JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—These three writ petitions have been filed by Telephone Operator/Telex Operators appointed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad after due selection between the year 1993 to 1999. The petitioners are aggrieved by the decision taken by the State Government dated 14.5.1992, dated 29.5.1992, dated 8.9.1997 and dated 10.4.2006 whereby payment of salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 to 2200 has been refused to the petitioner and the petitioners have been directed to be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1200 to 2040. 2. Recruitment and other conditions of service on the post of Telex Operator in the establishment of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is regulated by the rules framed by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice in exercise of powers under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, known as Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff Conditions of Service and Conduct Rules, 1976. It may be recorded that vide amendment dated 21st September, 1992 the word Telex Operator’ was also added to the post of Telephone Operators and necessary consequential amendments were also made in Rules 8, 9, 10A and 13A of the 1976 Rules. 3. Under Rule 36 of the aforesaid 1976 Rules, the scales of pay admissible to person appointed on various posts in the establishment has been provided to be as such as may be determined by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice from time to time with the approval of His Excellency The Governor of Uttar Pradesh. 4. The State of U.P. issued two orders dated 14th May, 1992 and dated 29th May, 1992 whereby it was provided that the salary of the Telephone Operator/Telex Operators already appointed and working for the period between 1.1.1986 to 6.3.1989 would be in the pay scale of Rs. 950 to 1500 and with effect from 7th March, 1989 their salary would be in the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 on personal basis. With regard to the persons appointed on the same post subsequent to 29.5.1992, it has been provided that they shall be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. 5. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners were appointed subsequent to issuance of the Government Order dated 29th May, 1992 and in their appointment letters the pay scale admissible has specifically been mentioned as Rs. 1200-2040. 1200-2040. 5. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners were appointed subsequent to issuance of the Government Order dated 29th May, 1992 and in their appointment letters the pay scale admissible has specifically been mentioned as Rs. 1200-2040. The petitioners allege that after joining in pursuance to letter of appointment they came to know that their counterparts appointed earlier on similar post were enjoying the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. Petitioners therefore made a representation before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The petitioners were informed that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court has already made his recommendation vide letter dated 31st July, 1991 for grant of pay scale of Rs. 1350 to 2200 to all the Telephone Operators working in the establishment of the High Court at Allahabad. However, no further action had been taken in the matter. The Additional Registrar of the High Court on 9th December, 1995 again forwarded the recommendation of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice for grant of pay scale to the persons appointed on the post of Telex Operator/Telephone Operators in the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 instead of 1200-2040. It was mentioned that the anomaly, which was existing in respect of salary qua the persons working on the same post with reference to their date of appointment, may be removed at the earliest. The aforesaid representation was followed by reminders. 6. The Special Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh vide letter dated 3rd December, 1997 informed that the recommendation of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice has not found favour with the State Government and Telephone Operators/Telex Operators appointed subsequent to 14.5.1992 cannot be granted salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. 7. On receipt of the said order of the State Government, the Officer on Special Duty informed the petitioner vide letter dated 12th February, 1998 that their representation for revision of the pay scale has since been turned down. 8. It is at this stage of the proceedings the first two writ petitions were filed. 9. The Court on 27.1.1999 and 27.7.1999 admitted these writ petitions and directed that the petitioners of the first two writ petitions shall be paid future salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. Therefore, the petitioners of first two writ petitions under an interim order of this Court are being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 9. The Court on 27.1.1999 and 27.7.1999 admitted these writ petitions and directed that the petitioners of the first two writ petitions shall be paid future salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. Therefore, the petitioners of first two writ petitions under an interim order of this Court are being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 since then. 10. While the aforesaid two writ petitions were still pending, fresh appointments were made on the post of Telephone/Telex Operators in the year, 1999. The persons so appointed filed Writ Petition No. 53508 of 2005 claiming payment of salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 in place of Rs. 1200-2040. The writ petition was directed to be connected with the earlier writ petition under the order dated 4.8.2005. However, no interim order was granted. Consequently, the petitioners of the said writ petition continues to draw salary even today in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. 11. On 20.3.2006 this Court required the State Government to take a fresh decision on the recommendation of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice with reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. S.B. Vohra and others, JT 2004(1) SC 38, with specific reference to the observations made in paragraph 32 and 33 of the said judgment, the State Government was required to record reasons for the decision to be taken. 12. In compliance of the aforesaid order of this Court, the State Government vide its order dated 10th April, 2006 decided to turn down the recommendation made by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice and has supported the said order by reasons recorded therein. This order of the State Government dated 10th April, 2006 has been challenged by means of an amendment application in the last writ petition. 13. Parties have exchanged their affidavits and Counsel for the parties have been heard. 14. From the records, undisputed facts which emerge are that the pay scale admissible to the post of Telephone/Telex Operators in the establishment of the High Court has been notified as follows : SI. No. Pay Scale Period 1. 950-1500 1.1.86 to 6.3.99 2. 1350-2200 (as personal pay to the persons appointed and working as on 29.5.1992) w.e.f. 7.3.1989 3. 1200-2040 for the persons appointed subsequent to 29.5.92. 15. No. Pay Scale Period 1. 950-1500 1.1.86 to 6.3.99 2. 1350-2200 (as personal pay to the persons appointed and working as on 29.5.1992) w.e.f. 7.3.1989 3. 1200-2040 for the persons appointed subsequent to 29.5.92. 15. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners have been appointed subsequent to 1992. Petitioners of Writ Petition No. 8575 of 1998 and Writ Petition No. 14405 of 1999, although appointed subsequent to 1989, are being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 under an interim order of the Court passed in their favour in the writ petition. 16. The recommendation of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice to remove the anomalies in the pay scale admissible to the post of Telephone and Telex Operators, with reference to the date of appointment (as referred to above), has not found favour with the State Government as per the order dated 10.4.2000 and the reasons assigned are (a) In the All India Chief Justices’ of High Courts conference at Bombay a decision was taken to provide same pay scale to the ministerial staff of the High Court at par with the staff of the Secretariat of the Government. The State Government accordingly brought the staff of the State Government at par with the employees of the Secretariat under Government Order dated 20.3.1968. On the recommendation of the Pay Commission and Samta Samiti constituted, the pay scale admissible to the Telephone/Telex Operators of the High Court was revised and fixed at the same scale with effect from 1.10.1986. 17. The Committee, headed by the Chief Secretary, on the basis of the information available categorized the Telephone/Telex Operator as within the broad category of Lower Division Assistant and therefore decided that they be granted salary at par with Lower Division Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. However, in respect of earlier period i.e. 1.1.1986 to 6.3.1989, it was noticed that they are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 only. Subsequently, correct facts being brought to the knowledge of the Chief Secretary a decision was taken on 29.5.1992 to the effect that the appointees working on the post of Telephone and Telex Operators as on 29.5.1992 would be entitled to salary of Rs. 1350-2200 as personal pay. However, all future appointment on the said post shall be made in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. 1350-2200 as personal pay. However, all future appointment on the said post shall be made in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. It has been stated that all Telephone and Telex Operators working prior to 1992 have accordingly been paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 as personal pay, while all subsequent appointees are being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 only. 18. State therefore contends that a parity with regard to payment of salary to the Telephone/Telex Operators working in the High Court with those working in the Secretariat has been maintained and no revision of the pay scale in respect of the persons appointed subsequent to the issuance of the Government Order dated 24.3.1992 can be entertained. 19. The decision of the State Government is being challenged on the ground that the recommendation of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice should normally be approved by the State Government and refusal thereof must be supported by strong reasons, as have been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India v. S.B. Vohra and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 38 (para 50). 20. It is contended that personal pay is special accommodation provided in favour of an individual and not to a particular class or category. It personal pay can be provided to a class of employees with reference to date of appointment/working of the same cadre. With reference to Rule 9(2) of the Fundamental Rules, which defines personal pay, it is contended that such personal pay is provided only to remove the anomalies and to mitigate the hardship in an individual case. It is further stated that there is no justification for maintaining a difference in respect of payment of pay scale to the employees working in the same cadre, performing similar duties, only with reference to a cut-off date provided qua appointment/working. 21. Lastly it has been contended that under an interim order similarly situate persons have been granted pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 since 1989 and it would be too late in a day to revert such petitioners to an inferior pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Mizoram and another v. Mizoram Engineering Service Association and another, (2004) 6 SCC 218 . 22. 1350-2200 since 1989 and it would be too late in a day to revert such petitioners to an inferior pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Mizoram and another v. Mizoram Engineering Service Association and another, (2004) 6 SCC 218 . 22. I have heard Sri B.D. Madhyan Senior Advocate and Sri Satish Madhyan Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Sri K.R. Sirohi Advocate on behalf of the High Court and Standing Counsel on behalf of the State of U.P. 23. Article 229 of the Constitution of India confers a power upon the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of the High Court to lay down the terms and conditions of appointment of ministerial staff in the establishment of the High Court, and reads as follows : "229. Officers and servants and the expenses of High Courts.— (1) ............... (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose : Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. (3) The administrative expenses of a High Court, including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court, shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund.” 24. The power to fix the pay scale has, however, been made subject to the approval of the State. The said aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported in JT 2004(1) SC 38, Union of India v. S.B. Vohra and others and it has been held as follows : “50. The power to fix the pay scale has, however, been made subject to the approval of the State. The said aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case reported in JT 2004(1) SC 38, Union of India v. S.B. Vohra and others and it has been held as follows : “50. Having regard to the aforementioned authoritative pronouncements of this Court there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the recommendations of the Chief Justice should ordinarily be approved by the State and refusal thereof must be for strong and adequate reasons. In this case the appellants even addressed itself on the recommendations made by the High Court. They could not have treated the matter lightly. It is unfortunate that the recommendations made by a high functionary like the Chief Justice were not promptly attended to and the private respondents had to file a writ petition. The question as regard fixation of a revision of the scale of pay of the High Court being within exclusive domain of the Chief Justice of the High Court subject to the approval, the State is expected to accept the same recommendations save and except for good and cogent reasons.” 25. In this legal background the issue to be decided in the facts of this case is as to whether the reasons recorded in the order of Chief Secretary of U.P. dated 10.4.2006 are ‘good and cogent. 26. In this legal background the issue to be decided in the facts of this case is as to whether the reasons recorded in the order of Chief Secretary of U.P. dated 10.4.2006 are ‘good and cogent. 26. This Court may therefore examine the reasons given, which are being quoted herein below : **---------kklu ds mPpre Lrj ij fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd fuEufyf[kr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds dkj.k izdj.k esa VsyhQksu vkijsVj VsysDl vkijsVj dks ;kfpr osrueku fn;k tkuk lEHko ugha gS % (I) o"kZ 1962 esa cEcbZ esa vk;ksftr vky bf.M;k phQ tfLVlst dkUÝsUl esa lHkh jkT;ksa ds mPp U;k;ky; ds LVkQ dks] jkT; ljdkj ds lfpoky; ds led{k inksa ds leku osrueku vuqeU; djk;s tkus dh laLrqfr dh x;h FkhA mDr laLrqfr ds ifjizs{; esa iznsk ljdkj }kjk kkluknsk fnukd 20-3-1968 ds ek/;e ls mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn ds deZpkfj;ksa dks fnukad 1-8-1967 ls lfpoky; ds led{k inksa ds leku osrueku vuqeU; djk;s x;sA (II) le;≤ ij xfBr osru vk;ksx@osru lfefr;ksa }kjk iznsk ljdkj ds mDr fl)kUrksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq;s ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds deZpkfj;ksa dks iznsk lfpoky; ds led{k inksa ds leku osrueku vuqeU; djk;s tkus dh laLrqfr;ka dh x;haA mDr fl)kUr dks gh n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, gh ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds VsyhQksu vkijsVj rFkk VsysDl vkijsVj ds inksa ij lerk lfefr@eq[; lfpo lfefr dh laLrqfr;ksa ij kklu }kjk fy, x;s fu.kZ;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fnukad 1-1-1986 lsfpoky; ds VsyhQksu@VsysDl vkijsVj inksa ds leku osrueku Lohd`r fd;s x;s gSaA (III) mijksDr lUnHkZ esa ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd mÙkj iznsk lfpoky; esa VsyhQksu vkijsVj@VsysDl vkijsVj ds osrueku fu/kkZfjr djus ds laca/k esa eq[; lfpo lfefr }kjk fopkj fd;k x;k rFkk muds }kjk] izkIr lwpuk ds vuqlkj VsyhQksu vkijsVjksa@VsysDl vkijsVjksa dks fnukad 7-3-1989 ls voj oxZ lgk;d ds lerqY; :i;s 1350&2200 dk osrueku rFkk mlds iwoZ fnukad 1-1-1986 ls fnukad 6-3-1989 rd bu inksa ds iwoZ osrueku :i;k 354&550 dk lkekU; iqujhf{kr osrueku :i;s 950&1500 laLrqr fd;k x;kA ckn esa eq[; lfpo lfefr ds lEeq[k bl izdj.k ds iqu% izLrqr gksus ij lfefr ds laKku esa ;g ckr yk;h x;h fd VsyhQksu vkijsVjksa@VsysDl vkijsVjksa ds in voj oxZ lgk;d laoxZ esa ugha gS] bl tkudkjh ds feyus ij lfefr }kjk ;g lqfopkfjr laLrqfr dh x;h fd fnukad 7-3-1989 ds iwoZ bu inksa ij lkekU; iqujhf{kr osrueku :i;k 950&1500 gh ns; gksxk] fnukad 7-3-1989 ls orZeku in /kkjdksa dks :i;s 1350&2200 oS;fDrd osrueku ns fn;k tk; vkSj Hkfo"; esa VsyhQksu vkijsVj@VsysDl vkijsVj ds in ij fu;qfDr;ka :i;s 1200&2040 ds osrueku esa gh dh tk;saA mÙkj iznsk kklu }kjk mÙkj iznsk lfpoky; ds VsyhQksj vkijsVjksa@VsysDl vkijsVjksa ds iqujhf{kr osrueku ds laca/k esa eq[; lfpo lfefr }kjk dh x;h mDr laLrqfr dks Lohdkj djrs gq, rn~uqlkj osru vuqeU; fd;s x;s rFkk kkluknsk tkjh gksus dh frfFk fnukad 24-2-1992 ds iwoZ in /kkjdksa dks :i;s 1350&2200 dk oS;fDrd osrueku Lohd`r djrs gq, vkxs ls bu inksa ij fu;qfDr osrueku :i;s 1200&2040 esa fd;s tkus dh O;oLFkk dh x;hA (IV) tSlk fd Åij mfYyf[kr gS] ek0 mPp U;k;ky; vf/k"Bku esa miyC/k ftu inksa dh led{krk mÙkj iznsk lfpoky; ds inksa ls LFkkfir gqbZ] ,sls inksa ds osrueku rFkk HkrhZ dh iz.kkyh bR;kfn mÙkj iznsk lfpoky; ds leku Lohd`r fd;s tkus dk uhfrxr fu.kZ; kkluknsk la[;k&3021@lkr&d&1&263@65] fnukad 20-3-1968 }kjk ys fy;k x;k Fkk] rHkh ls ,sls leku inksa ij mÙkj iznsk lfpoky; esa le; le; ij vuqeU; fd;s x;s osrueku] ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vf/k"Bku esa miyC/k inksa ds fy, Hkh Lohd`r fd;s x;s gSaA blh led{krk dks laKku esa ysrs gq, mPp U;k;ky; ds vf/k"Bku ds VsyhQksu vkijsVjksa@VsysDl vkijsVjksa ds fnukad 1-1-1986 ls iqujhf{kr osrueku] mÙkj iznsk lfpoky; ds VsyhQksu vkijsVjksa@VsysDl vkijsVjksa dks mijksDrkuqlkj vuqeU; fd;s x;s osruekuksa ds gh leku fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;sA bl O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj fnukad 24-2-1992 rFkk mlds ckn VsyhQksu vkijsVj@VsysDl vkijsVj ds in ij fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dks :i;s 1200&2040 ¼fnukad 1-1-1996 ls :i;s 4000&6000½ dk gh osrueku vuqeU; fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr fnukad 24-2-1992 ds ckn mÙkj iznsk lfpoky; esa Hkh VsyhQksu vkijsVj@VsysDl vkijsVj ds in ij fu;qDr deZpkfj;ksa dks ;gh osrueku vuqeU; fd;k x;k gSA 3- mifjof.kZr fLFkfr ds vuqlkj fdlh Lrj ij VsyhQksu vkijsVj@VsysDl vkijsVj ds inksa dks voj oxZ lgk;d laoxZ esa lfEefyr gksus dh lwpuk nh x;h Fkh] tks ckn esa iqf"Vd`r ugha ik;h x;h] ds vk/kkj ij vuqeU; fd;s x;s :i;s 1350&2200 dk osrueku dsoy rRdkyhu in /kkjdksa ds fy, lajf{kr djus dh n`f"V ls oS;fDrd :i ls vuqeU; fd;k x;k] ftls in dk osrueku ekuk tkuk mfpr u gksxkA bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mPp U;k;ky; ds ek0 eq[; U;k;k/khk }kjk dh x;h laLrqfr] tks fucU/kd] ek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds mDr i= fnukad 9 fnlEcj] 1995 esa lwfpr dh x;h] ds vuqlkj VsyhQksu vkijsVjksa@VsysDl vkijsVjksa dks :i;s 1200&2040 ds osrueku ds LFkku ij :i;s 1350&2200 dk osrueku vuqeU; fd;k tkuk iwoZ esa LFkkfir fl)kUr ds vuq:i ugha ik;k x;kA mPp U;k;ky; vf/k"Bku esa] mijksDr O;oLFkk ls gV dj] lHkh VsyhQksu vkijsVjksa@VsysDl vkijsVjksa dks :i;s 1350&2200 ¼:i;s 4500&7000½ dk osrueku vuqeU; fd;s tkus ls vU; foHkkxksa ,oa dk;kZy;ksa esa Hkh blh izdkj dh ekax mB [kM+h gksxhA vr,ao ek0 mPp U;k;ky; esa dk;Zjr VsyhQksu vkijsVjksa@VsysDl vkijsVjksa }kjk in dk osrueku :i;k 1200&2040 ds LFkku ij :i;s 1350&2200 fn;s tkus fo"k;d izR;kosnu] fnukad 5-11-1995] tks fucU/kd mPp U;k;ky; ds ek/;e ls kklu dks izkIr gqvk gS] dks kklu }kjk lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr ,rn~}kjk vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gSA^^ 27. From the facts recorded above for refusing the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 to the Telephone/Telex Operators appointed subsequent to 29.5.1992, it is apparent that the reason assigned main ground is that in accordance with the Government Order dated 20.3.1968 the employees of the High Court were to be paid salary at par with their counterparts working in the Secretariat of State. It has further been recorded that since the Telephone/Telex Operators appointed in the Secretariat of the State Government have been granted pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 only, the petitioners, who have been appointed in the High Court on the same post are to be paid salary in the same pay scale only i.e. Rs. 1200-2040. 28. With regard to certain other Telephone/Telex Operators to whom the pay scale of Rs. 1300-2200 had been made applicable, it has been clarified that the same was provided only to safeguard the salary on personal basis of the employees, who in fact had been sanctioned the pay scale of Rs. 1300-2200 between 1.1.1986 to 6.3.1989 and were working on 29.5.1992. 29. In the opinion of the Court the stand so taken by the State authorities is in teeth of the Division Bench judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of P.S. & P.A. Brotherhood, High Court Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 140 of 1993) decided on 21.12.1993. This Court may record that the Division Bench of this Court has held as follows : “It is relevant to notice that at the time of framing of aforesaid Rules the staff of High Court was being paid the pay scales of State Government and not the Central Government, therefore, after the policy decision of the Government of U.P. to pay the pay scales of Central Government the terms ‘State Government referred in sub-clause (3) quoted above be read as ‘Central Government’. ........However, in the instant case there is no question of Governor’s approval because the Government of Uttar Pradesh itself took the policy decision (vide Adhyay-2 Adhikaradesh on page 3 of the report of Equivalence Committee U.P.-1989 Part I) to pay central pay scales and granted central pay scales to the staff of Allahabad High Court with the approval of the Governor, but the State Government committed an error in not comparing the petitioners with their counterparts attached with the Secretaries to Government of India as well as with the Judges of Delhi High Court who are holding exactly corresponding posts in the Central Government rather it compared them with others in the Central Government. .....In our opinion, the right of petitioners to get the same pay scales is mainly based on the policy decision of U.P. Government itself to grant central pay scales on the corresponding posts. On the face of the policy decision, it is not open for the Government to deny central pay scales to the petitioners, which their counterparts in the Central Government attached with the Secretaries to Government of India are getting. ......Thus from the aforesaid discussions it is clear that the Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants attached with the Judges of Allahabad High Court are entitled to get the scales of pay at par with their counterparts attached with the Secretaries to Government of India.......” 30. The Division Bench judgment of the High Court stands affirmed up to Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the dismissal of Special Appeals vide order dated 26th March, 1996, filed against the said judgment, being Special Appeal Nos. 294 of 1995 and 840 of 1995 by the State of Uttar Pradesh as well as by the High Court respectively. 31. This Court may record that the State Government and its officers had failed to take into consideration the said policy decision of the State Government and to provide same pay scale to the staff of the High Court as is admissible to their counterparts working in the Secretariat of the Central Government and consequently the reasons assigned, ignoring the said policy decision of the State Government, cannot be legally sustained. There has been complete non-application of mind to the policy decision of the State Government as per the Equivalence Committee Report of 1989, referred to above, as well as to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of P.S. & P.A. Brotherhood, High Court Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and others (supra), which has since been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 32. In view of the aforesaid, the State Government is required to consider the grant of pay scale to the Telephone/Telex Operators in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 on the recommendation of the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of the High Court with reference to the policy decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh itself as per the Equivalence Committee Report of 1989, referred to above, providing for pay scales at par with the counterparts working in the Central Secretariat. 33. In the totality of the circumstances noticed herein above, the present writ petitions are allowed. The orders of the State Government dated 14.5.1992, dated 29.5.1992, dated 8.9.1997 and dated 10.4.2006, refusing pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 to Telex/Telephone Operators working in the establishment of the High Court cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed. The State Government is directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioners as recommended by the Hon’ble The Chief Justice of the High Court to the Telephone/Telex Operators of the High Court in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 in light of the policy decision of the State Government (vide Adhyay-2 Adhikaradesh on page 3 of the report of Equivalence Committee U.P.-1989 Part I) as well as the observations made herein above, preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent No. 1. 34. Since under the interim order of the High Court some of the petitioners are being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 as revised from time to time, this Court feel it proper to direct that all other Telephone/Telex Operators appointed in the establishment of High Court shall also be paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 as revised up to date henceforth, till the State Government arrived at a fresh decision qua the exact pay scale to be applied as indicated above. 1350-2200 as revised up to date henceforth, till the State Government arrived at a fresh decision qua the exact pay scale to be applied as indicated above. However, none of the petitioners shall be entitled to any arrears of salary in that regard till the issue with regard to pay scale admissible is determined by the State Government, as indicated above. 35. Writ petitions are allowed subject to the observations made above. ————