Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Pande, petitioner, who has appeared in person at length and Sri S.B. Pandey, Assistant Solicitor General of India for respondent.

2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed as Public Interest Litigation assailing vires of Section 2 of “The Salaries and Allowances of Ministers Act 1952” (hereinafter referred to as “Act 1952”) and Section 2(e) of “Uttar Pradesh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1981” (hereinafter referred to as “U.P. Act 1981”) being ultra vires of Constitution. Petitioners have also sought mandamus commanding respondents not to give effect to the definition of “Ministers” as defined in the aforesaid Acts i.e. (Act 1952) and (U.P. Act 1981). Petitioners have also sought a mandamus commanding respondents to treat all Ministers equal and further mandamus to place Judge of High Court at par with Ministers.

3. Petitioners are Advocates by profession and have filed this writ petition with an object to have Rule of Law to prevail in this Country and provisions of Constitution and other Laws should be applied by all concerns in letter and spirit.

4. The case set up by petitioners is that Article 74 of Constitution of India provides that there shall be a “Council of Ministers” to aid and advise President of India. Article 75 provides that Prime Minister shall be appointed by the President and other Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advice of Prime Minister. Total number of Ministers, including Prime Minister, in the Council of Ministers shall not exceed fifteen percent of total number of Members of House of the People. These provisions are for Central Government.

5. For State Government Article 163 and 164 of Constitution of India are referred where power of appointment of Chief Minister is with Governor and other Ministers are to be appointed by Governor on the advice of Chief Minister.

6. Parliament has legislated “Act 1952” and therein the term ‘Minister’ has been defined as “Member of Council of Ministers” by whatever name called and includes a “Deputy Minister.” Similarly in State of U.P., U.P. Act 1981 has been promulgated and therein term ‘Minister’ has been defined in Section 2(e) to mean a Member of Council of Ministers of Government of U.P. and includes “Chief Minister”, a “State Minister” and a “Deputy Minister” of that State. The aforesaid Statute provides different salaries for Ministers, State Ministers and Deputy Ministers.

7. Referring to Article 75(6) petitioners’ claim is that Parliament was authorized only to determine salaries and other allowances payable to ‘Ministers’ and not to expand meaning of ‘Ministers’ so as to include within its ambit “Ministers of State” and “Deputy Ministers”. Similar argument has been advanced with reference to Article 164(5) of Constitution. It is said that extending meaning of ‘Minister’ to “State Minister” and “Deputy Minister” is not permissible and beyond the power conferred by Constitution.

8. It is urged that Constitution has created only one class of ‘Ministers’, hence Parliament and State Legislature had exceeded their jurisdiction by classifying ‘Ministers’ and expanding meaning of ‘Ministers’ to “State Ministers”, “Deputy Ministers” etc. It is said that Constitution contemplates all ‘Ministers’ equal and there cannot be ‘Ministers’ having no independent department or having different function than a ‘Minister’ which is commonly called as “Cabinet Minister”. Referring to Constitution of Combodia, China, Egypt, Namibia, Nepal, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and South Africa it is said that whenever and wherever any Constitution has contemplated otherwise it has separately made provisions for “State Ministers” or “Deputy Ministers”. “State Ministers” cannot be treated to be ‘Ministers’ so as to perform constitutional duties of aid and advice to President or Governor hence their inclusion as Minister is void ab-initio.

9. Pursuant to o