Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. vs B.V.S. Sai Prasad And Ors. on 12 November, 1986
Equivalent citations: (1987)IILLJ239AP
JUDGMENT Bhaskara Rao, J.
1. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 299(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India has framed the A.P. High Court Service Rules, 1975. Rule 3 of the said Rules to the extent relevant reads as under :
"3. Constitution :- The Service shall consist of the following divisions, categories and sub-categories of Officers, namely :
Division I (Gazetted Posts) Category 1 .. Registrar (Administration) Registrar (Judicial) Category 2 .. Joint Registrar Category 3 .. (a) Deputy Registrars
(b) Secretary to the Chief Justice-cum-Dy. Registrar.
Category 4 .. (a) Assistant Registrars
(b) Special Officer
Category 5 Section Officers, Court Officers, Scrutiny Officers, Accounts Officer.
Category 6 Court Masters, Personal Assistants to Judges, Personal Assistants to Registrars.
Division II (Non-Gazetted)
Category 1 .. Translators and Dy. Section Officers
Category 2 .. Overseer
Category 3 .. Assistant Section Officers
Category 4 .. (a) Assistants
(b) Readers and Examiners
Category 5 .. (a) Typists and
(b) Copyists.
Division III (Miscellaneous Posts)
2. This batch of appeals is filed by the State Government against the orders allowing the corresponding writ petitions filed by the employees of the High Court in different categories with a direction to fix their pay on par with their respective juniors working in the respective categories.
3. W.A. Nos. 665, 667, 669 and 744 of 1986 are in respect of Section Officers, Court Officers, Scrutiny Officers and Account Officer in category 5 of Division 1. W.A. Nos. 666, 672 and 675 of 1986 are in respect of Translators and Deputy Section Officer in Category 1 of Division II. W.A. Nos. 668, 670, 727, 728 and 749 of 1986 are in respect of Assistant Section Officers in Category 3 of Division II. W.A. No. 591/86 is in respect of Assistants in Category 4(a) and of Asst. Section Officers in Category 3 of Division II. W.A. No. 664/86 is in respect of Typists in Category 5(a) of Division II.
4. It has to be mentioned at the outset that virtually the judgment of the learned Single Judge under appeal in W.A. No. 591/86 (corresponding to W.P. No. 2135/83 dated 18th October, 1985) is the source for this batch of appeals since the other writ petitions were allowed by stating that each of those was covered by the judgment in W.P. No. 2135/83.
5. Prior to 1974, Copyists (category 5(b) of Divn. II) were in the pay-scale of Rs. 70-30-100-5-130 and were eligible for additional remuneration apart from their pay at 7 1/2 paise per every one hundred words they copy in excess of 42,000 words. In 1974 pay-revision they were given the pay-scale of Rs. 250-10-430 along with Typists (Cat. 5(a) of Divn. II) and Assistants (Cat. 4(a) of Divn. II), and the additional remuneration was discontinued. This additional remuneration was at an average of Rs. 83.34 paise. The discontinuance gave rise to some correspondence between the Government and the High Court and resulted in the issuance of G.O.Ms. Nos. 26 dated 1st February 1977 and 305, dated 1st September, 1977 of the Finance and Planning Department whereby not only the then Copyists but also those Typists promoted from the post of Copyists were permitted to have the average remuneration of Rs. 83.34 paise and the D.A., thereon reckoned to arrive at the 'emoluments' in order to fix up their pay in the revised pay scales of 1974.
6. However, the benefit under the said G.O.s., was not extended to those Copyists recruited subsequent to 1st January, 1974. This denial has ultimately given rise to W.A. 535/79 by the subsequent recruits to that post. One of us (Raghuvir, J.) sitting in that Writ Appeal directed extension of the benefit of the additional remuneration of to the subsequent recruits also.
7. The main contention before the learned Single Judge in W.P. 2135/83 of the writ petitioner-employees is that drawal of more pay by their respective juniors in the respective categories is discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The case of the State is that even earlier to the issuance of the said G.Os., the Copyists were drawing more pay, being about Rs. 130/- (Rs. 70/- minimum of scale PLUS Rs. 83.34 average additional remuneration) as against Rs. 90/- (the minimum of the pay-scale) by the Assistants and Typists and therefore there is no violation of the said provisions of the Constitution.
8. The learned single Judge in W.P. 2135/83 held there was no justification in paying lesser emoluments to a senior than his junior when they are holding the same post, doing identically the same nature of work under one and the same employer, and accordingly directed payment of equal salary to all the seniors with that of one Janikirama Rao, a junior in that category having been promoted from the post of Copyist.
9. Therefore, the only question that arises for decision in all these appeals is whether drawal of lesser salary by the senior than his juniors working in the same category is in violation of the principles enshrined by Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution.
10. The learned Advocate General mainly advanced three contentions in these appeals, namely (i) merely because (he sought to quote an instance) the promotees in category 3 of Division II (feeder category from cat. 4 & 5) perform the same nature of duties, those promoted from category 4 cannot seek equal pay with those promoted from category 5; and equally so with respect to cat. 1 of Divn. II and cat. 5 of Divn. I as a chain of consequence, (ii) the learned single Judge erred in directing payment of equal salary to the senior as that being drawn by the junior regardless of the source of recruitment, the pay drawn in the lower post, etc., and (iii) the principle of equal pay for equal work' invoked by the learned single Judge is not applicable to the present case since the scale of pay with respect to each category is equal and thus there is no violation of the equality clause under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution.
11. In support of his first contention that by mere seniority one need not necessarily draw equal or more pay than his junior, the learned Advocate-General placed reliance upon a Full Bench decision of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal in Tr. W.P. Nos. 1657 and 1804 of 1976 dated 12th April, 1982 (Tr. W.P. Nos. 1657 and 1804 of 1976 dated 12th April, 1982). The grievance of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that their juniors in the same category were drawing more pay. The contention of the State was that there are no rules entitling a senior to draw more or equal pay than his juniors, and that in case where promotion or appointment to a particular category is from different feeder categories the disparity is not only possible but inevitable. The Tribunal after distinguishing the decision of Obul Reddi, J., (as he then was) in W.P. 5216/71 dated 21st March, 1973 and those of Chinnappa Reddy, J., in W.P. Nos. 3279/68 dated 15th October, 1969, 5838/72 dated 20th, November 1974 and 3882/73 dated 22nd November, 1974 held there is no specific and inflexible provision anywhere in the Rules nor in the decisions referred to of Obul Reddy, J. and Chinnappa Reddy, J., laying down the principle that a junior shall under no circumstances draw more pay than his senior, and accordingly dismissed the writ petitions.
12. With great respect to the Tribunal, we are not able to agree with its decision as we have no option except to follow the judgments of this Court delivered in similar circumstances holding that drawal of lesser salary by the senior than his junior is discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
13. The learned Advocate-General in support of his second contention that regardless of the source of appointment every one appointed to the same post is not entitled to the same emoluments as drawn by the others, placed reliance upon U. S. Menon v. State of Rajasthan . When a Deputy Secretary appointed by promotion from Rajasthan Secretariat Service was denied special pay while admitting the same, since the Rules permit, to another promoted from Rajasthan Administrative Service, the Supreme Court held such a denial is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 since the sources from which those two were promoted are different. One of the reasons for that conclusion assigned is :
"Methods of recruitment, qualification, etc., of two services are not identical. Every one appointed to the same post is not entitled to claim that he must be paid identical emoluments as any other person appointed to the same post, disregarding the method of recruitment, or the source from which the Officer is drawn for appointment to that post. No such equality is required either by Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution."
The decision, in our opinion, has no application since in the case on hand the source of service namely A.P. High Court Service, is one and the same for all promotions to the higher categories.
14. The learned Advocate-General mentioning that even in cases where different pay-scales were assigned for employees discharging the same nature of duties the Supreme Court did not interfere in Kishori v. Union of India , State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao (1968-II-LLJ-120), submitted that the present contention that the doctrine 'equal pay for equal work' has no application to the present case since the scale of pay with respect to each category is identical is on afortiori one. In the former decision, the Supreme Court upheld the assignment of different pay-scales for Class I and Class II Officers in Income-Tax Department though both of them perform the same nature of duties and in the latter decision, division of the carde of Tracers into two grades on the basis of qualification and assignment of different pay-scales to those two grades was held to be rational and not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In our view, these decisions have no bearing on the present facts as there is no such assignment of different pay-scales for persons discharging the same nature of duties nor is there any division of one cadre into different groups.
15. In support of the contention, viz., in accordance with the doctrine 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution, a senior member in the same category is entitled to have equal payment as that made to his juniors, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the following decisions :
16. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982-I-LLJ 344) the complaint of the petitioner, a Driver-Constable in Delhi Administration, was his scale-of-pay was lesser than that of the Drivers working in the Railway Protection Force, non-Secretariat Offices in Delhi, etc. The Supreme Court observing that the principle, 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Articles 14, 16 & 39(d) of the Constitution applies to cases of unequal scales of pay for those doing identical work under the same employer, directed fixation of the scale of pay of the petitioner therein on par with the Drivers of the Railway Protection Force.
17. In P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India (1984-I-LLJ-314) there was a revision of pay-scales of the Professor - petitioners therein, but the revised scales were not given to them. On the other hand, fresh recruitment was resorted to and the revised scales were given to the fresh recruits. While laying down the scope of Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 the Supreme Court observed at page 325 :
"The case on hand is a glaring example of discriminatory treatment accorded to old, experienced and highly qualified hands with an evil eye and unequal hand and the guarantee of equality in all its pervasive character must enable this Court to remove discrimination and to restore fair play in action." Accordingly, mandumus was issued in favour of the petitioner - professors therein.
18. In P. Savita v. Union of India (1986-I-LLJ-79) the 3rd Pay Commission recommended classification of 'the Senior Draughtsmen' in the Defence Department into two groups. This adversely affected the emoluments of the petitioner group of Draughtsmen. The Supreme Court holding that the classification is violative of Art. 14 directed fixation of scale of pay of the petitioner group of Draughtsmen on par with that of the other group.
19. In Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P. (1986-I-LLJ-134) and Karan Singh v. State of J & K the petitioner casual workmen sought for the same salary as is paid to the regular employees doing the same work. The Supreme Court observing that casual workmen cannot be denied the same salary and conditions of service of regularly employed Class IV employees when they perform the same duties as such Class IV employees do, allowed those two writ petitions.
20. In these five decisions of the Supreme Court the question arose was with reference to the doctrine 'equal pay for equal work' under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In as much as the question before us is, whether drawal of lesser salary by a senior than his juniors under Article 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution is discriminatory, those decisions of the Supreme Court, in our opinion, have no application.
21. Now coming to the decisions of this Court, in W.P. No. 5216/71 in terms of the recommendation of a Two-men Committee, a G.O. has been issued to add Rs. 25/- to the pay of the Andhra employees in order to rectify the anomaly arose on account of different pay scales of U.D. Clerks, namely Rs. 105-170 for those in the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and Rs. 80-150 for the Andhra employees. This attempt to rectify the anomaly gave rise to a situation where a junior was drawing more than a senior. This situation was sought to be justified by the Government by saying, the juniors in U.D.C. cadre had put in more length of service than the seniors in that U.D.C. cadre. The seniors in U.D.C. cadre were, infact, in the lower L.D.C. cadre, juniors to the respondents therein. The reason for this reversal of the order of seniority in the U.D.C. cadre was on account of the fact that the senior L.D.Cs. were not qualified for promotion and therefore the junior L.D.Cs. who were qualified had the promotion as U.D.Cs. earlier to the senior L.D.Cs. The learned Judge commented :
"It is the Government that has created the anomalous position by giving higher salary by taking total length of service into consideration, but not by taking the seniority in the cadre of Upper Division Clerks"
The learned Judge further held :
"It is the seniority in the cadre of Upper Division Clerk that counts and not the total length of service as Lower Division Clerk and Upper Division Clerk".
Accordingly, the learned Judge directed payment of same salary to the writ petitioners therein as their juniors were being paid.
22. W.P. No. 3882/73 and W.P. No. 7231/32 were allowed by Chinnappa Reddy, J., and Jeevan Reddy, J., respectively holding that those two writ petitions were covered by the decisions of Obul Reddy, J., in W.P. 5216/71.
23. In W.P. No. 2816/69 the petitioners were denied the benefit of pay while according them proforma promotion by virtue of their seniority. This denial of pay resulted in the juniors drawing more pay than their seniors, Sambasia Rao, J. (as he then was) held such a denial would lead to discrimination and accordingly directed grant of pay also.
24. In W.P. No. 9772/83 and batch on account of the manner in which the scales of pay were revised by the Electricity Board, the juniors were drawing more pay than the seniors. Jeevan Reddy, J., held the defectiveness in the manner of revision of scales was on account of the Board's proceedings not being in conformity with the terms of settlements, more particularly the 2nd settlement arrived at between the management and the employees. Then, the learned Judge proceeded to deal with the contention of the Board, namely Article 14 or 16 does not empower the Court to direct revision of pay of a senior so as to ensure that he does not draw lesser than his junior. The learned Judge following the decisions of Obul Reddy, J., Chinnappa Reedy, J., and of his own in W.P. Nos. 5216/71, 3882/73 and 7231/82 respectively in this connection directed fixation of salary in such in a manner that the senior does not draw less than his junior.
25. The employees of the T.T.D. Devasthanam filed W.P. Nos. 12337/84 and 3935/85 having been aggrieved of a junior drawing more salary than the senior. Both the writ petitions were allowed, the former by Jeevan Reddy, J., and the latter by Jayachandra Reddy, J., stating that each of them was covered by the decision in W.P. 9772/83 and batch of the Electricity employees. W.A. 504/85 preferred against the decision in W.P. 12337/84 was dismissed at the admission stage by observing that the W.P. 9772/83 was allowed by following several decisions. The appeal (W.A. 813/85) against the decision in W.P. 3935/85 was dismissed as it was conceded that the case was covered by the decision in W.A. 504/85.
26. So, in all these seven decisions of our High Court the view taken was that drawal of lesser salary by the senior than his junior is discriminatory and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
27. Before parting with the authorities on the subject, it is necessary to notice that the Supreme Court in General Manager v. Rangachari construing the scope and ambit of the expression 'matters relating to employment or appointment' in Article 16(1) of the Constitution held :
"The initial employment or appointment is only one of the matters relating to employment or appointment. The other matters relating to employment would be the provision as to the salary and periodical increments therein, terms as to leave; as to gratuity, as to the pension and as to the age of superannuation".
28. This construction of the expression was again followed by this Court in Murthumjayam v. Union of India (1969 (1) An. W.R. page 333). In that case on account of introduction of a scheme called 'The New Deal' in pursuance of a revision of pay scale, the Station Masters and Assistant Station Masters promoted from the cadre of Commercial Clerks were drawing lesser than their juniors in the lower cadre of Commercial Clerks. The Asst. Station Masters and Station Masters were not given option to claim the benefit of pay-scales given to the Commercial Clerks besides making them in-eligible to compete for Class II Officers posts as against the Commercial Clerks, who were made eligible to so compete. In that background of facts, Narasimham, J. (as he then was) following the construction given to the expression referred to in Art. 16(1) observed :
"......... it would be relevant to remember that Article 16(1) and (2) really give effect to the equality before law guaranteed by Article 14 and to the prohibition of discrimination guaranteed by Article 15(1) of the Constitution. The three provisions of guarantees and supplement each other. I doubt very much whether the plea that there is no discrimination can receive any serious consideration when the personnel of the superior cadre admittedly receive less pay than the personnel of the inferior cadre. I am inclined to think that this is a discrimination in a worser form".
Narasimham, J., ultimately directed the authorities to fix the pay of the petitioners therein so as not to be less than the pay they would have drawn if they had been in the cadre of Commercial Clerks.
29. As construed by the Supreme Court in General Manager v. Rangachari (supra), the expression 'matters relating to employment or appointment' in Art. 16(1) would take-in the provision relating to salary, besides others. This provision of salary, being one of the incidents of employment, can therefore be, keeping in view the several decisions of this Court referred to, in such a way that its payment shall not be lesser to a senior than a junior in the same category lest it would amount to violation of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution.
30. Now, we would have a look at the different reliefs sought for in different writ petitions under these appeals. In W.P. No. 2135/83 (corresponding to W.A. 591/86) 72 petitioners belonging to the categories of Assistants and Assistant Section Officers (Cat. 4(a) and Cat. 3 of Divn. II) sought for fixation of their salary on par with that of one Janikirama Rao, who was then working as Asst. Section Officer having been promoted from the cadre of Copyists. It is contended in the writ petition that the post of 'Copyist' is in a category lower to that of 'Assistants'. By virtue of G.O.Ms. Nos. 26, dated 1st February, 1977 and 305 dated 1st September, 1977 of the Department of Finance and Planning the additional remuneration of Rs. 83.34 paise was merged in the pay of Copyists for purposes of fixation of their pay in the revised pay-scale of Rs. 250-10-430. As a consequence of this, Copyists were drawing more salary than Assistants, though Copyists and Assistants were in the same scale of pay. The posts of Typists and Copyists are in category 5 of Divn. II while those of Assistants, Readers and Examiners are in Category 4 of Divn. II. The posts in Categories 4 and 5 of Divn. II are the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Assistant Section Officer in Category 3 of Divn. II. Thus, the petitioner - Asst. Section Officers, though promoted much earlier than the above said Janikirama Rao, who was promoted from the post of Copyists, were being paid lesser salary than the said Janikirama Rao. This, it is submitted, is discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. Some of the petitioners, who were working as Assistants in Category 4 of Divn. II, contended that though they were in a higher category than Copyists in Cat. 5 of Divn. II, they were getting lesser emoluments than the Copyists; and therefore claimed equal salary with that of Copyists. In the counter filed to this writ petition, the Government stated that the Copyists were drawing higher emoluments than the Assistants even earlier to the issuance of the two G.Os., referred to and they continued to draw the same even after the issuance of the G.Os. in accordance therewith. It is clarified by stating that the copyists in the scale of Rs. 70-3-100-5-130 were drawing Rs. 70/- + Rs. 83.34 paise at the minimum and Rs. 130/- + Rs. 83.34 paise at the maximum, while the Assistants were drawing Rs. 90/- at the minimum and Rs. 192/- at the maximum, and thus there is no anomally. However, it is not denied that the petitioners were seniors to their respective juniors mentioned in the writ petition and that the juniors were drawing more salary than the senior writ petitioners. The learned single Judge by order, dated 18th November, 1985, directed to pay to such of those petitioners, who are working as Asst. Section Officers, the salary equal to the salary drawn by the said Janikirama Rao, a promotee from the post of Copyists to that of Asst. Section Officer.
31. In W.P. No. 10453/85 (corresponding to W.A. 664/86) 18 petitioners working as Typists (Cat. 5(a) of Divn. II) claimed equal salary as that of their junior Copyists (Cat. 5(b) of Divn. II) stating that denial of the same pay as that of their juniors is discriminatory and violative of Art. 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. It is further contended that once they belong to the same category, a senior is entitled to higher salary than the junior. No counter is filed in this writ petition. The writ petition was allowed by stating that it is covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83, dated 18th October, 1985.
32. In W.P. 579/86 (corresponding to W.A. 665/86, the sole-petitioner working as Section Officer (Cat. 5 of Divn. I) claimed equal salary with that of his junior, Sri J. V. Subba Rao stating that payment of lesser salary to him, being the senior, as against his junior Sri Subba Rao, is discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution. It was also mentioned in the affidavit that this matter was covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83, etc. In W.P. 910/86 (corresponding to W.A. 667/86) 18 petitioners working as Section Officers etc. (Cat. 5 of Divn. I) claimed equal salary with that of their junior Sri K. Viswanadham. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that this matter is covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83. In W.P. 907/86 (corresponding to W.A. 669/86) 2 petitioners working as Section Officers etc. (Cat. 5 of Divn. I) claimed equal salary with that of their junior Sri Shyam Sunder. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that this matter is covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83. In W.P. 3044/86 (corresponding to W.A. 744/86) 6 petitioners working as Section Officers etc., (Cat. 5 of Divn. I) claimed equal salary with that of one K. Anand Kumar, an Asst. Section Officer (Cat 3 of Divn. II). It is also mentioned in the affidavit that this matter is covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83. No counter is filed in any of these four W.Ps. All these four petitions were allowed by stating that they are covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83, dated 18th October, 1985.
33. In W.P. 1975/86 (corresponding to W.A. 666/86) 40 petitioners working as Dy. Section Officers (Cat. 1 of Divn. II) prayed for equal salary with that of their junior Sri K. Anand Kumar. In W.P. 2998/86 (corresponding to W.A. 672/86) 4 petitioners working as Dy Section Officers (Cat. 1 of Divn. II) prayed for payment of equal salary as that of their juniors holding the post of Copyists. In W.P. 3402/86 (corresponding to W.A. 675/86) 7 petitioners working as Dy. Section Officers (Cat. 1 of Divn. II) prayed for equal salary with that of their junior Sri V. Poornachander Rao. In all these three writ petitions it is mentioned that these matters are covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83. No counter in any of these three writ petitions was filed. All these three writ petitions were allowed by stating that they are covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83.
34. In W.P. 1703/86 (corresponding to W.A. 668/86) 12 petitioners working as Asst. Section Officers (Cat. 3 of Divn. II) prayed for payment of equal salary with that of Sri Janikirama Rao. In W.P. 1428/86 (corresponding to W.A. 670/86) 8 petitioners working as Asst. Section Officers (Cat. 3 of Divn. II) prayed for payment of equal salary as that of their junior Sri P. Vijayalakshmi. In W.P. 2682/86 (corresponding to W.A. 727/86) 40 petitioners working as Asst. Section Officers (Cat. 3 of Divn. II) prayed for payment of equal salary with that of junior Sri Poornachander Rao. In W.P. 2721/86 (corresponding to W.A. 728/86) 4 petitioners working as Asst. Section Officers (Cat. 3 of Divn. II) prayed for payment of equal salary with that of their junior Sri K. Madhusudhana Rao. In W.P. 3043/86 (corresponding to W.A. 749/86) 7 petitioners working as Asst. Section Officers (Cat. 3 of Divn. II) prayed for payment of equal salary as that of their junior Sri Poornachander Rao. In all the five writ petitions it is stated that the matters are covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83. No counter is filed in any of these five writ petitions. All these five writ petitions were allowed by stating that they were covered by the decision in W.P. 2135/83 dated 18th October, 1985.
35. As stated above except in W.P. 2135/83 no counter is filed in any of the other writ petitions. Pending disposal of those writ petitions, however, during the course of hearing of the writ appeals the Registrar of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has filed counters in all the writ appeals. In the counters details of all the service particulars candidate-wise were mentioned. The merger of Rs. 83.34 paise in the remuneration of the Copyists by virtue of the two G.Os., issued by the Government was also referred to. But the seniority of the writ petitioners, who won before the learned single Judge, as against the respective juniors mentioned in the writ petitions is not disputed.
36. In view of the above facts it is clear that all the writ petitioners to whom the relief is granted are seniors to their respective juniors in the respective categories, and that the seniors are drawing lesser pay than their juniors.
37. In the result, we hold that payment of lesser salary to the writ petitioners than their respective juniors in respective categories is violative of Article 16(1) and (2) of the Constitution of India and therefore the writ petitioners are entitled to be paid salary equal to that of their juniors in the respective categories. The Writ Appeals are accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, no order as to costs. Advocate's fees Rs. 150/- in each.