M. KATJU, D. R. CHAUDHARY, JJ. ( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to the petitioner in the revised scale of Rs. 975-1660 w. e. f. 1. 4. 1989 as applicable to the Secretary Grade II and for a mandamus directing the respondents to absorb the petitioner on the post of Secretary Grade II. ( 2 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was appointed on 25. 1. 1981 as Accountant in a Co- operative Society in Mirzapur and on 25. 5. 1985 he was appointed as Secretary of Baudala Sadhan Sahkari Samiti which is a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society at Mirzapur. The petitioner was posted in the pay scale of 375-578. which was subsequently modified to Rs. 400-650 in January 1989. True copy of the order appointing the petitioner as Secretary in Annexure 2 to the petitioner. It is alleged in paragraph 4 of the petition that the petitioner was being paid salary in the scale of Secretary of the Society as is evident from the order of respondent No. 2, dated 21. 6. 1985 vide Annexure 3 to the petition. ( 3 ) IT is alleged in paragraph 5 of the petition that on 29. 11. 1989, the scale of Secretary was revised by the Registrar, Co-operative Society, U. P. True copy of the said order is Annexure 4 to the petition. In paragraph 7, it is stated that the petitioner was a full time Secretary and not a part time Secretary as is evident from the order, dated 20. 5. 1985. It has further been alleged that the petitioner was appointed as Secretary Grade II on a substantive vacancy, however, in view of clause V of the GO, dated 28. 11. 1989 the respondents have not revised pay scale of the petitioner w. e. f. 1. 4. 1989 on the ground that his appointment was not a regular appointment. In paragraph 10 of the petition it is stated that even though the petitioner was not appointed as regular Secretary in view of the ban on the regular selections, the fact remains that the petitioner has been functioning and discharging the duties of full time secretary and he has been continuously functioning as Secretary Grade II since the date of his appointment on 25. 5. 5. 1985 and has been paid salary in the regular grade. It is alleged that there is no distinction between the petitioner functioning as full time Secretary and a regular Secretary since both have discharged the same function. Hence, it is alleged that the petitioner is entitled to the revised and regular scale. In paragraph 12, it is alleged that the respondents are guilty of gross discrimination in denying the regular revised scale of Rs. 975-1660 to the petitioner solely on the ground that he is not a regularly selected Secretary although in act he is full time Secretary discharging the duties of regular Secretary. ( 4 ) A counter-affidavit has been filed. In paragraph 6 of the same it has been stated that the Secretary Co-operative Societies has directed that only regular Secretaries are entitled to the regular pay scale. In paragraph 7, it is stated that as the petitioner is only an ad-hoc Secretary and was allowed to continue as officiating Secretary till the regular selection he was not entitled to the revised pay scale. ( 5 ) IN our opinion, this petition deserves to be allowed. The petitioner is entitled to the revised pay scale on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work. In Smt. P. Grover v. State of Haryana, AIR 1983 SC 1060 , the supreme Court held that a person, who was promoted on acting basis as district Education Officer is entitled to the same pay as District Education officer from the date of promotion. A similar view was taken by the Supreme court in Ram Narain Yadav v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 1170 . In Lallan prasad Patel v. District Inspector of Schools, 1985 0 UPLBEC 339, a Division bench of this Court held that a Headmaster appointed on ad-hoc basis as officiating Principal is entitled to the salary of Principal. The Supreme Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma and others, 1998 (5) SCC 87 , has also taken a similar view. ( 6 ) FOLLOWING, the aforesaid decisions the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay revised pay scale of Rs. The Supreme Court in Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer v. Hari Om Sharma and others, 1998 (5) SCC 87 , has also taken a similar view. ( 6 ) FOLLOWING, the aforesaid decisions the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay revised pay scale of Rs. 975-1660 to the petitioner with effect from the date from which he has been functioning as Secretary Grade II and he is also entitled to the further revised scale if any further revision has been made from the date of the said revision. No order as to costs. .