JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Zhimomi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. N.M. Jamir, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of State Respondents. 2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the Government of Nagaland by a resolution passed by the cabinet on 9.4.1976, decided to set up a State Vigilance Commission ('SVC') to be headed by the State Vigilance Commissioner for which jurisdiction, powers and functions have been assigned. In terms of the aforesaid Resolution, several State Vigilance Commissioners were appointed by the Government of Nagaland on various occasions providing them monthly pay-scale/salary. The Petitioner after his retirement from service in the rank of Commissioner and Secretary, was appointed as the State Vigilance Commissioner vide Notification No. VIG/3-E/78(PT) dated 21.6.2006 for a period of 5 years or till he attains the age of 65 years whichever is earlier with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office. In the said Notification, it is provided that he will be given salary equivalent to the last pay drawn by him as an IAS officer in the super time scale minus the pension being drawn by him. At the time of retirement, the Petitioner was drawing super time scale permissible to All India Service Officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 18,400 p.m. The Petitioner accepted the assignment and assumed the office of State Vigilance Commission. After assumption of office, the Petitioner came to know that one Mr. S.M. Bagai, an officer in Indian Revenue Service and Mr. N. Jakhalu, a retired IAS officer below the rank of Chief Secretary, were appointed as State Vigilance Commissioners by the Government of Nagaland and they were paid in the pay scale of Chief Secretary and the same scale of pay have been denied to him. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed a representation before the Government for equal salary to the rank of Chief Secretary. On consideration of his representation, the Government vide Notification dated VIG/3-E/78(Pt) dated 12.3.2008 fixed the pay scale of the State Vigilance Commissioner at Rs. 22,400-525-24,500 p.m. with immediate effect. This pay scale is not equivalent to the salary of Chief Secretary which starts at Rs. 26,000 p.m. The Petitioner having not been satisfied with the pay-scale of Rs. On consideration of his representation, the Government vide Notification dated VIG/3-E/78(Pt) dated 12.3.2008 fixed the pay scale of the State Vigilance Commissioner at Rs. 22,400-525-24,500 p.m. with immediate effect. This pay scale is not equivalent to the salary of Chief Secretary which starts at Rs. 26,000 p.m. The Petitioner having not been satisfied with the pay-scale of Rs. 22,400-525-24,500 p.m. as provided in the aforesaid Notification, has approached this Court with the following grievances to: (a) Quash and set aside Clause (b) of the Notification dated 21.6.2006 and Notification dated 12.3.2008. (b) Direct the Respondents to review the Order No. VIG/3-E/78(Pt) dated 12.3.2008 fixing the scale of pay of the Vigilance Commissioner commensurate with the status of the post and as hitherto granted to previous incumbents and that till such time, the Vigilance Commissioner shall be paid concurrent emoluments. (c) Direct the Respondents to release to the Petitioner consequential benefits from 21.6.2006. (d) Direct the Respondents to cease and/or forbear from infringing upon the independence and autonomy of the Vigilance Commission and the Vigilance Commissioner as laid down in Resolution No. CON-58/75 dated 9.4.1976. 3. The only question involved in this case is whether the present Petitioner as State Vigilance Commissioner is entitled to salary equivalent to the salary of Chief Secretary of the State. 4. In the Notification dated 21.6.2006, appointing the Petitioner as State Vigilance Commissioner, it has been stated in Clause (a)(i) that he will be removed or suspended from office except in the manner provided for removal or suspension of the Chairman or a Member of the State Public Service Commission under Article 317 of the Constitution of India. By this clause, it is to be understood that the status of State Vigilance Commissioner is equal to the status of Chairman or a member of the State Public Service Commission. But with regard to pay, it is provided that the Petitioner, as State Vigilance Commissioner, would be given salary equivalent to the last pay drawn by him as an IAS officer in super time scale minus the pension being drawn by him. There is no mention in the Cabinet Resolution dated 9.4.1976 that the State Vigilance Commissioner shall be given salary equivalent to the salary of Chief Secretary of the State. In the impugned Notification dated 12.3.2008 whereby the scale of pay of the State Vigilance Commissioner has been fixed at Rs. There is no mention in the Cabinet Resolution dated 9.4.1976 that the State Vigilance Commissioner shall be given salary equivalent to the salary of Chief Secretary of the State. In the impugned Notification dated 12.3.2008 whereby the scale of pay of the State Vigilance Commissioner has been fixed at Rs. 22,400-24,500 p.m., it has not been mentioned as to whether it was so made, co-relating the pay scale of the Petitioner. 5. As per the stand taken by the State Respondents in their counter affidavit, the post of State Vigilance Commissioner is neither a constitutional nor a statutory post as it is only a creation through a Cabinet Resolution and the Petitioner is a re-employed officer and his pay was fixed as per "Regulation of Pay on Re-employment" as provided under Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) order, 1986. The Government of Nagaland offered the post of State Vigilance Commissioner stating all the terms and conditions vide O.M. dated 20.6.2006 (Annexure-I to counter affidavit) which the Petitioner accepted vide his letter dated 20.6.2006 (Annexure-II to counter affidavit) without any objection. The Petitioner, according to Mr. Jamir, learned Government Advocate, is precluded from demanding higher pay equal to pay of the State Chief Secretary, moreso, when he has already completed the first term of appointment and in fact, his appointment has been extended for 1(one) year on his request. The claim of the Petitioner for higher pay is legally unsustainable under such circumstances as has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72 . There is no such rule providing status, position and pay scale of the State Vigilance Commissioner equivalent to that of Chief Secretary of the State inasmuch as the nature of duties and responsibilities of the State Chief Secretary and State Vigilance Commissioner are quite different and cannot be compared. However, it has been specifically averred in paragraph 10 of the counter affidavit that in view of persistent representation made by the Petitioner, a committee under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary was constituted vide O.M. No. VIG/3-E/78 dated 19.9.2007 (Annexure-III to counter affidavit). It decided to equate the status of the State Vigilance Commissioner with that of the Chairman, Nagaland Public Service Commission and accordingly, the committee recommended pay scale of Rs. 22,400-525-24,500 p.m. vide impugned Notification dated 12.3.2008. It decided to equate the status of the State Vigilance Commissioner with that of the Chairman, Nagaland Public Service Commission and accordingly, the committee recommended pay scale of Rs. 22,400-525-24,500 p.m. vide impugned Notification dated 12.3.2008. Such recommendation, as it appears, has been made in consonance with the Central Vigilance Act, 2003, but in the present case, the State Government is yet to pass such Act or Rules fixing the status, position and pay-scale of the State Vigilance Commissioner. 6. In my considered view, unless any Act or Rule is framed in this regard in terms of the aforesaid Central Act, the Respondents would be debarred from fixing the pay scale of the State Vigilance Commissioner as has been done by the impugned Notification dated 12.3.2008, moreso, when it is not provided in the Cabinet Resolution dated 9.4.1976 that in the matter of appointment and pay, it would follow the Central Vigilance Act, 2003. 7. In the Cabinet Resolution dated 9.4.1976, it is provided that State Vigilance Commissioner shall have as many as 4 wings: (a) Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, (b) Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, (c) Law Officer, and (d) Technical Officer. And the State Vigilance Commission has been given power to formulate its own regulations for the conduct of its business in working out the scheme. It is intended that the State Vigilance Commission should be a high level Commission to be headed by a retired High Court Judge or retired Senior Executive Officer independent of Government Departments with autonomous status like the State Public Service Commission. The State Vigilance Commission has to undertake enquiry into any transaction in which a public servant is suspected or alleged to have acted for improper purpose or in a corrupt manner besides enquiry into complaints of corruption, misconduct, misdemeanour, etc., of the public servants including members of the All India Services. It has also to make recommendation and initiate suitable review of procedure and practices of administration insofar as they relate to maintenance of integrity of administration. The Cabinet Resolution dated 9.4.1976 has assigned the State Vigilance Commission with heavy responsibilities and duties of works/functions which are more serious than what have been assigned with the State Public Service Commission. The functions of the Chairman or the member of State Public Service Commission cannot be equated or compared with the functions and duties assigned with the State Vigilance Commissioner. The functions of the Chairman or the member of State Public Service Commission cannot be equated or compared with the functions and duties assigned with the State Vigilance Commissioner. The serious nature of duties and responsibilities assigned could be understood if the relevant portion of the aforesaid Cabinet Resolution dated 9.4.1976 is quoted: (a) To undertake any enquiry into any transaction in which a public servant is suspected or alleged to have acted for improper purpose or in a corrupt manner; (b) To cause an enquiry or investigation to be made on any complaint that a public servant has exercised or refrained from exercising his powers for improper or corrupt purposes; (c) To enquire into complaints of corruption, misconduct, lack of integrity or other kinds of malpractices or misdemeanours on the public servants including members of the All India Services; (d) To make recommendations as may be appropriate after enquiry or investigation to the Department of the Government. (e) To initiate at such intervals as it considers suitable review of procedure and practices of administration in so far as they relate to maintenance of integrity in administration; (f) To recollect such statistics and other information as may be necessary; (g) To submit an annual report to the Home Minister about its activities and that the report shall be laid by the Home Minister before the State Assembly drawing particular attention to any recommendation made by it which had not been accepted or acted upon by disciption/administrative authorities. 8. This is enough to come to a conclusion that the State Vigilance Commissioner should get higher pay scale than the chairman or member of the State Public Service Commission. Due justice would be done if the State's Vigilance Commissioner is paid at least the pay equal to the one being paid to the State Chief Secretary. From the appointment letters of earlier State Vigilance Commissioners, it could be easily found that they have been paid salary not in terms of salary of the chairman or member of the State Public Service Commission but at least equivalent to the salary of the Chief Secretary of the State or senior IAS officers and as such, aforesaid precedent cannot be breached rather should be maintained to preserve the autonomous status and independence in the working/functioning of the State Vigilance Commission. For that reason, the State Vigilance Commissioner should be paid the salary equal to the one being paid to Chief Secretary of the State. 9. I have been persuaded by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to apply the laws laid down by the Apex Court in the following cases - (i) State of Kerala v. B. Renjith Kumar and Ors., (2008) 12 SCC 219 regarding principle of parity in employment and equal pay for equal work in respect of Presiding Officers of Industrial Tribunal in the State of Kerala, (ii) M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. 1996 SC 669 regarding failure in fixation of pay to be regarded as a continuing wrong, (iii) Secretary-cum-Chief Engineer, Chandigarh v. Hari Om Sharma and Ors., (1998) 5 SCC 87 , (iv) Union of India and Anr. v. Wing Commander T. Parthasarathy, (2001) 1 SCC 158 and (v) Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly and Anr., AIR 1986 SC 1571 . Similarly, Mr. Jamir, learned Government Advocate also persuaded by referring to the case of Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (supra) to establish his point that claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government and fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. I find that the authority relied upon by the learned Counsel for the parties do not have relevancy to the facts and circumstances of the present case and as such, I do not find it necessary to make an elaborate discussion on them. 10. For the foregoing discussions and reasons, I find that the Petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference by this Court with the impugned action taken by the State Respondents and he has succeeded in showing that the impugned Notification dated 12.3.2008 has failed to stand the judicial scrutiny. Consequently, the said impugned Notification dated 12.3.2008 stands quashed and set aside. The Petitioner shall be entitled to salary equivalent to the existing salary of State Chief Secretary with effect from 12.3.2008, i.e., the date of issuance of impugned Notification dated 12.3.2008. 11. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The Petitioner shall be entitled to salary equivalent to the existing salary of State Chief Secretary with effect from 12.3.2008, i.e., the date of issuance of impugned Notification dated 12.3.2008. 11. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed