(1) Respondent, who was at the relevant time, a member of the haryana Superior Judicial Service, holding the post of District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) finding himself aggrieved of an amendment made to the Punjab Superior judicial Service (Haryana Second amendment) Rules, 1988 vide notification dated 2/12/1988, whereby sub-rule (1) of Rule 14 of the punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963 was amended, filed a writ petition in the High Court, The precise grievance projected by the respondent in the writ petition was that by virtue of the said amendment members of the Haryana judicial Service placed in the selection grade, were held no longer entitled to draw any special pay and that the amendment was both irrational and arbitrary. (2) The writ petition was contested in the high Court by the State. In view of the limited nature of challenge, we are relieved of the necessity to recapitulate factual averments. Suffice, it to notice that, the respondent was denied the benefit of special pay on account of the impugned amendment. The Division Bench, while considering the merits of the case, opined : "so far as the merits of the case are concerned, it has been established on record that the special pay was granted because of the arduous nature of duties assigned to the post of District and Sessions judge (Vigilance), Haryana, and not for compensating the incumbent of this post on account of non-availability of rent free accommodation, as has been pleaded by the respondents in the written statement. Otherwise also, statutory rules do not envisage such a grant on account of non-availability of rent free accommodation for the incumbent of the post. The nature of duties attached to the post still remain arduous and do not undergo a change, only because the incumbent of the post, by virtue of his seniority, efficiency and consistent good work, is granted selection grade. Selection grade is granted to a member of the Superior Judicial Service only when he is found efficient and competent enough to man the post and his past performance is rated high, in addition, to his seniority in the cadre. If the special pay enjoyed by him before the grant of selection grade is to be withdrawn from him on the grant of selection grade, then his seniority, ability, proven merit and efficiency are to be at a discount with him. If the special pay enjoyed by him before the grant of selection grade is to be withdrawn from him on the grant of selection grade, then his seniority, ability, proven merit and efficiency are to be at a discount with him. This cannot be the intention of the framers of the statutory rules. " (3) The High Court further noticed that members of the Indian Administrative service, who are placed in the selection grade, were in receipt of special pay and it was only members of the Indian administrative Service enjoying super time scale of service, who were not getting any special pay. The attention of the High Court was also drawn to the position, as existing in the State of Punjab, where also members belonging to the Punjab Superior Judicial service were receiving special pay, irrespective of the fact whether the judicial officers were in the selection grade or not. Taking note of all these factors, the High court struck down the amendment which introduced second proviso to Rule 14 (1) of Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, denying benefit of special pay to judicial officers on being granted selection grade as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The orders issued in various cases as a consequence of the amendment were also struck down. (4) After going through the record and hearing elaborate arguments addressed by the learned Additional Solicitor General, mr, Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the State of Haryana, we are unable to persuade ourselves to differ from the reasoning and conclusions arrived at by the High Court, it is not disputed that on being placed in the selection grade, functions, responsibilities and duties of the member of the superior judiciary in Haryana under the existing judicial system do not get reduced in any way. The High Court has given cogent reasons for striking down the amendment, which on the face of it is irrational and we agree, with those reasons. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. (5) It is however, clarified that accrual of interest @ 12% per annum, as ordered by the High Court, vide judgment impugned before us, shall commence only with effect from 1/01/2001. In other words, in case payment of arrears etc. (5) It is however, clarified that accrual of interest @ 12% per annum, as ordered by the High Court, vide judgment impugned before us, shall commence only with effect from 1/01/2001. In other words, in case payment of arrears etc. as a result of the striking clown of the amendment, is made to those judicial officers, who became entitled to it under orders of the High Court, on or before 31 st december, 2000, the same shall not carry any component of interest on the accrued amount with effect from the date when that amount fell due, but in case payment of arrears etc. is not so made, then, on the total amount of arrears as calculated up to 31/12/2000, interest would start accruing with effect from 1/01/2001 @ 12% per annum till payment is made. Appeal dismissed.