JUDGMENT Permod Kohli, J. 1. Petitioner is an association of Non-gazetted Employees of Survey & Settlement Department of State, said to be registered as an Employees Union under Registration No. 663 dated 7 th April, 1967. It is alleged that Moharrirs of the Survey & Settlement Department under the Ministry of Land Reforms and Revenue, Government of Jharkhand have been discriminated as far the payment of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- is concerned and the recommendations of Fitment Appellate Committee have not been granted till date, though such recommendations have been implemented in case of other departments. 2. Accordingly, this petition has been filed seeking a direction for implementation of the recommendations of Fitment Appellate Committee and further direction for release of the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- with effect from 1st April, 1997, the effective date for payment, and fixation with effect from 1 st January, 1996. 3. According to the petitioner-association before 4 thPay Commission, they were in the pay scale of Rs. 220-315/-. This pay scale was equal to Typist and Peshkar in terms of Revenue Departments Letter No. 1616 dated 28 thApril, 1976. Admittedly, 4 thPay Commission did not recommend any pay scale for Moharrirs, but other categories were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 580-860/-. Finance Department, however, fixed the pay scale of Moharrirs at Rs. 535-765/-; Fitment Committee did not grant any relief to the members of the petitioner-association. 4. A writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 1779 of 1990, was filed in the High Court and the matter was referred to the Finance Commissioner. Petitioner- association made a representation. This was followed by another writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No. 7575 of 1996, which was also disposed of vide order dated 23rd September, 1997, and in accordance with the directions, another representation was filed before the Finance Commissioner, who rejected the same. 5. Two contempt petitions were filed for alleged non-compliance and the latter contempt petition, being M.J.C. No. 2166 of 1999, is said to be still pending in the High Court. It is further mentioned that even the report of 5 thPay Revision Commission also did not remove the anomaly in the pay scale of Moharrirs and placed them in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900/-, whereas Typists in the same department were given pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. It is further mentioned that even the report of 5 thPay Revision Commission also did not remove the anomaly in the pay scale of Moharrirs and placed them in the pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900/-, whereas Typists in the same department were given pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-. Even Moharrirs in Irrigation and Revenue Departments, who were doing the same job in their departments, were also given pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- by the Fitment Committee. This was on the basis of some directions of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 5275 of 1995 and other writ petitions, whereunder it was held that Moharrirs in Irrigation and Revenue Departments are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 1200-1800/- like Lower Division Clerks. Recommendations of the Fitment Committee, which recommended the Revised Central Pay Scale for the State Government employees, were implemented vide Notification No. 660 dated 8 thFebruary, 1999. It is further alleged that there was discontentment on the recommendations of the Fitment Committee and the State Government agreed to constitute an Appellate Fitment Committee, headed by a serving Judge of the Patna High Court with further assurance that the recommendations of the Committee would be binding and implemented by the State Government with effect from 1st January, 1996, but monetary benefit will be allowed with effect from 1st April, 1997. 6. It is stated that on the basis of the aforesaid agreement, a Fitment Appellate Committee was constituted vide Memo No. 3/M-2-7-3/99(Ansh.) 229 V dated 15 thJanuary, 2000, headed by Honble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam, a sitting Judge of the Patna High Court. 7. Petitioner-association filed their representations before the Fitment Appellate Committee and the Fitment Appellate Committee on consideration recommended the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to Moharrirs under Survey & Settlement Department. Relevant extract is at Para-38.4 of the report. 8. Main grievance of the petitioner-association is that most of the recommendations of the Fitment Appellate Committee have been implemented, except in the case of Moharrirs, as a result, members of petitioner-association have been denied pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- although found entitle to. 9. Petitioner-association has urged two grounds; (1) they are being discriminated against Moharrirs in Irrigation and Revenue Departments; and (2) as per the order for reference, recommendations, of the Fitment Appellate Committee are binding upon the Government and they are bound to implement it. 10. 4000-6000/- although found entitle to. 9. Petitioner-association has urged two grounds; (1) they are being discriminated against Moharrirs in Irrigation and Revenue Departments; and (2) as per the order for reference, recommendations, of the Fitment Appellate Committee are binding upon the Government and they are bound to implement it. 10. Relevant extract, containing recommendations of Fitment Appellate Committee in respect to Moharrirs, as contained in Para-38.4, is reproduced as under: 38.4 In our view the Finance Secretary has committed a gross error in appreciating the facts. Moharrirs in the Irrigation and Revenue Department had already been allowed the Clerks scale. What the Finance Secretary was basically asked to do in the case of Moharrirs in the Land Records and Survey Department was whether they do the same job as Moharrirs in the other Departments mentioned above and if so, to provide them the same scale. The Finance Secretary embarked on a de-novo examination and that to without ascertaining full facts and without acquainting himself with the orders of the Honble High Court in the matter. Therefore, his decision cannot be accepted. In the light of several orders of the Honble High Court there is no doubt that the Moharrirs should be allowed the scale of Rs. 4000-6000 and this Committee recommends accordingly. 11. Correspondingly, the pay scale is also given in the report, which reads as under: Sl. No. (Deptt. Wise) Designation Existing pay scales Recommended Pay Scales by Fitment Appellate Committee Reference Paragraph of Fitment Appellate Committee ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... REVENUE AND LAND REFORMS DEPARTMENT 7. Moharrir 3200-4900 4000-6000 38.4 12. Petitioner-association has also placed on record copy of settlement arrived at between the employees and the State Government, which provides the constitution of Fitment Appellate Committee, headed by a sitting Judge of the Patna High Court, with the stipulation that the recommendation of the Committee will be binding upon the parties and the pay scale will be effective from 1 st January, 1996, however, actual monetary benefit will be paid from 1 st April, 1997 (Annexure-1/6). 13. State in its reply has stated that Moharrirs were in two categories; matriculate and non-matriculate, and matriculates Moharrirs were granted higher pay scale, whereas non-matriculates Moharrirs were placed in lower pay scale. The Fitment Committee was constituted to implement central pay scale and recommended the scale of Rs. 13. State in its reply has stated that Moharrirs were in two categories; matriculate and non-matriculate, and matriculates Moharrirs were granted higher pay scale, whereas non-matriculates Moharrirs were placed in lower pay scale. The Fitment Committee was constituted to implement central pay scale and recommended the scale of Rs. 3200-4900/- for Moharrirs. Some employees were dissatisfied and on their demand the Fitment Appellate Committee was constituted. It is admitted that the Fitment Appellate Committee in Para-38.4 of its report recommended the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- for Moharrirs, both matriculate and non-matriculate. However, it is stated that the Fitment Appellate Committee did not take into consideration the terms of reference. It was required only to look into the errors and mistakes of the recommendations of the Fitment Committee, who recommended new pay scale to the Moharrirs. 14. Further stand of the State is that the Fitment Appellate Committee was constituted by the Slate of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand is not granting the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 to Moharrirs in the State of Jharkhand. It is also the case of the State that if recommended pay scales are made available to Moharrirs. It will cause dissatisfaction as well as anomaly amongst the State employees. 15. After hearing learned Counsel appearing for the parties and examining the records, I am of the view that the stand of the State has no basis. The Fitment Appellate Committee in its report at Para-38.4 has categorically held that Finance Secretary has committed a gross error in appreciating facts. It has also been held that Moharrirs in Irrigation and Revenue Departments had already been allowed the Clerks scale. The Fitment Appellate Committee also found that Finance Secretary was required to examine, whether Moharrirs in Land Reforms and Survey Settlement Department were doing the same job as Moharrirs in other departments and if so, provide them same scale. The Finance Secretary without ascertaining full facts and without acquainting himself with the order of the High Court has decided the pay scale. The Fitment Appellate Committee accordingly, recommended the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- for Moharrirs. 16. The question, which is required to be considered by this Court, is whether there is any discrimination between Moharrirs in the Irrigation and Revenue Departments and Survey & Settlement Department. The Fitment Appellate Committee accordingly, recommended the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- for Moharrirs. 16. The question, which is required to be considered by this Court, is whether there is any discrimination between Moharrirs in the Irrigation and Revenue Departments and Survey & Settlement Department. Respondent-State has nowhere answered this question and it has not been disputed that Moharrirs in both the departments are performing the same job. It is also not disputed that on the basis of the agreement arrived at between the State employees and State Government at the time of constitution of the Fitment Appellate Committee, it was categorically agreed that both the parties will be bound by the recommendations of the Fitment Appellate Committee. 17. On the basis of the report of the Fitment Appellate Committee, there appears clear discrimination between Moharrirs of the Irrigation and Revenue Departments and the members of the petitioner-association, who are working as Moharrirs in Survey & Settlement Department. There is no basis for such discrimination, when they are performing same duties. Not only such an action is violative of Article 14, but also the principle of Equal pay for Equal work is not being followed. Such discrimination is unwarranted and uncalled for. The State Government had agreed to accept the recommendations in toto and is duty bound to implement the recommendations of the Fitment Appellate Committee. Recommendations were made long back, but still no decision has been taken, even rejecting the recommendations of the Fitment Appellate Committee on any valid ground. 18. Reasons given in the counter affidavit for not implementing the recommendations are not convincing at this belated stage. Suffice it to say that the State Government has not taken any decision to reject the recommendation/report of the Fitment Appellate Committee. 19. A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1973 SC 1088 , while considering the question of non-implementation of the report of Pay Commission in respect to certain posts, held as under: 15. Mr. Dhebar contends that it was for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of reference. We are unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has made-reference in respect of all Government employees or it has not. Dhebar contends that it was for the Government to accept the recommendations of the Pay Commission and while doing so to determine which categories of employees should be taken to have been included in the terms of reference. We are unable to appreciate this point. Either the Government has made-reference in respect of all Government employees or it has not. But if it has made a reference in respect of all Government employees and it accents the recommendations it is bound to implement the recommendations in respect of all Government employees. If it does not implement the report regarding some employees only it commits a breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This is what the Government has done as far as these petitioners are concerned. 20. Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Laljl Dubey v. Union of India and Ors. . 21. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment, referred to above, and the assurance extended in the reference order. State Government was/is bound to accept the recommendations either in toto or not at all. It cannot be permitted to implement in part and refuse some of the recommendations that too without any valid basis. 22. From the above, I am of the considered view that Moharrirs in the Survey & Settlement Department and those in Irrigation and Revenue Departments are at par, their nature of duty being the same. They cannot be discriminated against as far their emoluments are concerned. There is no reply of the State laying down any basis for different and hostile treatment. This is particularly in the light of the findings of the Fitment Appellate Committee. Even the doctrine of Equal pay for equal work is attracted in the facts and circumstances noticed above. 23. Honble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. held as under: 8. It is true that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. Equal pay for equal work for both men and women means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. But it certainly is a Constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. Equal pay for equal work for both men and women means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay.... Considering Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle Equal pay for Equal work is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. (Emphasis supplied) 24. In view of the above dictum of the Apex Court judgment, Respondent-State cannot be allowed to subvert the Constitution by deviating from its cherished goal of equality before law, which is one of the fundamentals of our Constitution, the law of the land. 25. Plea of the State of Jharkhand that the recommendations were made and received by the unified State of Bihar and the State of Jharkhand has not implemented any such recommendations is a plea, which exhibits dishonest approach. The State of Jharkhand, being Successor State, having inherited the legacy, cannot be permitted to deny its responsibility and liability or refuse the implementation of the decision taken by the Unified State of Bihar of which it was an integral part. 26. I would have simply allowed the writ petition. The State of Jharkhand, being Successor State, having inherited the legacy, cannot be permitted to deny its responsibility and liability or refuse the implementation of the decision taken by the Unified State of Bihar of which it was an integral part. 26. I would have simply allowed the writ petition. But keeping in view such plea of the State, I direct the imposition of cost of Rs. 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) to the State of Jharkhand. This petition, accordingly, succeeds and Respondent-State is directed to place Moharrirs of Survey & Settlement Department in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- with effect from 1 st January, 1996 with monetary benefits from 1 st April, 1997. All such Moharrirs serving or retired shall be entitled to the difference of the pay scale and all consequential benefits by their placement in the aforesaid pay scale i.e. Rs. 4000-6000/-.