1. The challenge in this original petition is against the difference in the scale of pay between scale I Law Officer and scale III Law Officer in the service of the first respondent Syndicate Bank. Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Law Officers in the scale of pay of Rs. 700-1800 applicable to officers in Junior Management Grade Scale I pursuant to an invitation of application by the Banking Service Recruitment Board, Bangalore. Petitioner, among others, were selected and recommended by the Board for appointment in the service of the first respondent bank. Pursuant thereto, petitioner was appointed by order dated 13th February 1981 (Ext. P-1) in the officer cadre of the bank in the Junior Management Grade Scale I. He joined duty as Law Officer at the regional office of the Syndicate Bank at Ahamadabad on 12th March 1981. He continued in the post even after conversion of the regional office into a zonal office till 1986. Thereafter, he was transferred to Zonal Office, Trivandrum on 5th May 1986 and was working in the above office at the time of filing this original petition.

2. Petitioner and similarly situate six other Law Officers selected and appointed along with him, made representations to the bank for placing them in a suitable scale on the basis of Pillai Committee Recommendations. Ext. P2 is copy of such representation dated 27th November 1986.

3. Scale of pay of Scale I Officer was Rs. 1175-2675 and that of Scale III Officer was Rs. 2650-3250. It is contended in the original petition that for a Scale I Officer to become Scale III by promotion, a minimum service of 12 years is required According to the petitioner, a Law Officer in the grade of Scale I Officer is discharging the very same functions and duties as a Law Officer in Scale III. Both categories are liable to be posted in Zonal Offices. So long as they are discharging very same functions and duties, it is contended by the petitioner that there is no justification in placing them on different scale of pay. Contending that such differentiation would amount to discrimination, Ext. P-3 representation was also submitted by the petitioner to which he received a reply Ext. P-4 dated 12th February 1988 informing him that since his appointment was specifically in a Scale I post, it is not possible to allow his prayer to grant him the scale of pay due to Scale III officers post.

4. Petitioner challenges Ext. P-4 on the ground that the stand taken by the first respondent is in violation of petitioner's fundamental rights under Art.14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is submitted by him that on the basis of the Pillai Committee recommendations, which has been accepted by the Government of India, Law Officers are entitled to be placed in a scale higher than the lowest scale of pay of probationary officers. The recommendation of the committee as quoted by the petitioner in his representation Ext. P-2 is as follows:

"Para 5.29(vi) In the case of law officers, it may be necessary for some banks to recruit lawyers with considerable experience at Bar. In such cases, they may be allowed lateral entry into higher grades and provided scales of pay for promotion in their own line comparable to those in general line."

According to the petitioner, the above mentioned recommendation is not being implemented in the case of the petitioner and other Law Officers who were recruited along with him to Scale I Officer's post. Such an action on the part of the first respondent is against the principle of equal pay for equal wages, which has been held by the Supreme Court as a constitutional right of every citizen of India. In support of the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions of the Supreme Court. Randhir Singh v. Union of Indra and others AIR 1982 SC 879 Surinder Singh and another v. The Engineer in Chief PWD. and others AIR 1986 SC 584, Jeet Singh and others v. M.C.D. and others AIR 1987 SC 1781, Bhagwan Dass and others