RAJIV SHARMA, J. Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. 2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner-Association has prayed for quashing the condition imposed in the Government Order dated 19. 9. 1994 and to provide the revised pay scale to all the persons, who are in service as Laboratory Technicians in the Department of Medical Health, U. P. 3. The present writ petition arises out of the dispute for fixation of the pay scale of the Laboratory Technicians and Senior Laboratory Technicians, working in the Medical health Department. After revision of the pay scales in 1979, the Laboratory Technicians were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 400- 615 whereas Senior Laboratory Technicians were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 515-860. Laboratory Assistants are usually appointed in Ayurvedic and Unani Hospitals whereas Laboratory Technicians are appointed in the Medical and Health department. Pursuant to the judgment passed in writ petition no. 8345 of 1989, the Laboratory Technicians were provided the pay scale of Rs. 515-869 w. e. f. 18. 7. 1981. On 1. 1. 1986, the pay scales were against revised and Laboratory Technicians were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040, which was also provided to the Laboratory Assistants. However, while placing the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 in compliance of the aforesaid judgement, a condition was put in vide G. O. Dated 19. 9. 1994 that advantage of the said pay scale i. e. Rs. 1400-2300 would only be permissible to such persons, who were earlier placed in the pay scale of Rs. 515-860. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that whether the respondents have any authority to provide different pay scale to the same class of persons on the basis of a cut-off date or to classify one grade in two distinct part in relations to pay scale, notwithstanding the constitutional right which is conferred to the similarly situate persons. 5. On behalf of the respondents, it has been submitted that initially in Ayurvedic and Unani system, the pay scale of Laboratory Assistant/technical Assistant was less than the pay scale of Laboratory Technician ( allopathic ). Later on, by the Government Order dated 12. 5. 1987, the pay scale of the Laboratory Assistant/technical Assistant ( Ayurvedic & Unani) was made equal to Laboratory Technician and it was fixed at Rs. 400-615. 6. Later on, by the Government Order dated 12. 5. 1987, the pay scale of the Laboratory Assistant/technical Assistant ( Ayurvedic & Unani) was made equal to Laboratory Technician and it was fixed at Rs. 400-615. 6. Laboratory Assistant/technical Assistant (Ayurvedic and Unani System) Karmchari Sangh filed a writ petition no. 5497 of 1987 claiming parity with Modelers, who were employed in State Ayurvedic and Unani Hospital and also Senior Laboratory Technician. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the pay scale of Laboratory Assistant/technical Assistant ( ayurvedic and Unani ) was increased to Rs. 515-860 with effect from 18. 7. 1981. 7. According to him, Laboratory Technician ( Allopathic) have been given the same treatment, facilities as given to the Laboratory Assistant/technical Assistant ( Ayurvedic and Unani ). Clarifying further, it has been submitted that pursuant to the recommendations of the IV Central Pay Commission, State Governments Equivalence Committee recommended the pay scale of Laboratory Assistant/technical Assistant ( Ayurvedic and Unani) to Rs. 1320-2040 in place of Rs. 400-615 but in view of the fact that their writ petition was allowed then such persons were given the pay scale of Rs. 14002300 as personal pay. 8. Refuting the allegations of the respondents, Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the order passed in Writ Petition No. 5497/87 filed by the Lab Assistants of Ayurvedic and Unani Sytems, all the 43 Lab Assistants working Ayurvedic and Unani Systems were provided increased pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 instead of Rs. 515-860. "it is true that the principle of equal pay or 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. 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. 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. " 10. The Honble Apex Court further observed in the report as under:- "the Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organization recognizes the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperiled". Construing 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. " 11. Relying upon P. K. Ramachandra Iyer and others Vs. Union of India and others (1984) 2 SCC 141 learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the discrimination created by State Government is unwarranted and is not based on reasonable classification. In this case, their Lordship observed that in such a situation Article 39 (d), must assist us in reaching a fair and just conclusion. Elaborating the underlying intendment of Article 39 (d), Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Randhir Singh Vs. In this case, their Lordship observed that in such a situation Article 39 (d), must assist us in reaching a fair and just conclusion. Elaborating the underlying intendment of Article 39 (d), Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 observed that the principle equal pay for equal work is deducible from Articles 14 and 16 and may be properly applied to the 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. 12. In P. Savita and others Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Defence (Department of Defence Production), New Delhi and others 1985 (Supp) SCC 94 wherein their Lordship observed at paragraphs 6,12 and 14 as under:- " (6.) It might very well be that "matters relating to employment or appointment to any office" in Article 16 (1) are wide enough to include the matter of promotion. Inequality of opportunity for promotion as between citizens holding different posts in the same grade may, therefore, be an infringement of Article 16. 12. The High Court did not have the advantage of a decision of the Court in Randhir Singh V. Union of India (1982) 3 SCR 298, to which one of us was a party, which evolved the equality doctrine embodied in Article 39 (d) and read with Article 14, into it; while considering the complaint of a driver who was originally in the Army but later employed as a driver constable in Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration and who was denied the same pay as was available to the other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration. This Court allowed the writ petition and directed the concerned authorities to pay the petitioners in that case, salary at least equal to the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. . . . " 14. "with respect we agree with the conclusion arrived at in the above judgment, that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently". 13. . . . " 14. "with respect we agree with the conclusion arrived at in the above judgment, that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated differently". 13. The guiding principle of the Article 14 is that all persons and things similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in respect of privileges conferred and liabilities imposed vide Satish Chandra V. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250 ,252 and Kamala Gaind (Smt.) V. State of Punjab, 1990 Supp SCC 800. equality before the law means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated alike. Hence, what it forbids discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. It does not forbid different treatment of unequals. The rule rather is that like should be treated alike and that unlike should be treated differently. The same or uniform treatment of unequals is as bad as unequal treatment of equals vide All India Sainik Schools Employees Assn. V. Sainik Schools Society, 1989 Supp (1)SCC 205,212: Builders ASSn. Of India V. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1371 ; Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers Assn. V. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715 : Prem Chand Somchand Shah V. Union of India, (1991) 2 SCC 48 ,56. 14. In State of U. P. and others Vs. J. P. Chaurasia and others (1989) 1 SCC 121 it was held as under:- 22. "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" has been accepted as a "constitutional goal" capable of being achieved though constitutional remedies. In Randhir Singh V. Union of India Chinnappa Reddy,j. said : (See p. 622, para 8 : SCR p. 304)" "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 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 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". 15. In view of the above, it is crystal clear that if one set of employees is denied parity though the relevant considerations are same, the action of the State Government would in violative of Article 14 & 16. The contention of the respondents that scale of Rs. 1400-2300 was provided to the Lab Assistants only as personal pay cannot be accepted as if it would have been so, the entire cadre of the Lab Assistants working in Unani and Ayurvedic Systems would not have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Therefore, the rider/condition mentioned in the Government Order dated 19. 9. 1994 has wrongly been placed and is discriminatory in nature and thus ,it is not sustainable. 16. Accordingly, the condition mentioned in the aforesaid Government Order regarding admissibility of the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 is hereby set-aside. Respondents shall act accordingly. 17. The writ petition is allowed in above terms. .