Judgment Prem Shanker Asopa, J.-This special appeal is directed against the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 012.1991, passed in the aforesaid writ petition whereby the writ petition has been accepted and the respondent-appellant has been directed to step-up the pay of the respondent Nav Ratan Mal Nagori, U.D.C equivalent to Junior U.D.Cs Amar Singh Rathore and Bhanwar Lal on the ground of equality with a further direction that the petitioner will be entitled to all other benefits equivalent to Amar Singh and Bhanwar Lal. 2. The Board of Secondary Education-appellant challenged the said Judgment on the ground that the respondent-petitioner Navratan Mal was not entitled for the benefit granted by learned Single Judge, who has committed a serious error of law in simply granting the same benefit to him on the ground of violation of equality clause or the Principle of equal pay for equal work without considering the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised) New Pay Scales Rules, 1976 (for short the Rules of 1976), which have been adopted by the appellant-Board. 3. Briefly stated the other relevant facts which are available on the record are that the respondent petitioner was appointed as U.D.C. through direct recruitment in the year 1968 and was promoted as Senior Assistant on 24.02.1983. Thereafter his pay was fixed in the grade of Section Officer. However, he was designated as Senior Assistant from 06.09.1986. 4. That Board filed reply to the writ and submitted therein that Amar Singh and Bhanwar Lal joined the service of the Board way back in the year 1962 and were promoted to the post of U.D.C. after the promotion of the petitioner. As per the agreement with the Employees Union it was decided to give benefit of the increments after 8 years, 16 years and 24 years. The junior persons having more length of service, therefore, have been granted the benefit of the increments and on account of the said benefit of the increment their pay was fixed more than the pay of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has no ground to claim parity with the junior persons who are having more length of service and were granted the benefit of the increment as per the said agreement. 5. Therefore, the petitioner has no ground to claim parity with the junior persons who are having more length of service and were granted the benefit of the increment as per the said agreement. 5. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has committed serious error of law in not examining the Rule 11 of the said rules of 1976, more particularly the relevant Rules 11(2) (a) and (b) read with Rule 12 and the agreement whereby the scheme of grant of increments after 8, 16 and 24 years was introduced. Since, the juniors were having more than 16 years service on the date of the applicability of the said rules of 1976 i.e., 01.09.1976 therefore, they were granted increments, otherwise also their pay was required to be fixed as U.D.C corresponding to the pay drawn by them as L.D.C. After granting them the benefit of one lower and one higher increment on the date of promotion. In support of the aforesaid contention the learned Counsel for the Board has placed reliance upon a Judgment reported in Government of A.P. & Ors. vs. V. Veera Raghavan 1999 (9) Supreme Court Cases 266. 6. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent-petitioner is that the Board in identical situation has granted the stepping of pay to 5 persons and 27 persons subsequently but no such benefit was granted to him, therefore, parity in not stepping-up the pay equivalent to the junior is arbitrary, unreasonable and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner has again stressed on the argument that two junior persons namely Amar Singh and Bhanwarlal are getting higher pay than him, therefore, he is also entitled for the stepping-up of the pay on the basis of equality but has not been able to satisfy from the rules which make him entitled. 7. The learned Counsel for the respondent-petitioner has again stressed on the argument that two junior persons namely Amar Singh and Bhanwarlal are getting higher pay than him, therefore, he is also entitled for the stepping-up of the pay on the basis of equality but has not been able to satisfy from the rules which make him entitled. Rule 11(2)(a) & (b) of the Rules of 1976 are reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “(2) (a) where as a result of fixation of pay in the revised New Pay Scales under Sub-rule (i) a junior Government servant whose existing pay in the existing pay scale was equal to or less than the existing pay of his senior begins to draw more pay than his senior, the pay of such senior Government servants shall be stepped up to equal that of his junior from the date the pay of the junior person becomes more than that of his senior, subject to the fulfillment of the following conditions:- (i) Both junior and senior Government servants belong to the same cadre/service or class of post and serving in the same department and are drawing the pay in the same time scale of pay before fixation of pay in revised new pay scales. .(ii) The anamoly is directly attributable to fixation of pay under the revised new pay scales only. (iii) Theauthority competent to make substantive appointment of Government servant certifies that there is no dispute about the inter-se seniority of senior/junior government servant. .(iv) The appointment/promotion of the junior Government servant is regular and in accordance with provisions of relevant service rules issued under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or where no rules regulating condition of service have been framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or where a post/posts have not been included in the schedule appended to the rules regulating recruitment and condition of service, the appointment/ promotion has been made in accordance with the order issued by the Government from time to time, if any. If the junior Government servant is holding a post on officiating basis as a result of temporary appointment made under service rules issued under proviso to Article 309 and the pay of the senior Government servant has been stepped up under this sub-rule, the stepping of pay of senior Government servant shall be done with the condition that if the urgent/temporary appointment of a junior Government servant is not regularized or converted into a regular appointment according to service rules applicable to him and he is thereby reverted, the pay of senior Government servant from the date of reversion of junior Government servant shall be re-fixed at the stage at which he would have drawn but for stepping-up his pay under the sub-rule. .(b) Theprovisions contained in Clause (a) shall not be applicable for stepping-up pay of senior Government servant in the following cases:- .(i) Wherejunior Government servant is holding the higher post in officiating capacity during leave vacancy or a short term vacancy caused due to proceeding of the incumbent of the post on training for a period not exceeding 120 days or any other circumstances where the officiating appointment is for a period of 120 days only. .(ii) Where a junior Government servant is already drawing pay at a rate higher than the senior on account of grant of advance increment (s) or higher initial pay for possessing higher qualifications or passing prescribed examinations or any such reasons. (iii) Where thejunior Government servant begins to draw more pay than a senior on account of grant of advance increment under Rule 12 of these rules. 8. The learned Single Judge has not considered the said rule as would be evident from the operative portion of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 012.1991. (iii) Where thejunior Government servant begins to draw more pay than a senior on account of grant of advance increment under Rule 12 of these rules. 8. The learned Single Judge has not considered the said rule as would be evident from the operative portion of the Judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 012.1991. The operative portion of the order is reproduced as under for ready reference:- Þcgl lquh xbZ o Ik=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA cgl ds nkSjku vizkFkhZ dh vkaj ls ,d pkVZ Hkh r fd;k x;k gSa ftlesa crk;k x;k gS fd vej flaizLrqg o Hkaoj yky dks fdl izdkj dqy osru vf /kd fey jgk gSA j ls izqr fd;k x;k gS] ftlesa Li"V fd;k x;k gSizkFkhZa dh vksR; Rrj ds lkFk ,d kiFk Ik= Hkh izLrqa 5 O;fDr;ksi vi fd;k x;k o mlds ckn 27 O;fDr;ksfd vizkFkhZ dh vkSj ls lu 1985 esa dks LVsa dks Hkh LVsi vi fd;k x;k mldk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k gSaA vr% izkFkhZ ds lkFk HksnHkko fd;k x;k gSA jh jk; esa tc vizkFkhZ }kjk vU; yksxksa dks LVsesi vi dk ykHk fn;k x;k rks dksbZ dkj.k ugha gSa fd i vi dk ykHk ugha fn;k tkosaA ;g Li"V gS fd izkFkhZ ofj"B fyfid lu 1968 esqizkFkhZ dks LVsa fu;Dr fd;k x;k Fkk vkSj vejflag o Hkaoj yky ml le; dsoy dfu"B fyfid Fks vksj ckn esa mUgsa lu 1970 esa ofj"B fyfid ds in ij inksUr fd;k x;k FkkA bl izdkj izkFkhZ ofj"B fyfid ds in ij Hkh g o Hkaoj yky ls ofj"B gS rks dksbZ dkj.k ugha gS fd mldk osru vej flavej flag o Hkaoj yky ls de gksaAß 9. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, perused the record and carefully considered the submissions raised by both the parties. 10. In Government of A.P. & Ors. vs. V. Veera Raghavan (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court has considered the issue of equal pay for equal work and has categorically held that longer actual length of service is a good ground for drawing more pay than the seniors. 10. In Government of A.P. & Ors. vs. V. Veera Raghavan (Supra), the Honble Supreme Court has considered the issue of equal pay for equal work and has categorically held that longer actual length of service is a good ground for drawing more pay than the seniors. Here in the instant case the junior persons who are having longer length of service in the cadre of L.D.C. and the respondent was not appointed on the post of L.D.C. But was directly recruited on the post of U.D.C., there was another reasons that the respondent was a direct recruitee and the junior persons were promotees and on account of the grant of advance increment/increments, they were drawing the same salary. Para 3 of the Judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Government of A.P. (Supra), is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-“3. The position in law has been clearly laid down by this Court in State of A.P. vs G. Sreenivasa Rao. In Para 15, this Court has observed that equal pay for equal work does not mean that all the members of a cadre must receive the same pay packet irrespective of their seniority, source of recruitment, educational qualifications and various other incidents of service. When a single running pay scale is provided in a cadre, the Constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal work is satisfied. Ordinarily, grant of higher pay to a junior would ex facie be arbitrary; but if there are justifiable grounds in doing so, the seniors cannot invoke the equality doctrine. In the present case, the higher pay drawn by the juniors of the respondent is on account of their longer actual length of service in the cadre of District Munsifs. There is, therefore, good reason for their drawing more pay than the respondent. In view thereof , neither the interim order nor the final order in the writ petition are justifiable. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned Judgment s of the High Court are set aside. The writ petition filed before the High Court is dismissed.” 11. There is, therefore, good reason for their drawing more pay than the respondent. In view thereof , neither the interim order nor the final order in the writ petition are justifiable. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned Judgment s of the High Court are set aside. The writ petition filed before the High Court is dismissed.” 11. A bare perusal of Rule 11(2) (a) & (b) would reveal that pay anamoly should arise as a result of fixation of pay which has been further made to fulfillment of certain conditions and the said Clause (a) has further not been made applicable in three contingencies i.e., (i) where a junior Government servant is holding the higher post in officiating capacity; (ii) where a junior Government servant is already drawing pay at the rate higher than the senior on account of grant of advance increment or higher qualifications or passing prescribed examination; and (iii) where junior Government servant willing to draw more pay than an advance increment under Rule 12 of these rules. 12. Here in the instant case Rule 12 with modification has been adopted by an agreement with the Union and the increment benefits have been given on completion of 8, 16 and 24 years of service, therefore, the respondent-petitioner is not entitled for stepping-up of pay as per the provisions of Rule 11. 13. The Counsel for the Board while arguing on the issue of discrimination has submitted that this Court has to set first the entitlement and then adjudicate on the issue of discrimination. He has further submitted that the Court cannot issue any direction to commit the illegality again on the basis of parity. It is true that litigant has to first establish his case as per rules and subsequently he can claim parity with others in whose favour the order has been passed. But at the same time in case the authorities concerned are allowed to continue the wrong orders, then it is the boundended duty of the Court to see that illegality may not be perpetuated in order to do justice and to avoid the heart-burning, appropriate direction can also be issued to remove the disparity. 14. But at the same time in case the authorities concerned are allowed to continue the wrong orders, then it is the boundended duty of the Court to see that illegality may not be perpetuated in order to do justice and to avoid the heart-burning, appropriate direction can also be issued to remove the disparity. 14. As regard the submission of learned Counsel for the respondent petitioner that in identical circumstances the benefit of stepping of pay has been granted by the Board and the said orders have not been withdrawn, it is sufficient to mention that in case any employee of the Board is getting the benefit of stepping up of pay contrary to the aforesaid Rules 11 and 12, then the aggrieved employee is free to make representation. On receipt of the representation the Board shall issue show cause notice to the employees and will examine the granting of the said benefit in the light of this Judgment and rules and further if found the same contrary to rules and Judgment will withdraw the benefit. 15. In view of the above, this Special Appeal is allowed and the Judgment of the learned single judge is quashed and set-aside with no order as to costs.