1. Petitioners, through the medium of this writ petition have sought the indulgence of the court for issuance a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay them pay scale of 1200-2035 which according to them is being paid to their counter-parts with retrospective effect from the date it was being paid to them; on the basis of Equal pay for Equal work. 2. Mr. Mehraj-ud-din, Advocate submitted that he would press this writ petition only on behalf of petitioner No. 1, as petitioner No. 2 Aijaz Ahmad Khan has left the service and this writ petition be treated as withdrawn on be half of petitioner No. 2. The statement of Mr. Mehraj-ud-din, advocate in token of his verbal submissions has also been recorded. In view of such statement the writ petition in respect of petitioner No. 2 shall be deemed to have been dismissed as withdrawn. 3. The case of the petitioner portraited in narration is that he is posted in the College of Physical Education as Plumber and in the same Institution of Govt. College Physical Education, there is another person Tariq Parvez who is also posted as plumber in the Youth Hostel of this Institution, and the whole Institution is under the control of respondent No. 3, principal head of educational Institution. That petitioner and Tariq Parvez are holding post of plumbers in the same Institution and the nature, duties and responsibilities are identical, having same technical education. That the petitioner was appointed as Plumber in the pay scale of 200-320 revised 410-700 and further revised to 900-1500. But the other employee, similarly situated, doing the same work, having the same responsibilities are drawing the salary in the pay scale of 475-850-revised to 1200-2035. Tariq Parvez working as plumber in the Youths Hostel of Govt. College of Physical Education under the same administrative head, performing the identical work but drawing higher scale of 1200-2035 and thus, petitioner has been discriminate and he represented against the discrimination for removing the anomaly of pay scale of the petitioner to bring it at par with the pay scale of the counter part in that Youth Hostel which is a part of the Govt. College of Physical Education. College of Physical Education. The case of the petitioner was recommended for up grading of the pay scale to the Director respondent No. 1, who further endorsed to the Secretary department of Education for removing the anomaly and bring the pay scale of the petitioner at par with his counter-parts serving in the same Institution and doing the identical work. Being neither response nor steps taken to redress the grievances of the petitioner by the Government; and thus, violated a guaranteed right of an employee under the Constitution. 4. The stand of the respondents on the other hand in their counter is that, though, the petitioner was appointed as plumber in the grade of 200-320 and Tariq Parvez appointed in a higher grade 220-430 which could have been revised from time to time. The petitioner having not objected it at that time could not do so because he was appointed purely on temporary basis and Tariq Parvez on regular basis after selection made by the concerned Selection Board. It is not disputed by the respondents that the employees other than the petitioner were appointed on the sanctioned scale of 220-430 (old), whereas the petitioner was appointed against the sanctioning post of plumber carrying the scale of 200-320. It is further admitted by the respondents that the up gradation of the petitioner in the present grade was strongly recommended, but the Finance Department did not agree and turned down the case of the petitioner in the following terms:- "Finance Department feel that up-gradation of the post is not warranted in this case. Since the two officials must be having different length of service and they do not have a ladder of promotion it should be desirable to call their respective grades as Grade-I and Grade-II. This will provide a ladder of promotion and is the most commonly adopted practice. The department may take action accordingly." It is further more contended that the petitioner in grade-II plumber and Tariq Parvez with whom the petitioner claims similarity, the nature of the work and same responsibilities is grade-I plumber, as the common posts of plumbers have been classified on categories as semiskilled and skilled, and as per these categories are placed in different scales, thus denied the entitlement of the petitioner to equal pay for equal work. 5. 5. Petitioner, in its rejoinder refuted the contention of the respondents and submitted that he and Tariq Parvez were appointed by the same order by Recruitment Board on the basis of selection vide order No DRBS/674 dated: 26-11-1980. It was further submitted that the petitioner could not be discriminated against with his counter-parts who have been given higher scale merely on the ground that he did not object it at the relevant time and accepted the post and joined the service, when he did the same work and discharge the same functions and duties as the other employees in the same department namely Tariq Parvez appointed by the same order. 6. That the administrative authorities cannot defeat the fundamental right for equal pay for equal work, in this manner and should behave like a model employer. 7. Heard and considered the rival contention of the parties. Undoubtedly equal pay for equal work is the constitutional goal capable of achievement through Constitutional remedies by the enforcement of Constitution rights, employees of the same class cannot be discriminated while regulating conditions of service. Cases of un-equal pay scale based on no classification or irrational classification is breach of principles of equal pay for equal work. 8. The application of doctrine arises, where employees are equal in every respect, educational qualifications, duties and measure of responsibility and yet they are denied equality in pay; similarly, while considering the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work is not necessarily to be found by mathematics formula. However, there must be reasonable similarity in the nature of work, performance of duties and the quality of work performed by them. Any classifications founded on unreal and unreasonable basis would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In other words inequality must be among equals, unequals cannot claim equality. 9. In the instant case, petitioner alongwith other employee in the same department came to be appointed as plumber after selection by the District Recruitment Board vide common order No. DRBS/674 dated: 26-11 -1980, which is reproduced herein as under:- "....As recommended by the Chairman District Recruitment Board Srinagar sanction is accorded to the:- 1. Appointment of Mr. Tariq Parvez S/o Ali Mohammad Bhat R/o Gowkadal, Mandir Bagh, Srinagar as plumber in the Youth Hostel, Srinagar on regular temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 220-430 plus usual allowances as admissible under rules. 2. Appointment of Mr. Tariq Parvez S/o Ali Mohammad Bhat R/o Gowkadal, Mandir Bagh, Srinagar as plumber in the Youth Hostel, Srinagar on regular temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 220-430 plus usual allowances as admissible under rules. 2. Appointment of Mr. Ab. Majid Sheikh S/o Aziz Sheikh R/o Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar as Plumber in 200-320 scale in Govt. College of Physical Education, Srinagar purely on temporary basis for a period of six months from the date he reported on duty in the Principal, Govt. College of Physical Education, Srinagar. His further continuance will be subject to the work and conduct during the said period. The Principal will check up the academic candidate as required under rules. Sd/- (N.A.Khan) Director." 10. Texture of order clearly shows that appointment of the petitioner and another employee Tariq Parvez was as plumber under the same department, but in different pay scales. They were required to perform the duties of a plumber. 11. On the representation made by the petitioner from time to time a communication came to be addressed by Director General Youth Services to the Commr Secretary to the Govt. for removal of pay anomaly of College Electrician and Plumber on the plea taken in un-equivocal terms that the nature of work and duties of the plumber managed by the department are identical which necessitated rectification of anomaly in their pay scales so as to redress their grievances. This fact has not been denied and disputed by the respondents advocate, Mr. Watali. This makes it clearly manifest that even the respondents also admitted that their existed anomalies in the pay scale of the plumber performing the same functions and doing the same duties in the same department which need to be rectified. 12. Mr. Watali, appearing for the respondents, however submitted that the petitioner was not ITI trained, he having accepted the job of a plumber at a lower grade waived his right. Secondly that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis as against other employee who was appointed on regular basis by the same order. 12. Mr. Watali, appearing for the respondents, however submitted that the petitioner was not ITI trained, he having accepted the job of a plumber at a lower grade waived his right. Secondly that the appointment of the petitioner was purely on temporary basis as against other employee who was appointed on regular basis by the same order. It is meaningful to point out that doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work cannot be dis-regarded merely on the ground that the petitioner by accepting the job at lower grade has waived his right when his counterpart by the same order given a higher pay scale though, the nature of the duties is the same and functions to be performed are identical. Equal pay for Equal work is a Constitutional right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Nothing has been shown from the record by the respondents to support their contention that the petitioner was not ITI trained as against his counter-part who happened to be ITI trained, on the basis of which given a higher scale than the petitioner. 13. In case P. Savita and others Vs. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1985 SC 1127, the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work came up for consideration and it was held as under:- "....In this case, the Senior Draftsmen, divided into two groups are in the same department doing identical grades. It is not a case different grades created on the ground of higher qualification either academic or otherwise or an entitlement by any other criteria laid down. The justification for this classification is by the mere accident of an earlier entry into service, This cannot be justified.....Where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently.." 14. In the like manner, a temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a regular/permanent employee. So also, the difference of mode of selection will not effect the application of doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work", if both the classes of persons performing similar duties and its under the same employer. In case of Dhian Singh and anr. Vs. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. and ors. 1990 LAB. So also, the difference of mode of selection will not effect the application of doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work", if both the classes of persons performing similar duties and its under the same employer. In case of Dhian Singh and anr. Vs. National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. and ors. 1990 LAB. I.C., The High Court while dealing with the question of applicability of Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work in case of regular and work charge employee held as under:- "...It is true that gradation in the service is permissible on the basis of length of service, qualifications or exceptional circumstances but the persons similarly situated cannot be discriminated against in the matter of grant of the grades only on the ground that one set of the employees was on the regular establishment whereas the other was on the work charge basis, particularly when the nature of the duties and functions performed by them were identical. The respondents however have not claimed nor brought anything on the record to show that the petitioners were not entitled to be placed in the higher grade on the aforesaid principle. The order impugned in the writ petition being clearly in violation of the fundamental rights as enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India is liable to be quashed." 15. Both the contentions raised by Mr. Watali, stand answered. The factual matrix of this case and the question involved brings to force how the equality doctrine enshrined in the Constitution of India is endeavoured to be flouted by the authorities under the guies of artificial divisions, dividing persons doing the same work into two groups without any justification and denying to one group by way of pay and emoluments what the other group gets. The petitioner has been subjected to un-justifiable discrimination in the grant of pay scale while his counter-part in the department under the same employer was placed in higher grade, although, the work and responsibilities performing both the employees were same, (R. Kachru Vs. State and Ors. HC 1996 SLJ 173). There is nothing brought on record by the respondents to support their plea about the common posts and applicabilities classified into various categories specified either in rules or otherwise, so as to merit consideration. State and Ors. HC 1996 SLJ 173). There is nothing brought on record by the respondents to support their plea about the common posts and applicabilities classified into various categories specified either in rules or otherwise, so as to merit consideration. In the back ground aforesaid, I do not find any justification for not allowing the petitioner, the benefit of higher grade from the date of presentation of writ petition. The result, therefore is that the writ petition is allowed. Command is issued to the respondents directing them to grant the same pay scale to the petitioner as had been granted to his counter-part(s) as directed. The arrears to be paid within four months from the date, the respondents would receive the copy of this judgment.