Judgment :- S.S. SUBRAMANI, J. This Writ Petition is filed by the Pondicherry Judicial Officers Welfare Association, represented by its Secretary. 2. Government of Pondicherry in consultation with the High Court of Judicature at Madras framed the Pondicherry Judicial Service Rules 1980 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules provide for constitution of judicial service to the Union Territory of Pondicherry and also for all matters relating to recruitment, confirmation, promotion etc. of the members of the Judicial Service. The Judiciary consists of three categories of Judicial Officers, namely, District Judges (Senior Scale Grade) 2) Subordinate Judges and Chief Judicial Magistrates (Junior Scale-Grade I) and 3) District Munsifs/Magistrates (Junior Scale-Grade II). 3. After the constitution of the Judiciary in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, pay scales of Judicial Officers in the Union Territory of Pondicherry were fixed, comparable to the pay scales of Judicial Officers in the neighbouring State of Tamil Nadu. After the III Pay Commission, pay scales of Judicial Officers in the Union Territory of Pondicherry were fixed at par with the Judicial Officers in the Union Territory of Delhi. 4. On 1.3.1982, pay scales of Judicial Officers in the Union Territory of Delhi were revised upwards and the revised scales of Pay continued till the IV Pay Commission recommendations. The pay scales of the Delhi Judicial Officers were further enhanced and revised by the IV Pay Commission, whereas, the pay scales of Judicial Officers in the Union Territory of Pondicherry were left unrevised. 5. Aggrieved by the inaction of the Pay Commission, various representations were made to the Government of Pondicherry and to the Union of India, seeking revision of pay scales at par with the Judicial Officers of Delhi, more particularly, with reference to 1.3.1982 Revision of Pay Scales of Delhi Judicial Officers. The Government of Pondicherry was convinced about the disparity and discrimination, and therefore recommendation was given to the Government of India for the grant of revised pay scales on the basis on 1.3.1982 Revision of Pay Scales. The High Court of Madras also approved and recommended the payment of enhanced Pay Scales to the Judicial Officers of Pondicherry at par with their counterparts in Delhi. 6. The High Court of Madras also approved and recommended the payment of enhanced Pay Scales to the Judicial Officers of Pondicherry at par with their counterparts in Delhi. 6. After protracted and repeated correspondence, the Government of India sent a letter dated 30.3.1994 stating that the decision of the Delhi High Court granting certain relief to the Delhi Judicial Officer is appealed against by the Government of India before the Supreme Court of India and the request of Judicial Officers of Pondicherry cannot be acceded to till the disposal of that case. 7. It is alleged in the affidavit that Judicial Officers in Pondicherry are equally qualified and experienced as that of their counterparts in Delhi. They are also doing identical work that the Delhi Judicial Officers are discharging, and the Service Rules of Pondicherry is a verbatim reproduction of the Delhi Judicial are Higher Judicial Service Rules. The Union Territory of Pondicherry also enjoys identical Constitutional status as of Delhi. 8. It is said that the Government of India was not justified in prescribing different scales of pay to the Judicial Officers of Pondicherry, who discharge the same and identical nature of work, merely Pondicherry and Delhi are situated in two parts of India. There cannot be any hostile discrimination in treating the Officers, since both of them are entitled for equal pay for equal work. It is said that the pendency of the appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court against the judgment of the Delhi High Court cannot operate as a bar for considering the demands of Judicial Officers, Pondicherry who are seeking the 1982 pay scales granted to the Delhi Judicial Officers and the corresponding subsequent revision of pay scale, which is not the subject matter of dispute in any case. What the petitioners want is only they may be treated equally as that of their counterparts in Delhi. What the petitioners want is only they may be treated equally as that of their counterparts in Delhi. It is for the above reasons, petitioner had come to this Court for issuance of Writ of certiorarified mandamus or any other appropriate writ direction or order, calling for the records relating to the order dated 30.3.94 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to remove the pay scale disparity by revising the pay structure of the Judicial Officers of Union Territory of Pondicherry with effect and benefit from 1.3.1982 on par with the Judicial Officers of Demi by taking into account all the subsequent revisions of pay scales till date, including the scales of pay fixed by the IV Pay Commission, and thus accord the pay scale of Judicial Officers of Delhi as on date to the Pondicherry Judicial Officers within three months from the date of this order in the writ petition and pass such further orders. 9. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the second respondent i.e., Union Territory of Pondicherry. In the Counter, it is admitted that till 1.3.1982, pay scales prescribed for the various grades in the Pondicherry Judicial Service were almost same as the scales of pay prescribed for the corresponding scales in the Delhi Judicial Service. It is also said that the Pondicherry Administration was also requesting for the application of revised scales of pay of the Delhi Judicial Service to the Pondicherry Judicial Service as well right from the year 1983. It is said that on the advice of the Government of India, matter was taken to the IV Pay Commission. The Fourth Pay Commission recommended only scale to scale revision for the members of Pondicherry Judicial Service and did not recommend scales of pay on par with the Delhi Judicial Service. It is further said that the Pondicherry Administration again took up the matter with the Union Government that Pondicherry Judicial Officer should also be treated on par with the Delhi Judicial Officers in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in All India Judges Associations case . It is said that the Government of India have constituted the first National Judicial Pay Commission with Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, former Judge, Supreme Court as the Chairman and the Pondicherry Administration has already furnished the required particulars to the Commission. It is said that the Government of India have constituted the first National Judicial Pay Commission with Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty, former Judge, Supreme Court as the Chairman and the Pondicherry Administration has already furnished the required particulars to the Commission. 10. It is further said that the Central Government is presently seized of the question and is empowering the Commission to give such interim recommendations from time to time as it found necessary. It is said that as and when the Government of India passes necessary orders in regard to the Pay structures of the Judicial Officers and the other officers on the recommendations of the National Pay Commission, the same shall be implemented by the Administration immediately. 11. Heard both sides. 12. Even though the Government of India has been served with notice, no counter affidavit has been filed, and therefore, we did not have the benefit of hearing the objections, if any, from the Central Government. 13. In (1992) 1 S.C.C 199 ( All India Judges Association v. Union of India ), their Lordships extracted the relevant portion of the Fourth Law Commission Report. We are referring to that it is recognised that all the Judicial Officers perform uniform functions and the Law Commission also recommended that how the officers will have to be designated. In that case, various directions were given by the Honourable Supreme Court and one of the matters in which the direction was given was that as and when the pay committees are set up in the States and Union Territories, the question of appropriate pay scales of Judicial Officers be specifically referred and considered. This judgment was sought to be reviewed and the order of the Review Petition is reported in 1993 (4) S.C.C. 288 ( All India Judges Assn. v. Union of India ) in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the order, their Lordships considered the question regarding the uniform pay scales to the Judicial Officers. That petition of the order reads thus: “35 (iv) Uniform Pay scales: In the first instance it is necessary to recapitulate here the observations made and the directions given in the judgment under review on the question of the uniform pay scales. That petition of the order reads thus: “35 (iv) Uniform Pay scales: In the first instance it is necessary to recapitulate here the observations made and the directions given in the judgment under review on the question of the uniform pay scales. The Court had found from the data before it that there was a wide variance in pay structure prevailing in the various states and Union Territories, and for the same nature of work performed, the Judicial Officers were remunerated differently. However, the Court found that it was difficult to get into the exercise of fixing appropriate pay scales in the absence of full details. In the absence of such data, there was a likelihood of affecting special benefits which the Judicial Officers may be getting in some States. The Court, therefore, declined to direct fixation of any pay scales. Instead, the Court directed the Pay Commission or the Committees to be set up in the States and the Union Territories to separately examine and review the pay structure of Judicial Officers keeping in view the relevant aspects some of which have been advered to in the Fourteenth Report of the Law Commission. The relevant passage from the said report which has been quoted in the judgment highlights that the entry in the judicial service is late compared to the entry into the executive service and the promotions in the judicial service come less quickly. Both these factors affect the Judicial Officers pension and other retirement benefits compared to those of the members of the executive service. 36.” We have already discussed the need to make a distinction between the political and the administrative executive and to appreciate that parity in status can only be between Judges and the political executive and not between Judges and the administrative executive. Hence the earlier approach of comparison between the service conditions of the Judges and those of the administrative executive has to be abandoned and the service conditions of the Judges which are wrongly linked to those of the administrative executive have to be revised to meet the special needs of the Judicial Service. Further, since the work of the Judicial Officers throughout the country is of the same nature the service conditions have to be uniform. Further, since the work of the Judicial Officers throughout the country is of the same nature the service conditions have to be uniform. We have also emphasized earlier the necessity of entrusting the work of prescribing the service conditions for the Judicial Officers to a separate Pay Commission exclusively set up for the purpose. Hence we reiterate the importance of such separate commission and also of the desirability of prescribing uniform pay scales to the Judges all over country. Since such any scales will be the minimum deserved by the Judicial Officers, the argument that some of the states may not be able to bear the financial burden is irrelevant. The uniform service conditions as and when laid down would not of course, affect any special or extra benefits which some States may he bestowing upon their Judicial Officers. ” (Emphasis supplied) 14. The Honourable Supreme Court also directed that separate Pay Commission will have to be constituted in regard to the Judicial Officers only. It is pursuant to the same, Pay Commission was constituted by the Government of India with Mr. Justice K. Jagannatha Shetty as its Chairman. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, the terms of reference of the Commission is incorporated as follows: (a) to evolve the principles which should govern the structure of pay and other emoluments of Judicial Officer belonging to the Subordinate Judiciary all over the country. (b) to examine the present structure of emoluments and conditions of service of Judicial Officers in the State and Union territories taking into account the total packet of benefits available to them and make suitable recommendations having regard, among other relevant factors, to the existing relativities in the pay structure between the officers belonging to Subordinate Judicial Service vis-à-vis other civil servants. The said Judicial Pay Commission have already started its functions and have called f or various particulars from all the State Governments/Union Territory Administrations.” 15. On the basis of the decisions referred, as argument was taken by the Government Pleader, Union Territory of Pondicherry that the matter now before the Court is also to be decided by the Commission. Government Pleader therefore submitted that the decision in this case may be deferred till the report of the Commission is submitted. Government Pleader also relied on the decision reported in 1998 (8) S.C.C. 499 ( State of Bihar v. Ramjee Ram ). Government Pleader therefore submitted that the decision in this case may be deferred till the report of the Commission is submitted. Government Pleader also relied on the decision reported in 1998 (8) S.C.C. 499 ( State of Bihar v. Ramjee Ram ). It, seems, the High Court of Patna gave certain directions in regard to the service conditions of its Judicial Officers. The state of Bihar appealed before the Honourable Supreme Court and in the decision cited, direction given by the High Court was set aside on the ground that if at all any clarifications are required, only the Supreme Court has got Jurisdiction. The Honourable Supreme Court held thus: “1. Special leave granted. 2. In the ALL INDIA JUDGEs ASSN. Case in the concluding paragraph this Court has observed as under (SCC p. 317. Para 56). “56. Any clarification that may be required in respect of any matter arising out of this decision will be sought only from this Court and from no other Court. Further, the proceedings, if any, for implementation of the directions given in this judgment shall be filed only in this Court and no other Court shall entertain them. 3. In view of this clear direction in the aforesaid case, we are afraid that the High Court was not right in exercising jurisdiction. “We, therefore, set aside the order of the High Court However, if any part of the direction given by this Court in the aforesaid case has not been complied with, it would be open to move this Court, if so advised. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.” 16. In view of various decisions cited, learned Government Pleader further submitted that it is only proper that this Court should not give any direction at this stage. At the same time, the Government pleader submitted that the Government is not against awarding the same scale of pay as enjoyed by the Judicial Officers in Delhi. It is also conceded by the learned Government Pleader that the Pondicherry Administration itself has recommended to the Government of India that the Judicial Officers in Pondicherry may be given the same benefits as drawn by the Delhi Officers. 17. It is also conceded by the learned Government Pleader that the Pondicherry Administration itself has recommended to the Government of India that the Judicial Officers in Pondicherry may be given the same benefits as drawn by the Delhi Officers. 17. As against the said contention, senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that when functions of Judicial Officers throughout the State is uniform and when Delhi and Pondicherry are treated equal, thereafter they should not have been treated separately after 1982. It is submitted by the Senior Counsel that the Pondicherry Union Judicial Service Rules is really a copy of the Delhi Judicial Service Rules and in all respects, both of them are equals. In fact, in the counter affidavit of the respondent, this fact is not denied. Apart from the same, in the All India Judges Associations case (cited supra),. their Lordships have also recognised the fact that the Judicial Officers throughout the State have to be treated equally as they are discharging the same functions and will have to be treated on par. 18. The only question therefore now requires consideration in whether there is a bar for this Court in giving directions to the Government of India, merely because the Judicial Commission has been constituted and whether the decision cited in 1998 (8) S.C.C. could be equally applied to this petition also. 19. After hearing on both sides, we do not feel that this Court is prohibited from issuing necessary directions. The Judicial Commission has been directed to look into the uniform pay structure taking into consideration the present structure of emoluments and consider the services. That is not a matter that is required by the petitioner in this case. What the petitioners seek is that they may be treated equally with that of Delhi Officers which fact was recognised till 1982. There is no reason why the recognition already made should be deviated by the IV Pay Commission when it was constituted. We find force in the said contention of the Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 20. In view of the fact that the Pondicherry Administration also admitted that the Delhi Judicial Service Rules and the Pondicherry Judicial Service Rules are same in all respects and the Pondicherry Administration have also recommended for the very same fixation, we do not think that we should defer our decision till the final report of the Pay Commission is filed. In view of the fact that the Pondicherry Administration also admitted that the Delhi Judicial Service Rules and the Pondicherry Judicial Service Rules are same in all respects and the Pondicherry Administration have also recommended for the very same fixation, we do not think that we should defer our decision till the final report of the Pay Commission is filed. 21. From 1982 to till date, the Pondicherry Officers have been denied the benefits which the Delhi Officers are enjoying even though they are equals in all respects. We are not giving a new pay scale, which is the duty of the Pay Commission. We are only saying that the Central Government should have treated the Pondicherry Officers also as equals to the Delhi Officers. When they have failed to do so, it necessitated the petitioners to come to this Court. 22. An argument is also taken by the Government Pleader that under the similar circumstances, Judicial Officers in Delhi also moved the Delhi High Court wherein such directions were given. The Central Government has filed an appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court and the matter has been stayed. The decision of the Delhi High Court and the appeal before the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the matter which is now before us. The reasons given in paragraphs 17 and 18 of the affidavit of the writ petition show that the pendency of the appeal before the Honourable Supreme Court cannot be said as a bar for entertaining this writ petition. 23. We must also take note of the fact that the demand of Judicial Officers of the Pondicherry has been pending from 1983 onwards when they were separately treated by the Central Government. For the last more than 15 years, they are aggrieved by the attitude and inaction and by asking them to wait for years together is unjust. 24. In the above circumstances, we feel that we will be justified in issuing the following directions to the first respondent: The impugned order is quashed and we direct the respondents to remove the pay scale disparity by refuting the pay structure of the Judicial Officers in Union Territory of Pondicherry with effect and benefit from 1.3.1982 on par with the Judicial Officers in Delhi taking into account of subsequent revisions of Pay Commissions till date including the scales fixed by the IV Pay Commission.. We further direct the first respondent to take immediate action and pass final orders on the representation of the petitioner regarding the parity in scale with that of Delhi Officers without any further delay, at any rate, within a period of two months from today. 25. We make it clear that the Judicial Officer in Pondicherry are entitled to same scales of pay as awarded to the Delhi Judicial Officers. Writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.