in the Education and Youth Services Department of the State of Karnataka were countinuing as appointees on ad-hoc basis for years together with temporary breaks after every 2-3 months by the privately managed degree colleges. State of Karnataka & ors. (supra) the petitioners who were temporarily appointed as Lecturers serving in the Education and Youth Services Department of the State of Karnataka were countinuing as appointees on ad-hoc basis for years together with temporary breaks after every 2-3 months by the privately managed degree colleges. They had moved to the Apex Court for enforcement of their fundamental rights and had sought regularisation of their services as regularly appointed lecturers on the ground that since they were discharging similar duties and functions as regularly appointed lecturs they should not have been discriminated by their employer and they should have been given regular pay-scales on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. It was contended by the petitioners before the Apex Court that they were only seeking regularisation on the posts on which they have been working and not fresh appointments and, therefore, they should not have been denied benefit of High Court orders specially when no such difficulty was pointed out and it was on agreement by the authorities that the order was passed. The Apex Court while agreeing with the contentions of the petitioners allowed the writ petitions with the direction to the State of Karnataka that the services of the temporary lecturers who had worked as such for 3 years including the breaks shall not be terminated and that they shall be absorbed as and when regular vacancies arise. The Apex Court further directed the State Govt. to create additional posts to accommodate such selected candidates in the event of the regular selections having been made. The salient feature of this case is that Apex Court applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work granted relief of equal pay-scales to the temporary lecturers as admissible to the regularly appointed lecturers. 79. In the matter of Sandeep Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. & others (supra), the petitioners who were working as Junior Engineers in a project placed under the control of Executive Officer, City Board, Gaziabad, had filed writ petitions before Hon'ble Supreme Court and had alleged discrimination with regard to pay-scales of the regularly appointed Junior Engineers. 79. In the matter of Sandeep Kumar and others Vs. State of U.P. & others (supra), the petitioners who were working as Junior Engineers in a project placed under the control of Executive Officer, City Board, Gaziabad, had filed writ petitions before Hon'ble Supreme Court and had alleged discrimination with regard to pay-scales of the regularly appointed Junior Engineers. It was contended by the petitioners that as and when the vacancies occur in their cadre they are being filled in by the respondents by receiving employees from regular establishments of the State of Uttar Pradesh on deputation thereby overlooking the claims of the employees under the Corporation. It was further contended by the petitioners that some of the petitioners were degree-holders in trade and are designated as Assistant Engineers while the others are Diplomaholders in engineering who are also designated as junior Engineers the main dispute which was canvassed before the Apex Court was regarding (1) the appropriate salary for the work done and; (2) regularisation of their service. In order to remove the disparity in the matter of Diploma-holders and Degree-holders and the petitioners who are appointed in a casual manner, it was held by the. Apex Court that there is no reason to make such discrimination since even under the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum statutory benefits have to be extended with regard to the payment of wages and it was further held that as and when the vacancies of permanent nature occur in the aforesaid cadre, preference for regularisation may be offered to the work-charge employees including the petitioners on the basis of their seniority and entitlement according to the rules. 80. In the matter of Jaipal & others Vs. State of Haryana & ors. (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution held that Article 39 ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women and it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst people doing similar work but it does not mean that there should be complete identity in all respects. It was further observed by Apex Court that the State is under Constitutional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. The purpose of the Article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst people doing similar work but it does not mean that there should be complete identity in all respects. It was further observed by Apex Court that the State is under Constitutional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. 81. Applying the ratio of above decisions of the Apex Court to the facts of instant case, I am of the considered opinion that it is not necessary that in order to give benefit of equal pay-scales to the employees performing similar duties and functions that they should be working under the same employer and in this behalf since the basic institution in which the two sets of employees are working, i.e., the officers and staff of the Rajasthan High Court and the officers and staff of the Delhi High Court, are discharging similar duties and functions under the one and the same institution, i.e., the High Court. Even if the employers are different, it is not necessary that in order to extend benefit of parity of pay scales the employer should be the same since the High Courts throughout the country are one and the same institutions and no discrimination is made under Constitution with regard to the nature and functions of the staff of High Courts even if employers may be different, since employees of all the High Courts are performing same nature of duties and functions, the said aspect cannot be ignored while extending benefit of equal pay-scales on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 82. Since the Staff Rules of 1953 with regard to minimum educational qualification prescribed for appointment of the officers and servants of this Court as well as ministerial staff do not prescribe higher qualifications for appointment as in Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointments and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no match or comparison with the employees of Delhi High Court, is not tenable, since the staff cannot be blamed or made to suffer to get lesser pay and other allowances for this reason or for the reason of any lapse on the part of authorities in prescribing lesser educational qualification to the corresponding posts of another institution with which equation is sought in the matter of pay-scales. However, there is no bar under the rules to modify and suitably amend the service conditions Rules so far as Rajasthan High Court Rules are concerned, to prescribe minimum qualifications for appointments of the officials and servants in future with a view to promote efficiency in service, improve quality and standard of working of the staff and in respect of which I am of the considered opinion that there should be no compromise on this score. But this does not mean that the officials and servants of this court should be made to suffer by being given lower pay-scales and to remain stagnated at that level notwithstanding the fact that there is no qualitative and quantitative difference with regard to the nature of duties and functions are no less onerous than what is being performed by their counter-parts in the Delhi High Court. Hence I am of the opinion that applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' the salaries and other allowances of the petitioners deserve to be enhanced so as to bring them at par with the officials and servants of Delhi High Court. 83. It is a fundamental principle of law that no comparison can be drawn between unequals but comparison can certainly be drawn amongst persons similarly placed. On close analysis of this case and after scrutiny of the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, I am of the considered opinion that while there could be no comparison with regard to the nature of duties and functions to be performed by the officers and servants of this court qua the officers and servants of State Secretariat because in view of the vast difference with regard to the nature of duties and functions between the two, comparison can certainly be drwawn with regard to the nature of duties performed by the officials and servants of this court with that of the corresponding officials and servants of Delhi High Court. I am further of the opinion that the contentions advanced by the learned Addl. I am further of the opinion that the contentions advanced by the learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents to the effect that since officials and servants of Rajasthan High Court had earlier been given the benefit of pay revision on the basis of analogy with officials and servants of State Secretariat, in my humble opinion, is not a justification to withhold the benefits of revision of pay-scales admissible to the petitioners in view of the facts that while unequals cannot be treated as equals, there should be no hitch or difficulty in extending the benefits of revised pay-scales to two classes which are similarly placed and are discharging likewise similar duties and functions such as officials and servants of this court and officials and servants of Delhi High Court. I am further of the opinion that in view of federal character of the Constitution of India there should be parity in the matter of pay-scales of the officials and servants of not only this High Court but also of other High Courts too in view of the fact that there is uniformity in the matter of pay-scales and other allowances admissible to Judges of all the High Courts in the country who are discharging their functions under one banner of independent judiciary with the Apex Court at the helm, of affairs and since there is no disparity with regard to the nature of functions and duties of the Judges of the High Courts in the country, why there should be any disparity in the pay-scales and other allowances as admissible to the officials and servants of this court and why should we feel shy in extending the benefits of pay revision to the said officials particularly when their only demand is for parity with officials and servants of Delhi High Court in the matter of their pay-scales and other allowances and in my considered opinion their demand is fully justified and is just and proper in accordance with law. I am further of the opinion that the officials and servants of this court as well as other High Courts who are assisting the Judges in discharge of their judicial functions are essential and integral part of one judicial fraternity and if there is happiness amongst family members at home it will certainly help them in dispensation of justice by the Judges of the High Courts more effectively. My above view is based on famous maxim "happiness at home is happiness outside. 84. I am further of the opinion that for the smooth and independent functioning of the judiciary, there has not only to be co-ordination between the Bench and Bar but also between the Bench and the staff and this can only be insured if there is uniformity in the pay-scales of the staff attached to all the High Courts of the country and since in these writ petitions only parity is prayed for by the petitioners with the pay-scales as admissible to the corresponding staff of Delhi High Court, there should be no difficulty in granting the relief prayed for. Any violation in this regard would result in violation of petitioners' fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. 85. In Rajasthan High Court at present there are two categories of Court Masters i.e. Court Master and Senior Court Master. Senior Court Master is a promotional post and appointment is made on the basis of selection-cum-merit from Court Master. I am of the opinion that since both, the court master as well as senior court master are performing similar duties and functions by assisting Judges of this Court in discharge of their duties, there should be one category only i.e., Court Master alone. Accordingly mandamus is issued to the respondents that henceforth post of senior court master shall stand abolished and there will be only one category of post, i.e., court master. The present pay scale of court masters in Rajasthan High Court is 1400-2600 and that of senior court master is 2000-3200; whereas in Delhi High Court the pay scale of court master is 3000-4500. If they are given the pay-scales of Delhi High Court, then they will steal a march over their compatriots, i.e., Private Secretaries, Assistant Registrars and Court Officers who are presently in the pay scale of Rs. 2500-4250 which will be neither justified nor desirable hence it will meet the ends of justice if the court masters of this court are placed in the pay scale 2000-3200. It is further directed that those who are Law Graduates and are working presently as court masters with Judges of this court will not be withdrawn since they have become acclimatised and gained sufficient experience in their respective post. 86. It is further directed that those who are Law Graduates and are working presently as court masters with Judges of this court will not be withdrawn since they have become acclimatised and gained sufficient experience in their respective post. 86. In Delhi High Court the educational qualification for appointment to the post of court master is graduate with five years service, while preference will be given to a law Graduate, it will be desirable with a view to promote efficiency in service and also quality of work henceforth that future appointments which would be made by this court for court master, minimum educational qualification should be graduate with five years experience while preference will be given to Law Graduates. 87. With regard to the post of translator in the Rajasthan High Court there are two categories, i.e., Translator and Senior Translator in the pay-scale 1400-2600 and 1640-2900 respectively. In Delhi High Court also there are two corresponding posts, i.e., Junior Translator and Senior Translator who are in the pay scale 1420-2300 and 1640-2900 respectively. I am of the opinion that since the junior translator and senior translator are not drawing higher pay scales than the translator and senior translator in Rajasthan High Court no enhancement of pay-scale will be justified. I am further. of the opinion that perusal of the Rules of 1953 reveals that there are no further chance of promotion on the post of translator and there is great stagnation in service. In order to remove the existing disparity with regard to the educational qualification in respect of translators, I am of the opinion that no change is called for in the existing Rules since minimum educational qualification which is already prescribed under the Rules of 1953 is graduate while preference shall be given to Law Graduates and appointments shall continue to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability on the basis of written test and interview. 88. With regard to the translators in Rajasthan High Court, I am of the opinion that respondent No. 2 shall fix 20% quota for promotion to the post of court master from the post of translators since they do not have any promotional avenues which is resulting in stagnation in their service. 89. With regard to Office Assistant and Stamp Reporters, Court Fee Examiner and Statistical Asstt. 89. With regard to Office Assistant and Stamp Reporters, Court Fee Examiner and Statistical Asstt. in Rajasthan High Court they are equal status posts and are in the pay scale of 1400-2600, whereas in Delhi High Court Assistant and Stamp Reporter are in the pay scale 1640-2900, ends of justice will be met if the pay scales of office assistant and stamp reporter in Rajasthan High Court are also revised and henceforth they shall be placed in the pay--scale 1640-2900. In Delhi High Court educational qualification prescribed for the post of assistant is graduate with five years service experience in any of the post of categories specified under the rules on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. Henceforth in future for appointment to the post of office assistant a candidate should possess minimum educational qualification of being a graduate. 90. Care-taker in Delhi High Court is in the pay-scale 1350-2200, whereas in Rajasthan High Court Care-taker is getting higher pay scale, i.e., 1400-2300 and is equal status post with that of court master, translator, stamp reporter and office assistant hence no revision is called for in the pay scale of Care-taker. In Delhi High Court minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of U.D.C. from which onward promotion is made to that of assistant and above, is graduate with five years service experience, High School/Matric with 10 years service experience and appointment is made on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. In Rajasthan High Court as well for future appointments on the post of Care-taker minimum educational qualification should henceforth be graduate with requisite service experience on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. 91. In Delhi High Court U.D.C. is in the pay scale 1400-2300; whereas in Rajasthan High Court U.D.C. is in the pay scale 1200-2050. In Delhi High Court minimum educational qualification prescribed for the said post is graduate with five years service experience or High School/Matric with 10 years service experience. Likewise I am of the view that in Rajasthan High Court as well as minimum educational qualification for the post of U.D.C. should be graduate with requisite service experience as it is a promotional post from L.D.C. 92. In Delhi High Court Lower Division Clerk is placed in the pay scale 1350-2200. This pay scale is equivalent to that of Staff Car Driver. In Delhi High Court Lower Division Clerk is placed in the pay scale 1350-2200. This pay scale is equivalent to that of Staff Car Driver. Minimum educational qualification for the post of L.D.C. is graduate with typewriting speed of not less than 35 w.p.m. in Rajasthan High Court minimum educational qualification for the post of L.D.C. is Higher Secondary and the post is filled in by a competitive examination to test the ability of the candidate with typewriting speed of 30 w.p.m. in English and 25 w.p.m. in Hindi. Likewise in Rajasthan High Court minimum educational qualification for the post of L.D.C. should be graduate and other conditions for appointment will remain the same as per the Rules. 93. In Delhi High Court the pay scale of Private Secretary is 3000-4500, whereas in Rajasthan High Court the pay scale is 2500-4250. Minimum qualification for the post of Private Secretary in Delhi High Court is graduate with five years service experience. 25% of the posts are filled in by promotion on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit from categories 13(PA to Registrar) and 14 (Senior Stenographers) of class III mentioned in Schedule I. 75% of the vacant posts are filled in the selection on merit on the basis of written test and interview from categories specified in column 3(b)(i) i.e., from the members of the establishment of High Court, graduate having five years service experience or non-graduate with 8 years serve experience in the pay scale 1640-2900 in any of the post of categories 8(b) i.e. SAS Accountant etc. In Rajasthan High Court the pay scale of Private Secretary is 2500-4250 and minimum educational qualification is Higher Secondary and the post is filled in by promotion from amongst Sr. Personal Assistant who possess speed of 120 wpm. in English and 100 wpm. in Hindi Shorthand. The post of Sr. Personal Assistant is filled in by promotion from amongst Personal Assistants on the basis of seniority and the post of Personal Assistant is filled in 50% by promotion from the staff attached to the High Court and 50% by direct recruitment. While Stenographer Grade II is appointed by direct recruitment from amongst the candidates who have minimum qualification of Higher Secondary and Shortand 100 w.p.m. in English or 80 w.p.m. in Hindi and also 40 w.p.m. in English and 30 w.p.m. in Hindi typewriting. While Stenographer Grade II is appointed by direct recruitment from amongst the candidates who have minimum qualification of Higher Secondary and Shortand 100 w.p.m. in English or 80 w.p.m. in Hindi and also 40 w.p.m. in English and 30 w.p.m. in Hindi typewriting. Henceforth minimum educational qualification for the post of Private Secretary should be graduate with requisite service experience as per Rules, preference will be given to Law Graduates and promotion shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writers. For the post of Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer educational qualification prescribed shall remain same i.e., graduate with requisite service experience under the Rules and it shall be filled in by promotion from amongst Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writers. 94. With regard to the Private Secretaries-cum-Judgment Writers attached to the Chief Justice/Judges of this court, I am of the opinion that in the matter of protocol, status of the judges of the High Court is higher than that of the Secretaries to Government of India and Chief Secretary to the State Government in order of precedence. Hence it is desirable that it will be befitting to the status of the Judges of this Court that the present nomenclature of 'Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer' be henceforth modified and will be read as 'Private Secretary instead of 'Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer', since the Private Secretaries attached to the Secretaries to the Central Government and Judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court are also known as 'Private Secretaries'. 95. For Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writers; mode or recruitment is : (a) 50% of the posts shall be filled in by promotion from amongst the Stenographers Grade II working on the Establishment of the High Court and who possess the requisite qualifications and speed for the post as prescribed for direct recruitment, (b) 50% of the posts shall be filled in by direct recruitment for which minimum educational qualification prescribed is graduate with a speed of 120 w.p.m. in English or 100 w.p.m. in Hindi shorthand and 45 w.p.m. in English or 35 w.p.m. in Hindi typewriting. 96. In Delhi High Court minimum qualification for the post of Stenographer Grade H is graduate with speed of not less than 100 wpm. in English shorthand and 40 wpm. in typewriting. 96. In Delhi High Court minimum qualification for the post of Stenographer Grade H is graduate with speed of not less than 100 wpm. in English shorthand and 40 wpm. in typewriting. In Rajasthan High Court minimum qualification for the post of stenographer Grade II should be graduate and other conditions shall remain the same as per the rules. 97. In Rajasthan High Court post of Superintendent and Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer are equal status posts and are in the pay scale 2000-3200, whereas in Delhi High Court the post of Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer does not exist and the Superintendent is in the pay scale 3000-4500; whereas in Rajasthan High Court Office Superintendent is in the pay scale 2000-3200. The pay scales of Superintendent and Sr. Personal Assistant are the same i.e., 2000-3200. If the pay scale 3000-4500 is given to the Office Superintendent in Rajasthan High Court, then he will steal a march over his compatriots, i.e., Private Secretary, Assistant Registrar and Court Officer. Hence it will be desirable that Officer Superintendent should be placed in the pay scale 2200-3600. The pay scale of Sr. Personal Assistant in Rajasthan High Court is 2000-3200. Since the post of Sr. Personal Assistant is equal status post with that of Office Superintendent, Sr. Personal Assistant should also be placed in the same pay scale of Office Superintendent, i.e., 2200-3600. 98. In Delhi High Court L.D.C., Restorer, Staff Car Criver, Despatch Van Driver (Rider), Despatch Rider and Sr. Gestener Operator are in the pay scale 1350-2200 and the minimum educational qualification required is matriculate/higher secondary with driving licence of light vehicles and two years unblemished experience in the line and the mode of appointment is by selection on the basis of driving test and interview. In Rajasthan High Court pay scale of L.D.C., Liftman, Referencer Asstt. 'PBX Operator, Telex Operator, Motor Mechanic, Driver, Generator Operator, Carpenter, Book Binder and Pump Driver is 950-1680. Henceforth their pay scale shall also stand revised to 1350-2200. Likewise for appointment on the post of Staff Car Driver in this court minimum educational qualification should be matric/higher secondary with driving licence of light vehicles and two years unblemished service experience in the line and method of appointment shall be by selection on the basis of driving test and interview. 99. Likewise for appointment on the post of Staff Car Driver in this court minimum educational qualification should be matric/higher secondary with driving licence of light vehicles and two years unblemished service experience in the line and method of appointment shall be by selection on the basis of driving test and interview. 99. In Delhi High Court all the categories of class IV servants are in the pay-scale 975-1660; whereas in Rajasthan High Court there are two categories of class IV Servants, i.e., Jamadar, Daftry, Basta Bardar and Library Boy in the pay scale of 775-1025 and other category, i.e., Peon, Orderly, Cycle Sawar, Waterman, Sweeper and Chowkidar in the pay-scale 750-940. As regards the educational qualification of class IV servants in Delhi High Court as well as in Rajasthan High Court, the rules are silent since no educational qualification is prescribed under the Rules of two establishments. This is resulting in enormous difficulties to the Judges as well as to the Administration and staff in discharge of their duties. Hence it is desirable that minimum educational qualification should be prescribed for their appointment. Henceforth minimum educational qualification for such posts shall be matric/secondary and appointment shall be made on the basis of selection and interview and the concerned candidate should have unblemished record. I am of the view that there should be one uniform pay-scale of all lass IV servants which is in Delhi High Court, i.e., 975-1660 and they are accordingly placed in the said pay-scale. 100. However, in the case of Pump Driver and Machineman in Rajasthan High Court, the present pay-scale is 910-1520 and 800-1250 respectively; whereas in Delhi High Court there are no corresponding posts. It is accordingly directed that henceforth they shall be given the pay-scales 1200-2050 and 1025-1800 respectively. 101. With regard to the educational qualification for the aforesaid posts in Rajasthan High Court, I am of the opinion that they shall be made effective for future appointments and if imposed on the existing incumbents they would result in great hardship and many would lose their promotional avenues which is not desirable in the interest of service. 102. As a result of the above discussion, I am of the view that the petitioners deserves to succeed. The writ petitions are allowed. 102. As a result of the above discussion, I am of the view that the petitioners deserves to succeed. The writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are accordingly directed by a writ of mandamus to fix the petitioners in the revised pay-scales as indicated in Appendix III annexed to this order so as to bring them at par with the pay-scale and other allowances which are admissible to the corresponding posts in Delhi High Court. It is further directed that the revised pay scales shall be made admissible to the petitioners w.e.f. 1st January, 1995. The salty of the petitioners in the revised pay-scales shall be fixed within three months from today and the arrears, if any, shall be paid to them within two months thereafter. The respondents are accordingly directed to make necessary amendments in Rajasthan High Court Staff Rules by incorporating the necessary modifications as referred to above. The parties are left to bear their own costs. 103. Before parting with the order, I would like to observe that huge funds have already been invested by the Rajasthan High Court for the purchase of Computers for the use of the Judges of this Court both at principal seat at Jodhpur and Bench at Jaipur, yet no useful purpose has been achieved since the machines are lying out of gear for want of trained staff and also for the reason that the local staff of High Court comprising of Private Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges and the Personal Assistants are not trained enough to operate the said computers which is causing great hindrence in dispensation of speedy justice. We have not to forget that immediate need of the hour is 'quick and speedy justice' which in my considered opinion, can only see light of the day if services of trained staff are immediately provided to assist the staff attached to the Judges of this Court, so that the Computers which are lying idle in the Chambers of the Judges of this Court are made functional with immediate effect. Hence the Registrar of this Court is directed to take up the matter immediately on the administrative side with Hon'ble the Chief justice to do the needful at the earliest. Hence the Registrar of this Court is directed to take up the matter immediately on the administrative side with Hon'ble the Chief justice to do the needful at the earliest. The Registrar is also directed to place orders for the purchase of separate Computer with Printers which may be installed in the Chambers of all the Judges of this Court which will ensure secrecy and confidentiality of the judgments which may be delivered by the Judges of this Court. This would also ensure substantial improvement in quality of the overall functioning of the staff of this court, besides would also add to efficiency in working. 104. Henceforth, with regard to future appointments of the Assistants/Senior Personal Assistants/Private Secretaries etc. it shall be desirable that they should have undergone requisite training in computer operations before they are appointed as this will facilitate efficient functioning of the court and the staff. It is further desirable that for the existing staff, it shall henceforth be essential that they should also undergo necessary orientation course and training in handing of the computers at the cost and expenses of the High Court so as to enable them to discharge their duties more effectively to the Judges of this Court. APPENDIX-I RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT > DELHI HIGH COURT > 1. P.P.S. to Chief justice RHJS cadre P.P.S. to C.J. cum Asstt. Registrar 3000-4500 2. Private Secretary-cum-Judgment Writer 2500-4250 Private Secretary 3000-4500 3. Superintendent 2000-3000 Superintendent 3000-4500 4. Sr. Personal Asstt. cum-Judgment Writer 2000-3200 No post exists 5. Sr. Court Master 2000-3200 No post exists 6. Sr. Translator 1640-2900 Sr. Translator 1640-2900 7. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer 1640-2900 P.A. to Registrar 2000-3200 8. Accountant 1640-2900 No post exists 9. No post exists Sr. Stenographer 2000-3200 10. Court Master 1400-2600 Court Master 1400-2300 11. Translator 1400-2600 Jr. Translator 1400-2300 12. Stamp Reporter 1400-2600 No post exists 13. Office Assistant 1400-2600 Assistant 14. Court-fee Examiner 1400-2600 No post exists 15. Statistical Asstt. 1400-2600 No post exists 16. Jr. Accountant 1400-2360 Treasurer 1400-2300 17. Care Taker 1400-2300 Care Taker 1350-2200 18. Stenographer Gr.II 1400-2300 Jr. Stenographer 1400-2300 19. No post exists P.A. to Dy. Registrar 1400-2300 20. U.D.C. 1200-2050 U.D.C. 1400-2300 21. L.D.C. 950-1680 L.D.C. 1350-2200 TECHNICAL POSTS > 22. Liftman 950-1680 Restorer 1350-2200 23. Referencer Asstt. 950-1680 No post exists 24. PBX Operator 950-1680 No post exists 25. Telex Operator 950-1680 No post exists 26. Stenographer Gr.II 1400-2300 Jr. Stenographer 1400-2300 19. No post exists P.A. to Dy. Registrar 1400-2300 20. U.D.C. 1200-2050 U.D.C. 1400-2300 21. L.D.C. 950-1680 L.D.C. 1350-2200 TECHNICAL POSTS > 22. Liftman 950-1680 Restorer 1350-2200 23. Referencer Asstt. 950-1680 No post exists 24. PBX Operator 950-1680 No post exists 25. Telex Operator 950-1680 No post exists 26. Motor Mechanic 950-1680 No post exists 27. Driver 950-1680 No post exists 28. Generator Operator 950-1680 No post exists 29. Carpenter 950-1680 No Post exists 30. Book Binder 950-1680 No technical post 31. Pump Driver 910-1520 32. Machineman 800-1250 CLASS IV POSTS > 33. Jamadar 775-1025 Usher 975-1660 34. Daftry 775-1025 Daftry 975-1660 35. Record Lifter 775-1025 No post exists 36. Basta Bardar 775-1025 Farash 975-1660 37. Library Boy 775-1025 Book Binder 975-1660 38. Peon Orderly 750-940 Peon 975-1660 3. Cycle Sawar 750-940 No post exists 40. Waterman 750-940 No post exists 41. Sweeper 750-940 Sweeper 975-1660 42. No post exists Chowkidar 975-1660 APPENDIX-IIIRevised Pay-scales admissible to the petitioners working at the Establishment of Rajasthan High Court w.e.f. 1st January, 1995. GAZETTED POSTS : > 1. Private Secretary : 3000-100-3500-125-4500 2. Superintendent : 2000-75-2800-100-4000 3. Sr. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer : 2200-75-2800-100-4000 4. Superintendent (Translation) : 2200-75-2800-100-4000 NON-GAZETTED POSTS : > 5. Court Master : 2000-60-2300-75-3200 6. Sr. Translator : 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 7. Personal Assistant-cum-Judgment Writer : 1640-60-2600-EB-75- 2900 8. Accountant : 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 9. Office Assistant : 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 10. Stamp Reporter : 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600 11. Court Fee Examiner : 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600 12. Statistical Assistant : 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600 13. Translator : 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600 14. Junior Accountant : 1400-40-1800-50-2300-60-2360 15. Stenographer Gr. II (English) : 1400-40-1800-50-2300 16. Stenographer Gr. II (Hindi) : 1400-40-1800-50-2300 17. Care-taker : 1400-40-1800-50-2300 18. Upper Division Clerk : 1400-40-1800-50-2300 19. Lower Division Clerk : 1350-30-1490-40-1800-EB-50-2200 TECHNICAL POSTS : > 20. Liftman : 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200 21. Referencer Asstt. : 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200 22. P.B.X. Operator : 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200 23. Telex Operator : 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200 24. Motor Mechanic : 1350-30-1440-1800-EB-50-2200 25. Driver : 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200 26. Generator Operator : 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200 27. Carpenter : 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200 28. Book Binder : 1350-30-1440-40-1800-EB-50-2200 29. Pump Driver : 1200-30-1560-EB-40-2000-50-2050 30. Machineman : 1025-25-1100-EB-30-1640-40-1800 CLASS IV POSTS > 31. Jamadar : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 32. Daftry : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 33. Record Lifter : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 34. Basta Bardar : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 35. Library Boy : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 36. Peon/Orderly : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 37. Cycle Sawar : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 38. Waterman : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 39. Sweeper : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 DEARNESS ALLOWANCE > 1. Basic Pay upto Rs. 3500/- p.m. 125% of pay 2. Jamadar : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 32. Daftry : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 33. Record Lifter : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 34. Basta Bardar : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 35. Library Boy : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 36. Peon/Orderly : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 37. Cycle Sawar : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 38. Waterman : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 39. Sweeper : 975-25-1150-EB-30-1660 DEARNESS ALLOWANCE > 1. Basic Pay upto Rs. 3500/- p.m. 125% of pay 2. Basic Pay above Rs. 3500/- p.m. and upto Rs. 6000/- p.m. 94% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 4760/- p.m. 3. Basic pay above Rs. 6000/- p.m. 81% of pay subject to a minimum of Rs. 6120/- p.m. C.C.A. > 1. Below Rs. 950/- p.m. Rs. 30/- p.m. 2. Rs. 950 and upto Rs. 1499/- Rs. 45/- p.m. 3. Rs. 1500/- and upto Rs. 1999/- Rs. 75/- p.m. 4. Rs. 2000/- and above Rs. 100/- p.m. H.R.A. > 1. Rs. 750/- to Rs. 949/- Rs. 150/- p.m. 2. Rs. 950/- to Rs. 1499/- Rs. 250/- p.m. 3. Rs. 1500/- to Rs. 2799/- Rs. 450/- p.m. 4. Rs. 2800/- to Rs. 3599/- Rs. 600/- p.m. 5. Rs. 3600/- to Rs. 4499/- Rs. 800/- p.m. 6. Rs. 4500/- and above Rs. 1000/- p.m. INTERIM RELIEF (I.R.) > 1. From 16.9.93 to 31.3.1955 @ Rs. 100/- p.m. 2. From 1.4.95 onwards Rs. 100+10% of pay subject to minimum of Rs. 100/- DRESS ALLOWANCE > 1. Rs. 200/- p.m. to Private Secretaries Superintendents and Court Masters. WASHING ALLOWANCE > 1. Rs. 15/- p.m. to all class IV employees and staff car drivers. Petitions allowed. *******