JUDGMENT : 1. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “(i) The order dated 06.06.2006 (Annex-3-A) may be quashed and set aside in so far as it does not grant additional allowances; and the letter/order of refusal dated 16.12.2008 may kindly be set aside and it may be held that the petitioner Retd. District Judge who served as Secretary to the Inquiry Commission from 01.03.2006 to 30.04.2008 was entitled to the three allowances (i) sumptuary allowance Rs. 1,000/-p.m., (ii) residential office allowance Rs 300/-p.m. and (iii) conveyance allowance, 50 liter petrol p.m. (ii) Respondent may be directed to make payment of the 3 allowances (1) sumptuary allowance @ Rs. 1,000/-p.m., (ii) residential office allowance Rs. 300/-p.m. and (iii) conveyance allowance @ Rs. 50/-liters petrol p.m. for the period from 01.03.2006 to 30.04.2008 i.e. for 26 months. (iii) Respondent may be directed to make payment of Rs. 98,800/-with interest in lieu of the aforesaid 3 allowances to the petitioner.” Submissions by the petitioner: 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointment as Secretary to Justice R.S. Kejriwal Inquiry Commission vide order dated 21.03.2005. Counsel submits that at the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Judge Industrial-cum-Labour Tribunal, Jaipur. Counsel submits that subsequently, a new fresh appointment order was issued by the respondents vide order dated 06.02.2006 indicating therein that the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 28.02.2006 and by the same order he was re-appointed on the aforementioned post of Secretary to discharge the functions of Judicial Inquiry Commission. Counsel submits that at the time of his reappointment a rider was put that he would not be entitled to get residential office allowance, sumptuary allowance and petrol allowance. Counsel submits that the other similarly situated persons namely Radheshyam Gupta and Nanagram Sharma were granted all above allowances and they were similarly appointed as Secretary in different Inquiry Commission and Special Committee. Counsel submits that when the case of the petitioner was at par with the above persons then the petitioner is also entitled to get the same allowances. Counsel submits that two equals cannot be treated differently. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents be directed to pay petrol allowance, sumptuary allowance and residential office allowance along with interest to the petitioner. Submissions by the respondents: 3. Counsel submits that two equals cannot be treated differently. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the respondents be directed to pay petrol allowance, sumptuary allowance and residential office allowance along with interest to the petitioner. Submissions by the respondents: 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that at the time of appointing the petitioner as Secretary he was in service and he was discharging his duties and functions of Judge Industrial Tribunal and additional charge was handed over to him to act as Secretary of Justice R.S. Kejriwal Inquiry Commission. Counsel submit that after his retirement he was re-engaged as Secretary of the aforesaid Commission. Counsel submits that after his fresh appointment, an order was issued by the respondents on 06.06.2006, in which it was specifically mentioned that the petitioner would not be entitled to get all above allowances. Counsel submits that it is sole discretion of the State to grant allowances to the individuals appointed in different Inquiry Commissions. Counsel submits that in the case of Radheshyam Gupta and Nanangram Sharma approval was granted by the Department of Finance, hence the above benefits were given to them but here in the instant case no such approval was granted by the Department of Finance, hence the respondents have not caused any illegality in not granting these allowances to the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. Analysis and Reasoning : 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. In police firing on 27.10.2004 four persons lost their life at Gadsana and Rawla of Ganganagar, District. For making an inquiry into the totality of the circumstances leading to law and order situation, the Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, issued a notification dated 11.02.2005 and in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 (for short, ‘Act of 1952’) the State Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Justice R.S Kejriwal, Retired Judge of Rajasthan High Court. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as a part time Secretary to the Justice R.S. Kejriwal Commission of Inquiry. The petitioner was assigned the duties in the Commission in addition to his own duties as Judge, Industrial Cum Labour Tribunal Jaipur, vide order dated 21.03.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as a part time Secretary to the Justice R.S. Kejriwal Commission of Inquiry. The petitioner was assigned the duties in the Commission in addition to his own duties as Judge, Industrial Cum Labour Tribunal Jaipur, vide order dated 21.03.2005. Thereafter, the petitioner stood retired on 28.02.2006 from the post of Judge, Industrial Tribunal after attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement he was reappointed as Secretary to the above Inquiry Commission vide order dated 6.2.2006 and his pay and allowances were fixed as per Rule 152 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1996, but a rider was put in this order that the petitioner would not be entitled to get residential office, Petrol and Sumptuary allowances. At the out set, it has been brought into notice of this Court that subsequently another Inquiry Commission of Justice Faheh Chand Bansal, Retired Judge, Rajasthan High Court was constituted and one Radhey Shyam Gupta, retired Higher Judicial Officer was appointed as Secretary to the above Commission by the State Government vide order dated 7.1.2008 and apart from pay and other allowances, the residential office, Sumptuary and Petrol allowances were ordered to be paid to him. 6. Similarly, one High Powered Committee was constituted by the State to examine the matter of Gurjar for their inclusion in the reservation prescribed for Schedule Tribes category candidates and one retired Judicial Officer Shri Nanagram Sharma was appointed as Special Secretary to this Committee and all these allowances of residential office, sumptuary allowances etc. were given to him and a vehicle was provided to him from Rajasthan Motor Garage. 7. For getting all these three allowances, the petitioner has approached this Court for seeking directions against the respondents. This Court vide order dated 24.08.2016 directed the Chief Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan to file an affidavit for knowing the reason of denial of these allowances to the petitioner. 8. In continuance of the above order, the Chief Secretary submitted an affidavit by giving the following reasons in para 4, 5 and 6 and justified the action of the respondents. Para 4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid affidavit reads as under: “4. 8. In continuance of the above order, the Chief Secretary submitted an affidavit by giving the following reasons in para 4, 5 and 6 and justified the action of the respondents. Para 4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid affidavit reads as under: “4. The brief facts and circumstances are submitted herein, that the petitioner was appointed as a Part Time Secretary to the Justice Kejriwal Enquiry Commission (hereinafter refer to as ‘the Commission’) vide order dated 21-03-2005 and during that time, the Petitioner was working as a Presiding Officer at Industrial Tribunal. Thereafter, the Petitioner superannuated on 28-02-2006 and subsequently, he was reappointed to the said Commission vide order dated 06-02-2006. Further in pursuance to the aforesaid reappointment order, the State Govt. passed an order dated 06-06-2006 stating reappointment of the Petitioner under Rule 152 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules of 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules 1996”) and describing the payment granted to the Petitioner for the aforesaid appointment inter alia denying the grant of the allowances (i.e. specific allowance, house allowance, petrol allowance etc.) to the Petitioners as was paid to the Petitioner prior to his superannuation. A copy of the order dated 06-06-2006 is annexed herein and marked as ‘Annexure 1’. 5. That the Petitioner has been reappointed under the Rule 152 of the Rules of 1996, whereby, the said Rule described the fixation of pay of reemployed pensioners. As per the Sub-Rule (a) of Rule 152 of Rules 1996, clearly mentioned that the reemployed pensioner shall be allowed to draw pay only in the prescribed scales of pay and no protection of the scale of pay of post held by them prior to the retirement shall be granted to them. Thus, the State-Respondent has a lawful right to fix the pay of reemployed pensioner and they are not compelled under the said Rules to grant allowances to the refixed employed. 6. Thus, the State-Respondent has a lawful right to fix the pay of reemployed pensioner and they are not compelled under the said Rules to grant allowances to the refixed employed. 6. However, with regard to the allegation raised by the Petitioner that discrimination behaviour adopted by the State Respondent in granting allowances to other reemployed pensioner are denied and it is submitted that the State Respondent are at the liberty to grant allowances to the reemployed pensioner only after getting the approval from the Finance Department, it is pertinent to submit here that every reemployment is discretion of a State Respondent and the terms and condition of every reemployment order cannot be compared with the other reemployment order and neither, it can be considered as precedent. Thus, the State Respondent has not committed any illegality in passing the order dated 16-12-2008 and the fixation of the pay of the Petitioner as per the Rule 152 of Rule of 1996.” “152. Fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners (a) Re-employment pensioners shall be allowed to draw pay only in the prescribed scales of pay for the posts in which they are re-employed. No protection of the scales of pay of posts held by them prior to retirement shall be given. (b) (i) In all cases where the pension is fully ignored, the initial pay on reemployment shall be fixed at the minimum of the scale of pay of the re-employed post. (ii) In cases where the entire pension and pensionary benefits are not ignored for pay fixation, the initial pay on re-employment shall be fixed at the same stage as the last pay drawn before retirement. If there is no such stage in the re-employed post, the pay shall be fixed at the stage below that pay. If the maximum of the pay scale in which a pensioner is re-employed is less than the last pay drawn by him before retirement, his initial pay shall be fixed at the maximum of the scale of pay of the re-employed post. Similarly, if the minimum of the scale of pay in which a pensioner is re-employed is more than the last pay drawn by him before retirement his initial pay shall be fixed at the minimum of the scale of pay of the re-employed post. However, in all these cases, the non-ignorable part of the pension shall be reduced from the pay so fixed. However, in all these cases, the non-ignorable part of the pension shall be reduced from the pay so fixed. (c) The re-employed pensioner will in addition to pay as fixed under sub rule (b) above shall be permitted to draw separately any pension sanctioned to him and retain any other form of retirement benefits. (d) In the case of persons retiring before attaining the age of 55 years and who are re-employed, pension (excluding pension equivalent of gratuity and other forms of retirement benefits) shall be ignored for initial pay fixation to the following extent:-(i) In the case of ex servicemen who held posts below commissioned officer’s rank in the Defence Forces and in the case of other retired Government servants who held posts other than State Service posts at the time of their retirement, the entire pension and pension equivalent of retirement benefits shall be ignored. (ii) In the case of service officers belonging to Defence Forces and State Government pensioners who were members of the State Services at the time of their retirement, the first 1 "Rs.1500/-" of the pension shall be ignored. (e) The pay fixed under sub rules (a) to (d) and gross pension taken together shall not exceed (Rs.26,000/-) p.m. 9. The sole reason for denial of these benefits is that for grant of these allowances to a reemployed person, the approval is required from the Department of Finance and the terms and conditions of reemployment is the discretion of the State and the same cannot be compared with other reemployed persons. 10. Such stand of the respondents for denial of these benefits to the petitioner is quite discriminatory. There is no doubt the State Government is the appointing authority and the discretion lies with it to grant the benefit of allowances to the reemployed retired officers or not. But such discretionary powers exercised by the government must be exercised in a manner that is not arbitrary, unreasonable, or discriminatory. In many countries, discretionary powers are granted to the government officials and agencies to enable them to make decisions that are necessary for the effective administration of government policies and programs. However, the exercise of these powers must be subject to certain legal and constitutional limitations to prevent abuse of power. The principle of non-arbitrariness requires that government officials and agencies must act in good faith, in accordance with the law when exercising discretionary powers. However, the exercise of these powers must be subject to certain legal and constitutional limitations to prevent abuse of power. The principle of non-arbitrariness requires that government officials and agencies must act in good faith, in accordance with the law when exercising discretionary powers. This means that they must have a rational basis for their decisions and must not act in a manner that is capricious, whimsical, or discriminatory. Any exercise of discretionary power must be based on relevant and objective criteria, rather than on personal preferences, biases, or prejudices. 11. Such an act of the State amounts to discrimination between two equals. It is well settled proposition of law that two equals should be treated equally and unequals should be treated unequally. Treating the equals as unequals would offend the doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 12. The principle that two equals cannot be treated unequally is a fundamental principle of justice and fairness that is recognized by legal systems around the world. Many countries have enshrined this principle in their legal frameworks, either through specific laws or through constitutional provisions. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is recognized by the United Nations as a foundational document for human rights, states in Article 7 that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” Similarly, many countries have anti-discrimination laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, or other factors. These laws are designed to ensure that all individuals are treated equally, regardless of their background or personal characteristics. 13. According to the great philosopher and scholar Aristotle “Equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally”. The most fundamental principle of justice which has been widely accepted since it was defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago. This principle says that “Individuals should be treated same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved. 14. The most fundamental principle of justice which has been widely accepted since it was defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago. This principle says that “Individuals should be treated same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved. 14. Perusal of the appointment orders of the similarly situated retired judicial officers Radhey Shyam Gupta and Nanagram Sharma clearly indicate that they were also appointed as Secretary like the petitioner and their case is akin to the petitioner but they have been granted the benefits of the Petrol, residential office and Sumptuary allowances while the petitioner has been denied without any logical and justified reason. If at all any approval was not taken or granted by the Department of Finance for granting all above allowances to the petitioner then the petitioner cannot be blamed for such situation. 15. There was no difference in the work and functions of all these persons and they have discharged the same duties while working as Secretary, hence, all of them are entitled to get the same benefits. Denial of the benefits of residential office, Petrol and Sumptuary allowances to the petitioner amounts to gross discrimination on the part of the respondents. The petitioner is also entitled to get all the benefits w.e.f. 01.03.2006 to 30.04.2008 when he was reappointed as Secretary to Inquiry Commission. Conclusion: 16. In the result, the petition stands allowed. 17. The respondents are directed to pay residential office, Petrol and Sumptuary allowances to the petitioner and all due arrears with interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 01.03.2006 till the date of its actual realization. 18. All applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. 19. No order as to costs. 20. It goes without saying that the compliance of this order would be done by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.