JUDGMENT Hon'ble Rajesh Tandon, J.- Heard Sri K.N. Joshi counsel for the petitioners and Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide the pay scale of 5000-8000 to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1996 and 5500-9000 w.e.f. 1.4.2001 as provided to the Accountant Cadre of State of Uttaranchal in compliance of the Govt. Order dated 13.9.2005 as well as in accordance with the staffing pattern as contained in the G.O. dated 22.9.2005. 3. Briefly stated the petitioners are Accountants posted at Govt. Degree/ PG colleges of the Uttaranchal. All the petitioners are getting Pay Scales as enforced by the Government of U.P. w.e.f. 1-7-79, 1-1-86 and 1-1-96 by different Govt. orders. 4. The Petitioners have alleged that in every Govt. Degree/ PG Colleges, some clerks arc entrusted with accounts duty such as collection of fees under various heads, separate maintenance of recurring and non- recurring expenditures, utilization of NR Grants as are received from the state Govt. as well as from the University Grants Commission, maintaining separate accounts for funds like R.Rooms, Games, Examination, Union Fees, Library Security and securities of Science subjects, maintenance of office stocks and of furniture, fans etc. maintenance of GPF Account and scholarships for the students. 5. The petitioners have submitted that enrolment of the students is increasing year by year and there are several Govt. colleges where the enrolment is above 1500 and up to 9000 or so. The work relating to Accounts is of great responsibility but in the Govt. Degree/PG colleges there is no separate cadre for clerical staff engaged in Account work, which creates various' administrative problems. The work relating to Accounts is done by a majority of clerks attached to the Principal's office, which administers the whole college. 6. In every Govt. office of Deptt. there is separate cadre for Accounts work but there is no specific Govt. Order/Service rules for creation of posts and promotion thereafter. 7. The Petitioners have submitted that the 2nd Pay commission (1979) considered the pay structure of accounts cadre vide Para 7-48. to 7.50 to their recommendations Vol 1 Part 1 chapter VII page 71 (Annex 1 to the writ petition). The State cabinet accepted those recommendations vide shashikiya shakalp, dated 29-9-81 and ordered for creation of suitable account cadre in each Govt. Department. 8. The UP Govt. to 7.50 to their recommendations Vol 1 Part 1 chapter VII page 71 (Annex 1 to the writ petition). The State cabinet accepted those recommendations vide shashikiya shakalp, dated 29-9-81 and ordered for creation of suitable account cadre in each Govt. Department. 8. The UP Govt. thereafter issued G.O. dated 11-8-83 (Annex. 2) and instructed all the Heads of Departments to create Account cadre including' creation and distribution of existing posts at different stages of responsibilities, their qualifications, rules regarding promotion for higher posts / pay scales, This G.O. was implemented in all the Govt. Departments except in Govt. Degree/ PG Colleges. 9. In Govt. Aided Degree/ PG colleges of "A" and "B" category (having student enrolment above 500), there has been a separate post of Accountant in the same pay scale that was available to office superintendent of such colleges but in the Govt. Degree / PG colleges there has been only one post of Head clerk cum Accountant in every Govt. college irrespective of students' enrolment which is highly discriminatory. After. some years few posts of Accountants were created in Govt. Colleges but no Account cadre was created. 10. In Govt. aided Degree/ PG college, there has been a post of "Bursar" where the enrolment exceeded 2500 of 3000. However, there is no post of Bursar in the Government Degree Colleges. 11. The "Samta samiti" appointed by the Govt. in 1988. also held that there should be Account Cadre in every Govt. Degree/P.G. College irrespective of the strength of students. Petitioners have tiled a copy of G.O. Dated 13-9-05 (Annex 3 Page 33) of the Uttaranchal Govt. allowing posts/ Pay scaled of Asstts. Accountant / Accountant and Account office in various Govt. Department but recommendations of this Govt. order were again denied to the Govt. Degree/ PG colleges which was highly disappointing. 12. The 2nd Pay commission recommended that there must be adequate opportunity of getting at least 2 higher pay scales for every employee in his entire service period. The employees doing account work have been treated as part of the clerical cadres of the state and, therefore. every employee engaged in Al-count work in Govt. Degree/ PG colleges must have adequate opportunity of promotions after certain period of service. 13. G.O. Dated 22-9-2005 shows that. the following pay scales have already been allowed for Account cadre in Govt. Departments of State except in the Govt. every employee engaged in Al-count work in Govt. Degree/ PG colleges must have adequate opportunity of promotions after certain period of service. 13. G.O. Dated 22-9-2005 shows that. the following pay scales have already been allowed for Account cadre in Govt. Departments of State except in the Govt. Degree/ PG colleges- Post Pay scale 1-1-96 Pay scale w.e.f. 1-4-2001 Asstt. Accountant 4000-6000 4500-7000 Accountant 5000-8000 5500-9000 Asstt. Accountant Officer 16500-10500 7450-11500 Respondent No.3 sent his letter dated 10.12.2002 to the Uttaranchal Govt. recommending creation of Account cadre and creation of Posts on the basis of strength of the students. This recommendation can not be implemented as in Govt. Colleges, as the Staff is transferable from one college to another from smaller college to a bigger college. 14. High Court passed interim order on 14-2-2006 and gave more than one month's time to file counter affidavit to the respondents. In compliance only Respondent n03 filed his counter affidavit but he also failed to file counter affidavit and in its place sent a letter dated 10-1-06 to the Govt. for decision in the entire matter. He has not made any specific recommendation in his letter nor has denied any facts or allegations of the writ Petition. The petitioners sent several representations to the U.P. Govt. from time to time before Nov 2000 and thereafter sent their replesentation dated 3-1-2001 (Annex 4) and again dated 24-12-2005 (Annex 5) and the Respondent No.3 also wrote a letter dated 10-12-2002 (Annex 7-A) to the Govt. but the Govt. did not pass any order. 15. In the case Employees of Tannery & Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 1367, in which the Apex Court has held that if employees in unionised cadre in one Corporation of the Government having the same pay scale in 1970 as that of employees working in same posts ill another Corporation. The level of posts in question in both the corporations also the same. There was no subsequent change in duties and function of employees of both corporations. The employees of both the corporations he given equal pay scales. The level of posts in question in both the corporations also the same. There was no subsequent change in duties and function of employees of both corporations. The employees of both the corporations he given equal pay scales. The extract of the findings of Apex Court is as under: "In this context it may be pointed out that in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in its order dated March 14, 1986 in Writ Petition No. 12655 of 1986 and connected matters, the Government of India had appointed a High Power Committee under the Chairmanship of Shri Justice R.B. Misra, to go into the various aspects relating to pay scales and other incidental matters such as additional DA, interim relief and other allowances to the employees working in the public sector governed by the Central Government pay scales and DA. The said Committee after considering the pay scales in the various public enterprises having Central Government pattern of DA, has recommended uniform pay scales for the employees including subordinate staff falling in the categories of (i) Attendant, Messenger, Peon, Watchman. Safaiwala, Mali etc.; .(ii) Daftry, Jamadar, Head Watchman etc.; (iii) Record Keeper, Record Sorter, Junior Clerks etc.; and (iv) UDC, Assistants, etc. The Committee was of the view that rationalisation of the present heterogenous structure of pay scales was required in the interests of uniform remuneration for similar work in the different enterprises." (p. 65. para 8.16). In Jute Corporation of India Officers' Association v. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. this Court has given directions for applying the revised pay scales recommended by the said Committee to the various public sector undertakings of the Government of India having the Central Government pattern of DA. This shows that there would be parity in pay scales of the employees falling in the four categories, with which we are concerned, in the various enterprises of the Government of India which are following the Central Government DA pattern. There appears to be no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar parity in the matter of pay scales with the staff falling in the aforesaid four categories employed with" the Cotton Corporation of India especially when such employees were having the same pay scales in 1970. There appears to be no reason why the petitioners should be denied similar parity in the matter of pay scales with the staff falling in the aforesaid four categories employed with" the Cotton Corporation of India especially when such employees were having the same pay scales in 1970. We are, therefore, of the view that the pay scales of the employees in the unionised cadre falling in the four categories referred to above in the respondent corporation should be reyised in a way that LIC same are at par with the pay scales of such employees employed with the Cotton Corporation of India. 16. The case State of Up, v. J.P. Chaurasia 1 on which reliance has been placed by Shri Mahajan, deals with the question as to equation of duties and responsibilities for applying the principle of 'equ~1 pay for equal work'. Therein this Court has held that the matter of equation of posts for the purpose of equation of pay must be left to the executive and must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission and that if there is such a determination by a commission or committee the court should normally accept it. The principle laid- ~own in the said decision was reiterated in the other decisions reli6d upon by Shri Mahajan. Here we are not concerned with equation of posts because the posts falling in the abovementioned four categories of employees in the respondent corporation as well as the Cotton Corporation of India are of the same level and employees working on these posts were having the same pay scales in 1970. There is nothing on the record to show that after 1970 there has been any change in the duties and junctions of the persons holding these posts in the two corporations which may justify fixation of different pay' scales for these posts in the two corporations. The pay scales of the petitioners as revised by order daied April 25,1986, cannot, therefore, be upheld. Respondents 1 and 3 should s.o revise the pay scales of the petitioners as to be at par with pay scales enjoyed by the employees falling in the same category in the Cotton Corporation of India on the date from which the said revised pay scales are to be applied. Respondents 1 and 3 should s.o revise the pay scales of the petitioners as to be at par with pay scales enjoyed by the employees falling in the same category in the Cotton Corporation of India on the date from which the said revised pay scales are to be applied. Under order dated April 25,1986, the revision of the pay scales of the petitioners has been made with effect from August 1, 1983 Hnd is valid up to July 31, 1987. The revision in the pay scales of the petitioners should be made keeping in view the pay scales and allowances enjoyed by tht; employees falling in the same category in the Cotton Corporation of India on August 1, 1983 and such revision may be made operative up to July 31,1987, as provided in the order dated April 25,1986." 16. Thus in view of the principle of law laid down above it is incumbent upon the State to grant similar pa~' scale to the officials posted on the similar posts and performing similar works. 17. A perusal of the aforesaid facts clearly indicate that the discrimiTlatory treatments are being given to the pe~itioners. Articles 38 and 39(a) of 594 Uttaranchal Govt. Degree Colleges v. State of Uttaranchal [HC] 2006 the Constitution of India provides that the Statc shall strivc to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may the social order in which justice, social, economic and political protection can be given to the people. Article 38 and 39(a) of the Constitution of India are quoted as below: . "38. State to secure a social order for the J!.romotion of welfarc.oF.. the people-(1) The State shall strive to 'pron1'Ote the welfare of Urc~ people by securing and protecting as ~ffe~tivcly as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of thc national life. (2) The State shall, in particular, strive to mini mise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status. facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in dilTerel1t areas or engaged in different vocations. 39. (2) The State shall, in particular, strive to mini mise the inequalities in income, and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status. facilities and opportunities, not only amongst individuals but also amongst groups of people residing in dilTerel1t areas or engaged in different vocations. 39. Certain principles of policy to be followed by lhe Slale.-Thc State shall in particular, direct its policy, towards securing (a) that the citizens, men and women equall~ have the right to an adequate means of livelihood." l' 18. Similar is 'the message in the case of D.S. Nakara and others v.\, Union of India reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130. where the concept of social justice has been laid down by the Apex Court. relevant observations of which are quoted below: The scope, content and meaning of Article 14 of the Constitution has been the subject-matter of intensive examination by this Court in a catcna of decisions. It would, therct'ore, be merely adding to the length of this judgment to rccapitulate all those decisions and it is bettcr to avoid that exercise save and except referring to the latest decision on the subject in Maneka Gandhi J!. Union of India from which the following observati~n may be ~xtractcd : (SCC pp. 2fG-84, para 7) U[W]hat is the content and reach of the great equalising principle enunciated in this article? There can be no doubt that it is a founding faith of the Constitution. It is indeed the pillar on which rests securely the foundation of our democratic republic. And. therefore, it must not be subjected to a narrow, pedantic or lexicographic approach. No attempt should be made to truncate its all-embracing scope and mea'ning. for to do so would.be to vit1latG)ts activist magnitude. Equality is a dynamic concept with many aspeCts' and ,dimensions and it cannot be imprisoned w•ithin traditional and doctrinaire lImits.... Article 14 strikes at arbitrarin~ss in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness. which legally as well as philosophically. is an essential element oJ: equality or nonarbitrariness pervades Article 14 like a brooding omnipresence...." 11. The decisions clearly lay down that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the UAD Ottaranchal Govt. Degree Colleges v. State of Uttaranchal [HC] 595 purpose of legislation. In order. however, to pass the test of permIssIble classification, two conditions ~l1USI be fulfilled viz. The decisions clearly lay down that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the UAD Ottaranchal Govt. Degree Colleges v. State of Uttaranchal [HC] 595 purpose of legislation. In order. however, to pass the test of permIssIble classification, two conditions ~l1USI be fulfilled viz. (i) that the classification must he founded on an intelligible differentia which dis.tinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group; and (ii) that that differentia must have a rational rclation to the objects sought to be achieved by the st~tute in question (see Ram Krishna T>a/mia v. Justice S.R. Tendo/kar). The classification may be founded on elilTerential basis according to objects sought to be achieved hut what is implicit in it is that there ought to be a nexus i.e. causal connection hetween" the basis of classificatbn and object of the statu te under consideration. It is equally well settled hy the decisions of this Court that Article 14 condemns discrimination not only by a suhstantive law but also by a law of procedure. 12. After an exhaustive review of almost all decisions bearing on the question of Article 14, this Court speaking through Chandrachud, CJ. in In re Special Courts BilL 19783 restated the seWed propositions which emerged from the judgments of this Court undoubtedly insofar as they were relevant to the decisio~ on the points arising for consideration in that matter. Four of them are apt anfl...relevant for the present purpose and may be extracted. They are : ~SCC pp. 424-25, para 72) . n) The constitutional command to the State to afTord equal protection of its !aws sets a goal not allaim~!:>le hy the invention and application of a precise formula. Therefore, classification need not be constituted by an exact or scientific exclusion or inclusion of persons or things. The courts should not insist on delusive exactness or apply doctrinaire tests for determining the validity of classification in any given case. Classification is justiUed if if is not palpably arbitrary. (4) The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances. Classification is justiUed if if is not palpably arbitrary. (4) The principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 is not that the same rules of law should be applicable to all persons within the Indian territory or that the same remedies should be made available to them irrespective of differences of circumstances. It only means that all pers(ins similarly circumstanced shali be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equ,lllaws would have to he applied to all in the same situation. and there should be no discrimination between one person and another if as regards the subject-matter of the legislation their position is substantially the •same. (6) The law can make and set aparUhe classes according to the needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by experience. It caR recognise even degree of evil. but the cI~lssification should never be arbitrary. artificial or evasive. (7) The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that i" to say, it must not only he based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in ail the pers()I1s grouped together ,lI1d not in others who arc left out but those q~alities or characteristics must have a reasonable rclation to the ohject of the legislation. In order to 596 Uttaranchal Govt. Degree Colleges v. State of UttaraocHld [HC] , 2006 pa~s the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from oth(;rs and (2) that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 13. The other facet of Article 14 which must be remembered is that it eschews arbitrariness in any fgrm. Article 14 has, therefore:, not to be held identical with the doctrine of classification. As was noticed in Maneka Gandhi casel in the earliest stages of evolution of the constitutional law, Article 14 came to be identified with the doctrine of classification because the view taken was that Article 14 forbids discrimination and there will be no discrimination where the classification making the differentia fulfils the aforemeptioned two conditions. However, in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. it was held that the basic principle which informs both Article 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. However, in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. it was held that the basic principle which informs both Article 14 and 16 is equality and inhibition against discrimination. This Court further observed ,is under: (SCCp.38, para 85) "From a positivistic point or vie\v, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality and arbitrariness arc sworn en~ies; one belongs to the rule of law in a republic while the other, to the'iWhim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where ,In act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it i!i unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is therefore violative or Article 14, and if it affects any matter relating to public employment, it is also violative of Article 16. Articles 14 and 16 strike at arbitrarines.s in _State action and ensure fairness and equality of treatmenL" . 14. Justice Iyer has in his inimitable style dissected Article 14 in Maneka Gandhi casel as under at SCR p. 728: (SCC p. 342, para 94) "That article has a pervasive processual potency and versatile quality, egalitarian in its soul and allergic to discriminatory diktats. Equality is the antithesis of arbitrdfiness and ex cathedra ipse dixit is the ally of demagogic authoritarianism. Only knight-errants of 'executive excesses'-if we may use current cliche-can fall in love, with the Dame of despotism, legislative or administrative. If this Court gives in here it gives up the ghost And so it is that I insist on the dynamics of limitations on fundamental freedoms as implying the rule of law: Be you ever so high, the law is above you." , Affirming and explaining this view, the Constitution Bench in Ajay H,~sia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi5 held that,it must. therefore, now be taken to be well settled that ,,,,hat Article 14 strikes at is arbitrarines~ because any action that is arbitrary must necessarily involve negation of equality. The Court made it explicit that where an act is arbitrary it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and is, therefore, violative of Article 14. After a review of large number of decisions bearing on the subject, in Air India v. Nergesh Meerza the Court formulated propositions emerging from an UAD Jayanand Nautiyal v. State of' Uttaranchal [He] 597 analysis and examination of earlier de~isions. After a review of large number of decisions bearing on the subject, in Air India v. Nergesh Meerza the Court formulated propositions emerging from an UAD Jayanand Nautiyal v. State of' Uttaranchal [He] 597 analysis and examination of earlier de~isions. One such proposition held well established is that Article 14 is certainly attracted where equals are treated dilTerently without any reasonable basis. 19. The Apex Coun in the case of Kapil Hingorani vs. State of Bihai' (2205) 2 SCC 262 has also emphasised for improving the methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of tcchnical and scientific knowledge, wherein paragraph 50 of the judgment, the term "life" has been defined relying upon. the judgment of Field, J. in Munn V. lllinois reported in 1877 (94) US 1131, as under: "The term 'life' used in Article 21 of the Constitution of India has a wide and far reaching concept. It includes livelihood and so many other facets thereor. 'Life'. as observed by Field, J. in Munn \Z Illinois [1877(94) 118 1131] means something more than mere animal existence and the inhibition against the deprivation of lire extcnds to all those limits and facilities by which life is enjoyed. [See Board of T1ustees of the Port of Bombay Vs. Dilipkumar Raghavendranalh Nadkarni and others [1983 (1) SCC 124] and Olga Tellis llnd others Vs Bombay Municipal COlporation and others 11985 (3) SCC 545].'\ . 20. In view of above, a writ of mandamus is .issued directing the respondents to create of Accounts Cadre in the Government Degree/P.G. Colleges pursuant to the Govt. orders dated 11-8-83 (Annex 2), dated 13-9-2005 (AnQex no 3) and G.O. datcd 22-9-2005 (Annex no 6) within three months after obtaining the certified copy of this order. 21. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.