JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. Claiming that they have been repeatedly discriminated in granting of pay scale by the State Government, the Nagaland Sericulture Staff Association (hereinafter referred to as 'the Petitioner Association') is before this Court with the present application, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of appropriate writ(s). 2. If put in a narrow compass, the grievances of the Petitioner Association emerge thus: The Petitioner Association is an association of the farm managers and inspectors of the Department of Sericulture, Government of Nagaland, both the farm manager and inspector being interchangeable posts. Till the year 1987, Sericulture was a wing of the Department of Industry and it was, in the year 1988, that a separate Directorate of Sericulture was established by the Government and, in course of time, a separate Department of Sericulture came to be established. The basic minimum qualification for appointment to the post of farm manager/inspector is matriculate with IETC certificate and the same qualification is also required for the purpose of appointment as farm manager/inspector in allied Department, such as, Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Horticulture and Fishery. Notwithstanding the fact that the qualifications required for appointment to the post of farm manager/inspector is same in the Department of Sericulture, Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Horticulture and Fishery and notwithstanding also the fact that the nature of functions and duties of the farm manager/inspector in the Department of Sericulture is same as in the other allied Departments aforementioned, when following the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission, Revision of Pay Rules (in short, 'the ROP Rules') in 1993 was introduced, the pay scale granted for the farm managers/inspectors, under the Department of Sericulture, was fixed at Rs. 1,250-2,280/- but in respect of farm managers/inspectors in the other allied Departments aforementioned, the pay scale of Rs. 1,450-2,840/-was granted. Thus, though the members of the Petitioner Association, as farm managers/inspectors, had the same qualification, which had the farm managers/inspectors in the other allied Departments, and though the members of the Petitioner Association were performing the same nature of work and discharging similar nature of duties as their counter-parts in other allied Departments aforementioned, the ROP Rules, 1993, without any just and valid reason, created discrimination in granting of pay scale as indicated hereinbefore. When the 5th Pay Commission was constituted, the Petitioner Association raised their demands for granting them the same pay scale, which were to be made available to the similarly situated persons in other allied Departments. Notwithstanding the demands so raised by the Petitioner Association, the ROP Rules, 1999, granted, with effect from 01.06.98, to the members of the Petitioner Association pay scale of Rs. 4,125-6,475/-; but, at the same time, the ROP Rules, 1999, granted to the farm managers/inspectors in other allied Departments the pay scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000/-. Aggrieved by such repeated discrimination, the Petitioner Association came before this Court with the help of a writ petition, which gave rise to WP (C) No. 4(K)/2000. When WP(C) No. 4(K)/2000 aforementioned came up for hearing, it was submitted, on behalf of the State Respondents, that the Pay Anomaly Committee, constituted by the State Government, would be looking into the anomalies, if any, in granting of pay scales to the Government employees and that grievances of the Petitioner Association can be taken care of by the Pay Anomaly Committee so constituted by the Government. Following the submissions so made, the Court disposed of the said writ petition, on 14.03.2001, by making following directions.: 1. The Petitioner Association shall submit a fresh representation to the Anomalies Committee constituted as aforesaid along with all the available records/documents in support of their claims within a period of two weeks from today. 2. Thereafter the Anomalies Committee shall give an opportunity to the Petitioner association of being heard and consider all the grievances including all documents/evidence produced by the Petitioner association in the light of the ROP Rules, 1999, as well as the old ROP Rules. The process shall be completed as early as possible as the period granted to the Anomalies Committee for submission of report has already expired on 30.09.2000. On completion of all the process, the Anomalies Committee shall intimate the Petitioner association of the date of submission of its report to enable the Petitioner association to know of the results of such report. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner association to approach this Court, if they are aggrieved by such report. 3. As the Pay Anomaly Committee did not grant reliefs, which the Petitioner Association had sought for, the Petitioner Association is, once again, before this Court with the help of the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Mr. However, liberty is granted to the Petitioner association to approach this Court, if they are aggrieved by such report. 3. As the Pay Anomaly Committee did not grant reliefs, which the Petitioner Association had sought for, the Petitioner Association is, once again, before this Court with the help of the present writ petition. 4. I have heard Mr. Taka Masa, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Association, and Mr. I. Jamir, learned Additional Advocate General, Nagaland. 5. While considering the present writ petition, what is of immense importance to note is that the Petitioner Association has clearly averred, in their writ petition, that the qualification required for appointment as farm manager/inspector in the Department of Sericulture is same as the qualification required for appointment as manager/inspector in the other allied Departments, such as, Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Horticulture, etc. The Petitioner Association has also clearly averred, in their writ petition, that they discharge the same kind of duties and perform the same functions as are being discharged and performed by the farm managers/inspectors in the Departments of Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Horticulture, etc. While dealing with these averments, the Respondents, in their affidavit-in-opposition, have merely contended that the similar nomenclature does not mean that the same nature of job is performed by two different persons. There is, however, no categorical denial, in the affidavit-in-opposition of the State Respondents, that the qualifications for appointment to the post of farm manager/inspector in the Department of Sericulture are same as are required for similar appointments in other allied Departments, such as, Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Horticulture and Fishery. Though the State Government is the employer, it has completely failed to show as to how the work and duty of the farm manager/inspector, in the Department of Sericulture, can be said to be different from the ones that the farm managers/inspectors, in other allied Departments aforementioned, perform or discharge. 6. In fact, to a pointed query made by this Court, as to how the members of the Petitioner Association can be said to have not been discharging similar nature of duties and/or performing similar functions as are done by the farm managers/inspectors of other allied Departments, Mr. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland, could offer no convincing explanation. There is also no explanation discernible, in this regard, from the materials on record. Jamir, learned Addl. Advocate General, Nagaland, could offer no convincing explanation. There is also no explanation discernible, in this regard, from the materials on record. In the absence of any material in support of the contentions of the State Respondents that the members of the Petitioner Association do not perform the same kind of work or discharge same nature of duties as are done by the farm managers/inspectors in the other allied Departments, this Court has no option, but to concluded that the Petitioner Association have satisfactorily proven that not only that they are required to have similar qualifications as are necessary for appointment to the posts of farm manager/inspector in other Departments, but that as farm managers/inspectors, the members of the Petitioner Association have been discharging similar nature of duties and performing similar function as are being discharged and performed by the farm manager/inspector in other allied Departments, such as, Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Horticulture and Fishery. 7. Coupled with the above, the learned Addl. Advocate General has produced the report of the Committee on Pay Revision Anomalies, published by the Finance Department, Government of Nagaland. This report, at page 46, considers the demands of the Petitioner Association at Serial No. 77. For the sake of clear understanding as to how the Pay Anomaly Committee has dealt with the grievances of the Petitioner Association, relevant portion of their observations and recommendations are reproduced herein-below: Sl. No. 77. Nagaland Sericulture Technical Staff Association. Demand: (a) The post of Extension Officer be upgraded to the post of Asstt. Sericulture Officer irrespective of PGDs and Certificate of Extension Officer cannot be treated on different footing. (b) The post of Manager/Inspector in the Deptt. be brought at par with that of Extension Officer. Comments of the Committee: The Supdt. of Sericulture be re-designated as District Sericulture Officer while posted in the District and as Sericulture Officer while posted in the Dte. Inspector/Farm Manager were clubbed together with Supervisor by 1993 ROP, whereas the former two were and still are promotion posts with higher scale of pay prior to 1993 ROP. The Joint Director and the Office bearers of the Association were heard in person. Recommendations of the Committee: Recommended as follows: 1. Inspector/Farm Manager: 4125-6475 2. Asstt. Seri. Officer/Ext. Officer: 6000-9750 who has completed 10 years service in the grade. 3. Dist. Seri. Officer (now Supdt. of Seri.)/Seri, Officer: 8000-13500 8. The Joint Director and the Office bearers of the Association were heard in person. Recommendations of the Committee: Recommended as follows: 1. Inspector/Farm Manager: 4125-6475 2. Asstt. Seri. Officer/Ext. Officer: 6000-9750 who has completed 10 years service in the grade. 3. Dist. Seri. Officer (now Supdt. of Seri.)/Seri, Officer: 8000-13500 8. A bare reading of what has been considered by the Pay Anomaly Committee will clearly reveal that the Committee completely omitted to consider the basic grievances of the Petitioner Association that as farm managers/inspectors, they shall be granted the same pay scale as have been made available to farm managers/inspectors in other allied Departments. As a result of their complete failure to take note of the basic grievances of the Petitioner Association, the Committee reiterated the pay scale, which ROP Rules, 1999, had fixed for the members of the Petitioner Association. The findings of the Pay Anomaly Committee, thus, suffer from utter non-application of mind and having acted upon the observations and/or recommendations of the Pay Anomaly Committee, in this regard, the State Government has also exhibited its non-application of mind to the real and genuine grievances of the Petitioner Association. 9. The fall-out of the above discussion is that the Petitioner Association have convincingly shown that the members of the Petitioner Association have been discharging similar duties and performing similar functions as are being performed by the farm managers/inspectors in the other allied Departments. In such a situation, the pay scale of the members of the Petitioner Association ought to have been the same as the pay scale of the farm managers/inspectors in other allied Departments, such as, Agriculture, Soil Conservation, Horticulture and Fishery. The refusal to accord the same pay scale to the members of the Petitioner Association as has been made available to their counter-parts in other allied Departments without any good and reasonable cause cannot but be termed as arbitrary and discriminatory. 10. In short, what crystallizes from the above discussion is that the Petitioner Association have convincingly shown that the pay scale of Rs. 4,125-6,475/- granted to them by ROP Rules, 1999, is discriminatory and arbitrary in nature. 11. In view of the above, the State Respondents are hereby directed to make available to the members of the Petitioner Association the pay scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000/- with effect from 01.06.1998. The Respondents shall make necessary order(s), in this regard, accordingly. 4,125-6,475/- granted to them by ROP Rules, 1999, is discriminatory and arbitrary in nature. 11. In view of the above, the State Respondents are hereby directed to make available to the members of the Petitioner Association the pay scale of Rs. 4,500-7,000/- with effect from 01.06.1998. The Respondents shall make necessary order(s), in this regard, accordingly. The whole exercise, so directed, shall be completed within a period of two months from to-day. 12. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand disposed of. 13. No order as to costs.