JUDGMENT Honble Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioner was initially appointed as a Dark Room Assistant in the Health Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh. On 24th January, 1997, the Director General, Medical and Health, U.P. Lucknow with reference to the Government Order dated 29th February, 1988 issued a circular whereby it was provided that 25 per cent posts of X-Ray Technicians may be filled up by appointing the Dark Room Assistants after they had completed the training of X-Ray Technician. In the said circular the qualifications for being sent for training as X-Ray Technicians were also specified. The minimum qualifying service for the said purpose was fixed as five years. Under the aforesaid Government Order it was provided that if the selected candidates complete their training of X-Ray Technicians successfully, they shall be appointed against the vacant posts of X-Ray Technicians in the pay-scale of Rs. 1350-2000. 2. For the purposes of selections of suitable Dark Room Assistants for being sent for training of X-Ray Technicians, a Selection Committee was constituted and the said Selection Committee found the petitioner to be suitable for being sent for training at Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad. A certificate dated 24th March, 2000 has been issued by the State Medical Faculty, U.P. that the petitioner has undergone one year prescribed training at the Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad and has passed the X-Ray Technician examination held in the month of September, 1999 conducted by the U.P. State Medical Faculty. 3. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that in spite of having successfully completed the X-Ray Technician training, he has not been appointed as an X-Ray Technician even though many other successful candidates like the petitioner have been appointed as the X-Ray Technicians by the order dated 28th June, 2001. He, therefore, filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of with a direction to the Director to decide the representation filed by the petitioner. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the order passed by the Director on 12th February, 2007 which has been impugned in the present petition. 4. I have heard Sri R.K. Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On 12th March, 2007 learned Standing Counsel was granted a month’s time to file the counter-affidavit. 4. I have heard Sri R.K. Srivastava learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 5. On 12th March, 2007 learned Standing Counsel was granted a month’s time to file the counter-affidavit. The counter-affidavit was not filed and by the orders dated 4th July, 2007 and 27th August, 2008 the Court granted further time to the learned Standing Counsel to file the counter-affidavit but as the counter-affidavit was not filed, the Court ultimately passed an order on 19th September, 2008 granting four weeks and no more time to the learned Standing Counsel to file the counter-affidavit and the petition was ordered to be listed on 20th October, 2008. The respondents have, however, not filed any counter-affidavit. It is in such circumstances that I propose to decide the writ petition in the absence of the counter-affidavit. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment dated 10th November, 2004 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 27734 of 2002 (Ashok Kumar and others v. State of U.P. and others) in which the petitioners therein had also been appointed as Dark Room Assistants in the Health Department of the State of Uttar Pradesh and like the petitioner were also sent for X-Ray Technician training and after having successfully completed the training, an order dated 28th June, 2001 was issued by the Director General, Medical & Health, U.P., Lucknow appointing the aforesaid persons in the various Hospitals, Dispensaries, Health Centres situated in the State of U.P. as X-Ray Technicians under the Chief Medical Officers but they were not paid salary of the X-Ray Technicians and were paid the salary of Dark Room Assistants only on the ground that necessary amendments in the provisions of the U.P. X-Ray Technicians Services Rules, 1986 had not been made for providing promotion of Dark Room Assistants to the extent of 25 per cent as was provided for in the Government Order dated 24th January, 1997. 7. This Court allowed the petition and the observations are as follows : "Admittedly, the procedure prescribed under the order dated 24th January, 1997 has been followed. The petitioners were selected for being sent for training of X-Ray Technicians and have admittedly, been appointed on the posts of X-Ray Technicians. 7. This Court allowed the petition and the observations are as follows : "Admittedly, the procedure prescribed under the order dated 24th January, 1997 has been followed. The petitioners were selected for being sent for training of X-Ray Technicians and have admittedly, been appointed on the posts of X-Ray Technicians. It is also not in dispute that the duties and responsibilities of X-Ray Technicians are being discharged by the petitioners subsequent to their appointments as such.” 8. The respondents have not paid their salary of the post of X-Ray Technicians to the petitioners because of non-amendment of the Rules of 1986 (which is prerogative of the State Government exclusively). The State­respondents cannot refuse the salary admissible to the post of X-Ray Technicians to the petitioners, inasmuch as no one can be permitted to take benefit of his own wrong. The State Government had categorically assured the Dark Room Assistants of appointment as X-Ray Technicians provided they are selected and completed the training or being appointed as X-Ray Technicians. The decision of the State Government to that effect is patently arbitrary and without any basis. Even otherwise on the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ since the respondents have appointed the petitioners on the post of X-Ray Technicians and there is no denial of the fact that the duties and responsibilities of the post of X-Ray Technicians are being discharged by the petitioners. 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is absolutely no justification for refusing the salary to the petitioners in the pay-scale admissible to the post of X-Ray Technicians. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the conditions mentioned in the order dated 28th June, 2001 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) to the effect that the persons mentioned in the said order would work as X-Ray Technicians but shall be paid salary admissible to the post of Dark Room Assistants cannot be legally sustained as being arbitrary as well as in violation of the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’, it is accordingly, quashed. It is further provided that the respondents shall ensure that the payment of salary admissible to the post of X-Ray Technicians is made to the petitioners from the date they had been appointed after successful completion of their training as X-Ray Technicians in pursuance of the order dated 29th February, 1988 and their salary shall be re-fixed, accordingly. The payment of salary with arrears be made to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before respondent No. 1. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner states that no Special Appeal has been filed against the aforesaid judgment. 11. In the present case, a perusal of the impugned order dated 12th February, 2007 indicates that an order appointing the petitioner as X-Ray Technician has not been issued as he had been given the training of X-Ray Technician even though there is no provision for giving training to such Dark Room Assistants in the Dark Room Assistants Rules, 1998 and nor is there any provision in the 1986 X-Ray Technicians Service Rules, providing for any appointment of such Dark Room Assistants who have completed their X-Ray Technician training. 12. It is, therefore, apparent that the same reasons have been mentioned in the impugned order as were taken by the respondents for not making payment of salary to such persons who had, in fact, been given appointment orders as X-Ray Technician. 13. Thus, while certain Dark Room Assistants had been appointed on the post of X-Ray Technician after successfully completing the training on the basis of the Government Order dated 24th January, 1997, the petitioner was not appointed as an X-Ray Technician. In view of the case of Ashok Kumar and others (supra), with which I have no reason to differ, the petitioner is clearly entitled for appointment as X-Ray Technician and also for payment of salary as X-Ray Technician. The respondents shall forthwith appoint the petitioner as X-Ray Technician and pay him salary on the post of X-Ray Technician. 14. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. ————