I.A. ANSARI, J.— By making this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, All Arunachal Pradesh Horticulture Subordinate Field Staff Association (hereinafter referred to as "AAPHEFSA") has approached this Court seeking issuance of appropriate writ / writs commanding the respondents to grant benefit of revised scale of pay at par with the similarly placed employees of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 2. In a narrow compass, the case of the petitioner may be put as follows: The petitioner Association is an Association comprising of the employees of the Horticulture Department under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, the present strength of the Association being of 104 members, which include Horticultural Field Assistants, Recorder-cum-Surveyors, Village Level Workers (Senior) as well as Village Level Workers (Junior), Field Assistants, Field men and Grafters. The Association was formed, -with due intimation to the authorities of the State Government concerned, in the year 1997-98, for the purpose of protection and improvement of the service conditions including the pay and allowances of its members. The AAPHSFSA is represented in this writ petition by its president, namely, Sri Digo Ronya. The president as well as all the other members of the petitioner Association are citizens of India and as such are entitled to all the rights, privileges and protections guaranteed to the citizens of India under the Constitution of India. The Department of Horticulture and the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary were, originally, under the Department of Agriculture in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. As per the relevant Recruitment Rules published vide Notification No.Agri/E-22/73/Vol-II/22, dated 22.5.74, the qualifications required, at that point of time, for recruitment to the post of Supervisor Veterinary Field Assistant (i.e. SVFA) were same as the qualifications required for the posts of Assistant Farm Manager (Live-Stock)/Supervisor Veterinary Field Assistant, the Village Level Worker-Senior (i.e. VLW-Sr.) as per Notification No. Agri/E-22/73/Vol-n/3, dated 22.5.74. Similarly, the posts of Veterinary Field Assistant (VF A) and Village Level Worker-Junior (i.e. VLW-Jr.) were at par with each other in so far as prescribed qualifications were concerned. In the year 1976, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary was carved out of the Department of Agriculture. However, parity was maintained in so far as the prescribed qualifications and scales of pay between SVFA and VLW-Sr. as well as between VFA and VLW-Jr were concerned. In the year 1976, the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary was carved out of the Department of Agriculture. However, parity was maintained in so far as the prescribed qualifications and scales of pay between SVFA and VLW-Sr. as well as between VFA and VLW-Jr were concerned. This parity was maintained between the posts aforementioned on account of the fact that the nature of work and responsibilities connected with the said posts were similar. In the year 1986, the Department of Horticulture, was partially carved out of the Agriculture Department, but the Department of Horticulture, finally, came into independent existence in the year 1993. On the said Department of Horticulture becoming an independent identity, the posts of Horticulture Field Assistants (HFA)/Recorder-cum-Surveyor (RCS)/Village Level Worker-Senior were kept at par with SVFA in the Veterinary Department in so far as requisite qualifications and scales of pay were concerned. Similarly, the posts of Field Assistants/Village Level Worker-Junior as well as Field -Men/Grafter were kept at par with the VFA in the Veterinary Department. Even after the Fifth Pay Commission Report, 1996, the scale of pay for the post of SVFA in the Veterinary Department was at par with HFA/ RCS/VLW Sr. in the Horticulture Department. Similarly, parity was maintained in so far as the posts of VFS in the Veterinary Department and FM/ Grafter in the Horticulture Department were concerned. By order contained in Memo No. AHV/E-98/83, dated 13.5.99, the post of SVFA in the Veterinary Department was re-designated as Assistant Veterinarian and the scale of pay was raised from Rs. 4000-100-6000/- to Rs. 5000-150-8000/-and by the same notification, the post of VFA in the Veterinary Department was redesignated as Stockman and the scale of pay was accordingly raised from Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590/-to 4000-100-6000/-. The benefits of the pay scales so revised were made effective from 20.6.98. However, similar benefits were not extended to the members of the petitioner Association, despite the fact that the Group 'C' field staff of Horticulture Department, which include HFA/RCS/VLW-Sr., FA/ VLW-Jr. and FM/Grafter are the grass root level workers of the Horticulture Department and the relevant Recruitment Rules of the Horticulture Department do not envisage any promotional avenues for the said posts in contrast to the similarly placed employees of other Departments, such as, Engineering Department, Agriculture Department, etc. of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. and FM/Grafter are the grass root level workers of the Horticulture Department and the relevant Recruitment Rules of the Horticulture Department do not envisage any promotional avenues for the said posts in contrast to the similarly placed employees of other Departments, such as, Engineering Department, Agriculture Department, etc. of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. Thus, the treatment meted out to the members of the petitioner Association is extremely discriminatory. Being aggrieved by the discriminatory policy adopted by the respondents with regard to the scales of pay between the Group-C employees of the Department of Horticulture and the employees of the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary despite the fact that nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the members of the petitioner Association are similar as those of the employees of the Department Animal Husbandry and Veterinary. The petitioner Association, therefore, submitted numerous representations to the respondent seeking adequate relief, but the respondents paid no attention to the requests of the petitioner Association. The action of the respondents in following a discriminatory policy with regard to the employees of the Horticulture Department is malafide and is in blatant violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. No reasonable person, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, would have denied to the employees of the Horticulture Department the said revised scale of pay to which they are lawfully entitled to. There has, thus, been a colourable exercise of powers for collateral purposes by the respondents. The action of the respondents authorities in denying parity of pay scale is a blatant abuse of the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, whereby the doctrine or Equal Pay for Equal Work' has been envisaged as a Constitutional goal. This is, therefore, a fit case, where the writ Court may intervene and direct the respondents to revise the scales of pay of the aforesaid employees of the Horticulture department so as to bring them at par with the employees concerned of the Veterinary department. 3. The respondents have contested this case by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. This is, therefore, a fit case, where the writ Court may intervene and direct the respondents to revise the scales of pay of the aforesaid employees of the Horticulture department so as to bring them at par with the employees concerned of the Veterinary department. 3. The respondents have contested this case by filing their affidavit-in-opposition. While admitting that the posts, which the members of the petitioner Association hold, are similar in nature and carry equal responsibilities as the persons holding the posts of S VFA/VFA of the Veterinary Department, the respondents have projected their case, briefly stated, thus: Immediately after the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, vide order No. AHV/ E-98/93, dated 13.5.99, the pay scale of Senior Veterinarian Field Assistant, earlier known as Assistant Veterinarian, was, as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission in part B, enhanced from Rs. 4000-100-6000/- to Rs. 5000-150-8000/-. Similarly, pay scale of Veterinarian Field Assistant, earlier known as Stockman, has been enhanced from Rs. 3050-75-4500/- to Rs. 4000-100-6000/-. However, the pay scale of Horticulture Field Assistant/ Recorded-cum-Surveyor/Village Level Worker (Senior) 7 Village Level Worker (Junior) 7 Field Assistant/Fieldmen/Grafter have been left out, though these posts involve work of the similar nature as are performed by the employees aforementioned of the department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary and carry equal responsibilities like the posts of senior Veterinarian Field Assistant/Veterinarian Field Assistant of the Veterinary Department. In this view of the matter, the authorities concerned, being conscious of the pay anomalities, has referred the matter to the Pay Anomaly Committee, constituted for this purpose, by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, to consider the grievances of the petitioner association. The entire issue is, now, pending for the decision of the Pay Anomaly Committee of the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh. The representations made by the petitioner Association are presently under consideration of the Pay Anomaly Committee. Thus, the issue raised in the present writ petition has already been referred to the Pay Anomaly Committee by the respondents and the Committee's decision is awaited. As the matter is under consideration of an appropriate Committee, namely, the Pay Anomaly Committee, constituted for the purpose, there may not be any need for this Court to examine the matter at the present stage. As the matter is under consideration of an appropriate Committee, namely, the Pay Anomaly Committee, constituted for the purpose, there may not be any need for this Court to examine the matter at the present stage. Therefore, this Court may close the matter giving liberty to the petitioner Association to approach this Court if the decision of the Pay Anomaly Committee goes against the Association. 4. I have perused the relevant materials on record. I have heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. B.L. Singh, Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents. 5. Upon perusal of the materials on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, what emerge as the admitted facts are. in brief, thus: The Department of Horticulture as well as the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary were, originally, under the Department of Agriculture and qualifications required for recruitment to the posts of SVFA and VLW Sr. were same. Similarly, the qualifications required for recruitment to the posts of VFA and VLW Jr. were same. In the year 1976, the department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary was carved out of the department of Agriculture, but the parity in the qualifications as well as scales of pay between SVFA and VLW-Sr. as well as between VFA and VLW- Jr. were maintained on account of the fact that the said post involved similar nature of work and carried equal responsibilities. In the year 1986. the department of Horticulture was carved out of the department of Animal Husbandry and Agriculture and in the year 1993, the Horticulture became an independent department However, the posts of HFA/RCS/ VLW-Sr. were kept at par with S VFA in the Veterinary department, so far as the requisite qualifications and scales of pay were concerned. Similarly, the posts of FA/VLW-Jr.7FieldMen/ Grafter were kept at par with VFA in the Veterinary department. This parity was maintained even after 5th Pay Commission Report in 1996 and the scale of pay in respect of the post of S VFA in the Veterinary Department remained at per with the scale of pay in respect of the post of HFA/RCS /VLW-Sr. in Horticulture Department. Similar parity was continued to maintain in so far as the posts of FA/VLW in the Veterinary Department and FM/Grafter in the Horticulture Department were concerned. in Horticulture Department. Similar parity was continued to maintain in so far as the posts of FA/VLW in the Veterinary Department and FM/Grafter in the Horticulture Department were concerned. By order, dated 13.05.99, aforementioned, the post of S VFA in the Veterinary Department was re-designated as Assistant Veterinarian and the scale of pay was raised from Rs. 4000/-100-6000/- to Rs. 5000/-150-8000/- and by the same notification, the post of VF A in the Veterinary Department was re-designated as Stock Man and the scale of pay was raised from Rs.3050/-80-4590/- to Rs. 4000/-100-6000/- the benefit of the revised pay scale being made available to them w.e.f. 20.06.98, but the benefit of such revised pay scale was not given to the petitioners, who stood similarly situated. On the representations made in this regard by the petitioner Association, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, as transpires from the affidavit-in-opposition and as indicated hereinabove, having realised that the posts, which the petitioners are occupying, are similar in nature and carry the same responsibilities as the posts of S VFA/VFA of the Veterinary Department, the Government has referred the matter to the Pay Anomaly Committee, constituted by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, for the purpose of looking after the disparity in scales of pay between different cadres aforementioned. The respondents, therefore, submit that since the matter is already under consideration of an appropriate Committee, this Court may not exercise its writ jurisdiction and may not interfere with the matter. 6. Reacting, however, to the above submissions, made on behalf of the respondents, Mr. Barua has contended that the doctrine of "Equal pay for Equal work" is enshrined under Article 39(d) contained in Para IV of the Constitution, which ordains the State to ensure that its policy secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The Apex Court has held in the case of Jaipal and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, (1998) 3 SCC 354, that though Article 39 of the Constitution appears in the chapter of Directive Principles of State Policy, the same is fundamental in nature and that the Courts have been enforcing this doctrine from time to time in appropriate cases. In Jaipal's case (supra), the Court has also laid down that if both the classes of persons perform similar functions and,, duties under the same employer, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies. In Jaipal's case (supra), the Court has also laid down that if both the classes of persons perform similar functions and,, duties under the same employer, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies. I am guided to adopt this view from the following observations made in Jaipal's case (supra): "Article 39(d) contained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the chapter on Directive Principles of State policy, but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the article is to fix certain social and economical goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singhlv.UnionofIndia,(1982) 1 SCC618:(1982) 3SCR298:1982 SCC(L&:S) 119: AIR 1982 SC 879 , Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of UP, (1986) 1 SCC 637 :1986 SCC (L&S) 187 and Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD, (1986) 1 SCC 639 :1986 SCC(L&S)189...........................The difference in mode of selection will not effect the application of the doctrine of "equal, pay for equal work" if both the classes of persons perform similar functions and duties under the same employer" (Emphasis is supplied) 7. Even in Indian Council of Agricultural Research Vs. A.N. Lahiri, (1993) 10 SCC 691, the Apex Court has laid down that when two categories of people are doing the same type of work, under the same institution, forming a separate wing of the employer, the doctrine of equal pay 'for equal works gets squarely attracted, particularly, when the qualification wise also, no distinction' between the two, sets of employees exists and their initial source of recruitment was also the same. 8. In the light of the law discussed above, there can be no escape from the conclusion that since the members of the petitioner Association are, even according to the State respondents, holding posts, which involve work of similar nature and carry equal responsibilities as those of the VFLA-Sr. and WA of the Veterinary department, the members of the petitioner Association are prima facie entitled to the scale of pay as demanded by them. 9. and WA of the Veterinary department, the members of the petitioner Association are prima facie entitled to the scale of pay as demanded by them. 9. However, in view of the fact that the Pay Anomaly Committee, which is an expert body, is in seisin of the matter and, at the same time, the petitioners have also prima facie established that they are doing the same nature of work as those of S WA and VLW-Sr. as well as WA and VLW-Jr. and that their responsibilities are also similar in nature, appropriate directions need to be issued by this Court to finalize and settle the matter in accordance with law. 10. Situated thus, I am firmly of the view that this writ petition needs to be disposed of with a direction to the Pay Anomaly Committee aforementioned to make their recommendations in the matter within a given time-frame with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court if they are aggrieved with the recommendations that may be made by the said Committee. 11. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety, the Pay Anomaly Committee is hereby directed to submit their recommendations to the respondent No. 1 within a period of 3 (three) months from today and the respondent No. 1 shall make its decision public on the recommendations so made within a period of one month thereafter. However, the petitioners shall remain at liberty to move this Court if they feel aggrieved by the recommendations that the Committee aforementioned may make and/or the decision/action that the respondent No. 1 may choose to take in the matter. 12. No order as to costs. 13. This writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.