( 1. ) THIS writ petition challenges the validity of the M. P. Work-Charged and contingency Paid Employees Revision of Pay Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) on the ground that in so far as they provide two scales of pay -one existing and the other revised, are violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Rules were published in the M. P. Gazette Extraordinary, dated 3-3-1984. However, clause (b) of Rule 1 provides that the Rules shall be deemed to have come into force on the first day of April 1982.

( 2. ) THE writ petition has not been filed by any person who may have been affected by the alleged discrimination, but by Karyabharit Evam Dainik Vetan Karmachari sangh, Bargi Nagar, Jabalpur which claims to be a duly constituted union registered under the Trade Unions Act, having a vast following in a Project known as Bargi project. Its case is that certain persons who are its members, were appointed under the bargi Project Scheme on various posts of work charged category on different dates after 1-4-1982 on the existing scales of pay which were lower than the revised scales of pay fixed by the Rules. According to the petitioner, its aforesaid members were entitled to the revised scales of pay according to the Rules, but no heed was paid to the requests made in this behalf.

( 3. ) THE case of the petitioner is that since the Rules were made applicable with retrospective effect from 1-4-1982, its aforesaid members even though appointed after that date, were entitled to the revised pay scales fixed by the Rules. The petitioner asserts that the classification contained in the Rules justifying two scales of pay for the same posts, is unreasonable.

( 4. ) A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents and their case is that the classification being based on length of service and the prescribed qualifications is reasonable. It has also been asserted in the return that the petitioner is not a recognised union and is not entitled to file the writ petition in a representative capacity. Further, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of raising an industrial dispute.

( 5. ) AS regards the last stated plea, suffice it to point out that since the validity of the Rules has been challenged in the writ petition, it does not deserve to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. We are also not inclined to dismiss it on the ground that the petitioner is not a recognised union in view of the certificate of registration filed as Armexure P-1 to the writ petition.

( 6. ) IN order to consider the respective submissions of counsel for the parties on the question as to whether the qualification for maintaining the two scales of pay, viz. the existing and the revised is reasonable or not, it would be useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Rules. Rule 3 which deals with scope and application of the rules, reads as under :

"3. Scope and application. These Rules shall apply to all members of the work-charged and contingency paid employees service, drawing pay in the existing scale on 1st April, 1982 : provided that a temporary employee shall be governed by these rules only, if he fulfils the requisite qualifications shown in column (4) of Annexure II in respect of the posts mentioned in column (2) thereof : provided further that a temporary employee who does not possess the requisite qualifications, will continue to get his emoluments in the existing scale till he becomes permanent member as per clause (g) of Rule 2. "

Rule 4 provides that the existing scale and revised scale of pay on various posts shall be as given in columns 2 and 4 respectively of Annexure I appended to the Rules. Rule 5 which deals with drawal of pay in the revised scale, reads as follows :

"drawal of pay in the revised scale - Save as otherwise provided in these rules, a permanent employee of the workcharged and contingency paid employees service and a temporary employee possessing requisite qualifications, shall draw pay in the