Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The point that arises for consideration in this Writ Appeal is whether the drawal by the junior of higher pay than his admitted senior is arbitrary and is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in the facts and circumstances of the case. There cannot be any universal rule that a junior can in no circumstance draw higher pay than his senior. Where the junior is a promotee and the senior is a direct recruit to a particular cadre, the junior will be drawing higher pay. There may be a variety of similar circumstances justifying the drawal of higher pay by a junior. Therefore, the decision on the point raised by the appellant will largely depend upon the facts of this case. The minimum facts necessary for the decision of the case are the following:

The appellant joined the service of the first respondent Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. As Junior Assistant on 12.3.1973. She was promoted as Senior Assistant in July, 1978 and further promoted as Executive Assistant (now designated as Junior Executive) on 6.5.1982 by Ext.P1 order. Later, she was promoted as Manager on 29.8. 1994. One Mr. Kasim Pillai who joined the service of the first respondent as Junior Assistant subsequent to the appellant was promoted to the post of Senior Assisant subsequent to the appellant was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant and Junior Executive only subsequent to the promotion of the appellant. His promotion as Junior Executive (formerly Executive Assistant) was on 8.5.1984 as evident from Ext.P2, but the said junior started drawing higher basic pay than the appellant from 1.7.1992.

2. The reason for this disparity is explained in the following manner: There was a long term settlement between the management and the employees concluded on 12.9.1985. One of the terms of the settlement was the creation of the post of special grade Assistant between the posts of Senior Assistant and Junior Executive. As a result, the employees who got promotion as Junior Executive, after the implementation of the settlement, came through the post of Special Grade Assistant. So, they got a fixation of pay on promotion to the newly created post and got another fixation on promotion to the post of Junior Executive. So, the promotees to the post of Junior Executive after the implementation of Ext.P1 agreement begain to draw higher pay than those who were promoted to that post earlier. The seniors took up cudgels against this discrimination. But the management resisted the protest contending that it was the result of implementation of a long term settlement which is binding on all employees including the seniors. Few of the aggrieved employees approached this court against this discrimination by filing OP No. 14745/93. The same was dismissed upholding the stand of the management that the disparity is the result of a binding long term settlement. But, later, the management themselves came forward and attempted to rectify the anomaly by giving one additional increment to those persons who were promoted as Junior Executives between 1.4.1983 and 1.7.1984. It appears, the agreement was implemented with effect from 1.7.1984. The pleading of the management in this regard in this regard is contained in paragraph 3 of its counter affidavit which is extracted below: -

" At the very outset it is submitted that as per the Long Term Settlement dated 12.9.1985 entered into between the management and the trade unions, a new post of Special Grade Assistant was created between the post of Senior Assistant and Junior Executive. As a result, those employees who were promoted as Junior Executives after the implementation of the Long Term Settlement became entitled to more benefits by virtue of the fact that promotion as Junior Executives were only from Special Grade Assistant. It was in response to the protest raised by some Junior Executives who were promoted earlier and were unable to avail of the benefits of the creation of the new post that the Bo