JUDGMENT

KULDIP SINGH, J.:—The pay-scales of Government servants in the State of Rajasthan were revised with effect from September 1, 1981 by the Rajasthan Civil Servants (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983 (the Rules). The pay-scale of Upper Division Clerks (UDCs) of subordinate offices was revised under the Rules from Rs. 385-650 called Scale No. 9 (S-9) to Rs. 520-925 (revised S-9). The existing pay-scale of Rs. 440-775 called Scale No. 10 (S-10) in respect to UDCs of Secretariat was revised to that of Rs. 610-1090 (revised S-10). The UDCs of the subordinate offices represented before the Government that there was no justification for denying them the higher pay-scale which was being given to the UDCs of Secretariat. The State Government accepted the representation and by the notification dated January 23, 1985 granted revised S-10 to the UDCs of the subordinate offices with effect from February 1, 1985. Gopaldas, respondent in the appeal herein, who was working as UDC in a subordinate office, filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court seeking a direction to the State Government to grant him the revised S-10 with effect from September 1, 1981 instead of February 1, 1985. The High Court by the judgment dated December 21, 1988 allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to grant revised S-10 to the UDCs of the subordinate offices with effect from September 1, 1981. This appeal by the State of Rajasthan is against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court.

2. The main contention of the respondent before the High Court was that after coming into force of the Rules the State Government issued notifications from time to time during the years 1984/85 revising pay-scales of different cadres in other departments of the State Government whereunder the revision was made operative with effect from September 1, 1981. The precise contention was that the respondent and other UDCs of subordinate offices were dealt with discriminately in the sense that the pay revision in respect of other departments made during the years 1984/85 was done with effect from September 1, 1981 whereas the UDCs of subordinate offices were given revised S-10 with effect from February 1, 1985. Reliance was placed on fourteen notifications relating to other departments of the State of Rajasthan issued during the years 1984/85 whereunder the revised pay-scales were given with effect from September 1, 1981. The High Court accepted the contention and allowed the writ petition solely on the ground of discrimination.

3. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan, has vehemently contended that the High Court fell into patent error in accepting the plea of discrimination for which there was no factual basis. According to him the notifications relied upon by the High Court were issued under different circumstances and were not at all relevant to the facts of the present case. Those were the cases where certain categories of employees were not included in the general pay revision provided under the Rules. According to Mr. Gupta the categories of employees, who were left out from the general pay revision under the Rules, were given the revised pay-scales for the first time and as such it was necessary to grant them the pay revision with effect from September 1, 1981 to bring them at par with the employees who were governed by the Rules. On the other hand so far as the UDCs of subordinate offices are concerned, they were governed by the Rules and they were given the revised S-9 under the Rules. It was neither a case of left-out category of employees nor the re-revision of the pay-scale. What was done by the notification dated January 23, 1985 was that the UDCs of subordinate offices were brought at par with the UDCs of the Secretariat and they were given revised S-10 in place of revised S-9 with effect from February 1, 1985. We see considerable force in the contention raised by Mr. Gupta. He has taken us through the notific