Dr. J.N. Dubey, J. The petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay them the upgraded pay scale of the post of Assistant soil Conservation Officer equivalent posts on the principle of equal pay for equal work- 2. The case of the petitioners is that prior to 1968 the development works relating to Soil Conservation was done by the two different directorates viz. Directorate of waste Land Reclamation under Revenue Department and Directorate of Agriculture under Agriculture Department. In 1968 the two directorates were merged and an integrated Directorate of Soil Conservation under the Agriculture Department was constituted. Initially only Graduates in Agriculture Sciences were being appointed on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, but later on when a separate graduate degree of Forest Sciences was introduced in the Agriculture Universities in the State the government decided to appoint the Graduates of forest Sciences also on the said post. 3. The degree of Bachelor of Forest Sciences is equivalent to the degree of Bachelor of Agriculture Sciences. The course of study for degree of Bachelor of Forest Sciences a student has to study Soil Conservation and Land Management as distinct subject just like a student of Bachelor of Agriculture Sciences but the courses regarding Soil Conservation in Bachelor of Agriculture Sciences the syllabus is less than Bachelor of Forest Sciences. It is because of this that in 1987 the government decided to a appoint only Graduates of Forest Sciences on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer. There after no graduate of Agriculture Sciences has been appointed on that post in the State. 4. Seven posts of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer were advertised by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board in 'Ranchi Express' on 4.3.1987. According to the advertisement only Graduates of Forest Sciences were eligible for the post. The petitioners, who are Graduates in Forest Sciences from Birsa Agriculture University, Ranchi, also applied in pursuance of the said advertisement. They were interviewed by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board, along with several other candidates, and on being found suitable were selected for the post. The government accepting the recommendation of the Board appointed the petitioners as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on 12th May 1988. While petitioner no.1 joined the post on 26th May 1988, petitioner no. They were interviewed by the Bihar State Subordinate Service Selection Board, along with several other candidates, and on being found suitable were selected for the post. The government accepting the recommendation of the Board appointed the petitioners as Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on 12th May 1988. While petitioner no.1 joined the post on 26th May 1988, petitioner no. 2 joined on 1st June 1988 and both of them were posted as Assistant Research Officer, Soil Conservation Research, Hazaribagh. 5. The pay scale of Bihar agriculture Services Category-One (Agronomy) was revised on 18th September 1987 from Rs.850 13601- to Rs.1000-18201. Although both the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer and Assistant Research Officer, Soil Conservation, on which the petitioners are presently working, were included in the Bihar Agriculture Services Category-One, but the petitioners were not given the revised pay scale. On the recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Committee the pay scale of Rs.850-1360/was converted into Rs.1600-2780/- whereas the pay scale of Rs.1000-1820/- was converted into Rs.2000-38001- with effect from March, 1989. Since the petitioners were not paid the revised pay scale of Rs.1000-1820/- they were also deprived of the benefit of the recommendation or the 5th Pay Revision Committee with the result the petitioners are being paid in the pay scale of Rs.16002780/- instead of Rs.2000-3800/-, being paid to other persons holding same and similar equivalent posts. The petitioners filed several representations to the respondents for the redress of their grievances but with no result, hence this writ petition. 6. On the other hand the case of the respondents is that several persons having Bachelor Degree in Agronomy were directly appointed by the Directorate of Soil Conservation on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer during 1973-1976, out of which 13 are still working on the said post. Twenty posts of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer thirteen on which the Graduates of Agronomy and seven on which Graduates of Forest Sciences were working, were also included in the 212 posts sanctioned by the Directorate of Soil Conservation. Twenty posts of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer thirteen on which the Graduates of Agronomy and seven on which Graduates of Forest Sciences were working, were also included in the 212 posts sanctioned by the Directorate of Soil Conservation. However, out of these 20 posts of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer only 13 posts, on which Graduates of Agronomy were working, were included in the Bihar Subordinate Agriculture Service Category-One (Agronomy) and they were included in the gradation of Category One (Agronomy) in the Department of Agriculture and the remaining seven posts, on which the Graduates of Forest Sciences were working, were not included therein Since the seven Assistant Soil Conservation Officers, including the petitioners, having Bachelor Degree in Forest Sciences, were not included in the Bihar Subordinate Agriculture Service they were not entitled for the pay scale admissible to the officers of Bihar Subordinate Agriculture Service of Category-One (Agronomy). It was further stated that the seven persons, including the petitioners, having Bachelor Degree in Forest Sciences were appointed on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on trial basis with an object that if they were found useful some more persons with that qualification may be accomodated on the said post for the successful implementation of Social Forestory Scheme. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the claim of the respondents that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on trial basis and that they were not member of Bihar Subordinate Agriculture Service is wholly wrong. It was further contended that the petitioners are performing the same functions and duties as performed by the other Assistant Soil Conservation Officer and, as such, are entitled for the same salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In other words, according to the learned counsel, there was no justification for the respondents to pay higher salary to the persons possessing Bachelor Degree in Agronomy than to those possessing the Bachelor Degree in Forest Sciences when they were holding the same post and discharging the same functions. 9. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. In other words, according to the learned counsel, there was no justification for the respondents to pay higher salary to the persons possessing Bachelor Degree in Agronomy than to those possessing the Bachelor Degree in Forest Sciences when they were holding the same post and discharging the same functions. 9. I find substance in the argument of the learned counsel. There is absolutely nothing either in the advertisement dated 4.3.1987 or the appointment letters of the petitioners from which it could be inferred that they were appointed on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer on trial basis. Similarly there is no material on record to show that only 13 Assistant Soil Conservation Officers having Bachelor Degree in Agronomy were included in the Bihar Subordinate Agriculture Service. On the other hand there is overwhelming evidence on record to show that seven post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, or which Graduates of Forest Sciences were appointed, were also included in be Bihar Subordinate Agriculture Service. 10. The respondents in their counter affidavit, while claiming that the petitioners are not the members of the Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service Category-One (Agronomy), have specifically admitted that there is no separate cadre or service of the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer/Assistant Research Officer, Soil Conservation, on which seven persons, including the petitioners, are working. On the other hand, petitioners have filed several documents to show that they were always treated as members of the Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service by the State Government. In this connection reference may be made to the letter no. 10088 dated 18.9.1987 of the State Government written to the Accountant General. Bihar informing him that the persons working under Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service Category-One (Agronomy) on the post of Agriculture Inspector and other equivalent posts would now get replacement of upgraded pay scale of Rs.1000-1820/- in place of old pay scale of Rs.850-1360/-. A list of posts which were to get the upgraded pay scale was also sent along with the letter in which the posts of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer/Assistant Reserch Officer, Soil Conservation, on which the petitioners are working, were also included. 11. The State Government vide its letter no. 9677 dated 12.10.1990 sent certain members, inc1uding the petitioners, of Bihar Agriculture Service and Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service for 51/2 months' training to different Training Institution at Dehradun and Behri. 12. 11. The State Government vide its letter no. 9677 dated 12.10.1990 sent certain members, inc1uding the petitioners, of Bihar Agriculture Service and Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service for 51/2 months' training to different Training Institution at Dehradun and Behri. 12. The State Government vide its letter no.21 dated 14.2.1992 intimated the Accountant General Bihar about allotment of the pay to the petitioners in the upgraded pay scale of the pay to Rs.2000-3800/. Thus, not only the petitioners were all along treated as members of the Bihar Agriculture Service and Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service Category-One (Agronomy) by the State Government bur it had also accorded financial sanction and released money for payment of salary to them in the upgraded pay scale of Rs.200-3800/-. It is not disputed by the respondents that the petitioners arc performing the same functions as performed by the Assistant Soil Conservation Officers, who are being paid salary in the upgraded pay scale of Rs.2000-3800/-. 13. The respondents have not denied the claim of the petitioners that in the year 1987 the State Government took a decision to appoint only Graduate of Forest Sciences on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer and that thereafter no Agriculture Graduate has been appointed on the said post. Once the State Government has decided to appoint only Graduate of Forest Sciences on the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officer, it cannot reasonably claim that either the petitioners are not qualified to or are not performing the functions of the said post. 14. The claim of the petitioners that they have been performing the same functions as performed by the other Assistant Soil Conservation Officers, who are being paid salary in the upgraded pay scale of Rs.2000-3800/-, has also not been disputed by the respondents. Thus, it is clear that the petitioners have all along been treated as members of Bihar Agriculture Service and Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service Category-One (Agonomy) by the State Government and that they have been performing the same functions as performed by the other Assistant Soil Conservation Officers, who are being paid salary in the upgraded ray scale of Rs.2000-3800/- with effect from March, 1989. This being so the petitioners are also entitled to get salary in the upgraded pay scale of Rs.2000-3800/- with effect from March 1989 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 15. This being so the petitioners are also entitled to get salary in the upgraded pay scale of Rs.2000-3800/- with effect from March 1989 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 15. In my opinion, there is absolutely no justification for the respondents to pay less salary to the petitioners than being paid to the other Assistant Soil Conservation Officers of Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service Category-One (Agronomy). 16. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the same salary to the petitioners as is being paid to the other Assistant Soil Conservation Officers of the Bihar Agriculture Subordinate Service Category-One (Agronomy). No order as to costs. Petition Allowed.