JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.—The question for decision in these appeals is whether payment of less salary to a senior than his junior in the same cadre having the same pay scale is violative of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" enshrined in Article 39 (d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. Though the respondents belong to different departments and service but since, the question of law is same, we are disposing these appeals by a common order. Necessary facts relating to each batch of appeals for appreciating the controversy are as under :

Civil Appeals Nos. 317-30/87, 2998/87. 294-298/88 307 to 315/88 305/88 and 316/88

3, The first batch in this bunch of appeals is concerning the employees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The main judgment under appeal relates to the cadre of Assistant Section Officers working in the High Court. Copyists and assistants are the two feeder cadres to the post of Assistant Section Officer. Prior to 1974 copyists were in the pay scale of Rs 70-130 and were entitled to additional payment at Rs 7-50 p. per every 100 words they copy in excess of 42,000 words. As a result of pay revision they were given the pay scale of Rs 250-430 w. e. f. January 1, 1974 without entitlement of remuneration in addition to pay. The copyists represented that in the revised pay scale, the additional emoluments which were being earned by them had not been taken into account. On the recommendation of the High Court the State Government agreed to fix the pay of the copyists in the revised pay scale by adding into their basic pay the average remuneration of Rs 83-34 and the dearness allowance admissible thereon. The amount of Rs 83-34 was taken as average remuneration which each of the copyist was earning prior to January 1, 1974 in addition to the pay. The pre-revised pay scale of Assistants was Rs 90-192 which was revised to Rs 250-430 from January 1, 1974. Although the revised pay scale of copyists and assistants was identical but because of addition of Rs.83-34 in the pay fixation, the copyists started drawing more salary than the assistants. Promotion to the cadre of Assistant Section Officers in the pay scale of Rs 340-640 is from the two cadres of copyists and assistants. One Janikirama Rao, a copyist, was pro222moted to the said post in the year 1984. On the basis of his last pay drawn as copyist his basic pay fixed as Assistant Section Officer, was higher than those who were promoted to the said post from the cadre of assistants during the period 1982-84. The pay fixation was done under Fundamental Rule 22 (a) (i) of Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules (hereinafter called Fundamental Rules). Though junior, Shri Janikirama Rao was thus drawing more salary than his seniors in the same cadre. Those seniors filed Writ Petition No. 2135 of 1983 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying that the grant of higher salary to a junior person is violative of the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed that the Assistant Section Officers senior to Shri Janikirama Rao be paid the same salary as he was drawing. Writ appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench holding that grant of higher pay packet to a junior person than the senior under any circumstance is discriminatory. Connected writ petitions were allowed by the High Court being covered by the judgments in Writ Petition No. 2135 of 1983 and writ appeal. No counter was filed by State of Andhra Pradesh in these writ petitions and on the basis of the averment in the petitions that juniors were getting higher salary than the seniors, the writ petitions were allowed. Civil appeals are directed against the orders of the High Court.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1071-73/87, 1149-1150/86

4. In this batch of civil appeals Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam is the appellant and these appeals are directed against the High Court order. B. V. Krishnamu