http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: UNIKAT SANKUNNI MENON

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/04/1967

BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA BENCH: BHARGAVA, VISHISHTHA WANCHOO, K.N. MITTER, G.K.

CITATION:  1968 AIR   81            1967 SCR  (3) 470

ACT: Constitution   of   India-Articles   14   and   16-Rajasthan Secretariat  Service (Rationalisation of Pay Scales)  Rules, 1956,  providing  for  special  and  Higher  Grade  for   an Assistant Secretary in the Rajasthan Secretariat Service  an promotion  as Deputy Secretary in the Secretariat-Also  pro- viding for a special pay but the same grade for a member  of the Rajasthan Administrative Service on promotion as  Deputy Secretary   in   the   Secretariat-Whether   amounting    to discrimination or denial of equality of opportunity.

HEADNOTE: Under  the  Rajasthan  Civil Services  (Unification  of  Pay Scales)  Rules  & Schedules, 1950, a person serving  in  the Rajasthan  Secretariat, on appointment as Deputy  Secretary, was  placed in a specified pay-scale and was,  in  addition, entitled to - a Special Pay.  Under the same Rules a  member of  the Rajasthan Administrative Service, on appointment  as Deputy  Secretary, was also entitled to draw salary  in  the same  pay-scale and a similar Special Pay.  The  1950  Rules were   superseded  by  the  Rajasthan  Secretariat   Service (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules & Schedules, 1956,  by which it was provided that for Assistant Secretaries in  the Secretariat  Service  there would be a number  of  selection posts  of  Deputy  Secretaries on  an  increased  pay  scale without  any Special pay Furthermore, the scales  applicable to  the members of Administrative Service on appointment  as Deputy  Secretary were also ’revised upwards though  not  to the same extent as for those in the Secretariat Service  and in  their  case  the  principle  of  Special  Pay  on   such appointment was continued.  The rules were revised again  in 1961  and 1966 whereby higher pay-scales were introduced  to apply to members of each service on appointment to the  post of  a  Deputy Secretary but the system of a special  pay  on such  appointment,  was continued only for  members  of  the Administrative Service. The  appellant,  who  was  an  Assistant  Secretary  in  the Secretariat  Service-  and  had been promoted  as  a  Deputy Secretary,   filed  a  petition  under  Art.  226   of   the Constitution  claiming that the words "without special  pay" in the 1956 Rules, applicable in respect of his Service  may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

be  declared invalid and violative of Articles 14 and 16  of the Constitution.  The High Court dismissed the Petition. In  the  appeal to this Court it was contended,  inter  alia that  Articles  14  and 16 were violated  because,  (i)  the Rules,  on  the  fare of them, showed that in  the  case  of members  of  the  Secretariat Service  appointed  as  Deputy Secretaries,  no special pay was admissible, while such  pay was admissible to members of the Administrative Service when holding  similar posts; and (ii) the definition of  "Special Pay"  in Rule 3(31) of the Rajasthan Civil  Service  Rule,,, 1951,  showed  that  it was meant to be  additional  pay  in consideration,  inter alia, of the specially arduous  nature of  duties  and  that if the post of  Deputy  Secretary  was considered  as  involving  such duties for  members  of  the Administrative Service, there was no reason to hold that the same  post  was  not  equally arduous  for  members  of  the Secretariat Service. HELD  : There was no discrimination under Article 14 or  any denial 4 3 1 of equality of opportunity under Article 16. (1) The  Rules, as   applicable  from  time  to  time  to  members  of   the Secretariat  Service on appointment to the posts  of  Deputy Secretaries, were, at no stage made less favourable than the Rules previously applicable to them and could not be held to be  vitiated in any manner, if considered by  themselves  in the  light  of rights which the members of  the  Secretariat Service possessed from time to time. [435C-D; 438E-F] The  appellant came to the post of a Deputy  Secretary  from the  Secretariat  Service which is a  service  distinct  and separate  from the Administrative Service.  The  methods  of recruitment             qualification,  etc.,  of  the   two Services are not identical.  In their  ordinary  time-scale, the  two  Services do not carry the same grades.   Even  the posts,  for which recruitment in the two Services  is  made, are  to  a  major  "tent, different.   The  members  of  the Secretariat  Service  are  meant  to  be  employed  in   the Secretariat  only,  while  members  of  the   Administrative Service  are  mostly meant for posts which are  outside  the Secretariat  though  some posts in the  Secretariat  can  be filled  by members of that service.  In such a  case,  where appointment  is made to the posts of Deputy  Secretaries  of government servants belonging to two different and  separate Services, there can arise no question of a claim that all of them,  when  working as Deputy.  Secretaries,  must  receive identical  salaries,  or  must  necessarily  both  be  given special pay.  It is entirely wrong to think that every  one, appointed  to  the same post, is entitled to claim  that  he must  be  paid  identical emoluments  as  any  other  person appointed  to  the  same post, disregarding  the  method  of recruitment,  or the source from which the Officer is  drawn for appointment to that post.  No such equality is  required either  by  Art. 14 or Art. 16 of the  Constitution.  [435F- 436B] All  India Station Masters’ and Assistant  Station  Masters’ Association  & Others v. General Manager,  Central  Railways and  Others,, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 311; Mohanlal Bakshi v.  Union of India A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 1139, relied on. Furthermore,  under the various Service Rules  themselves  a member  of the Secretariat Service on appointment as  Deputy Secretary was allowed a special higher grade, while a member of the Administrative Service continued on his old scale and only  got an extra salary of Rs. 1501- per month by  way  of Special  Pay.   In  such a case, no question  can  arise  of holding  that a member of the Secretariat Service must  also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

be granted a special pay in addition to being placed in  the higher  grade.   ’Special  Pay’ does not arise  out  of  any inherent quality of being arduous in the nature of the  post itself.   Thus, when special pay was granted to a member  of the   Administrative  Service  on  appointment   as   Deputy Secretary, the reason might be that the post was  considered more  arduous in nature than the post which would beheld  by him,  if  he had continued on a regular post  borne  on  the cadre of his Service.  In the case of an Assistant Secretary in  the Secretariat Service, the post of a Deputy  Secretary was  already  designated as a selection post for  him  on  a grade, and there could be no question of his being granted a on the basis that the post Deputy Secretary is more  arduous in  nature  than the post of  Assistant  Secretary  [437D-F; 438C-E]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 274 of 1967. Appeal  by special leave from the judgment and  order  dated November 18, 1965 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 336 of 1964. Brijbans Kishore and D. P. Gupta, for the appellant. 432 G.C.   Kasliwal,  Advocate-General  for  the   State   of Rajasthan and K. Baldev Mehta, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava,  J. The appellant, Unikat Sankunni Menon,  was  in the  service of the Rajasthan Government in the  Secretariat after  Rajasthan  was constituted as a State.  The  pay  and grades of the posts in the Secretariat were governed by  the Rajasthan  Civil Services (Unification of Pay Scales)  Rules and Schedules framed by the Rajpramukh under Article 309  of the Constitution of India.  Under those Rules, an  Assistant Secretary to Government drew pay in the scale of Rs. 250-25- 400-E.B.-25-500 and was, in addition, entitled to a  special pay of Rs. 501-.  A Deputy Secretary to Government drew  pay in  the  scale  of  Rs. 500-25-700  and  was,  in  addition, entitled  to a special pay of Rs. 100/-.  Subsequently,  the Rajasthan Secretariat Service Rules, 1954 were framed by the Rajpramukh  under Article 309 of the Constitution  of  India and  were brought into force with effect from 10th  January, 1955.   Under these Rules, the appellant became a member  of the  Rajasthan Secretariat Service (hereinafter referred  to as "the R.S.S."). He was, at that time, holding the post  of an  Assistant Secretary which carried the time-scale of  Rs. 250-25-400-EB-25-500.  He was also drawing a special pay  of Rs.  75/-  per month.  By the notification dated  25th  May, 1956,  the  Rajpramukh, again acting under Art. 309  of  the Constitution of India, promulgated Rajasthan Civil  Services (Rationalisation  of Pay Scales) Rules and Schedules,  1956. Under  these Rules, the grades of pay applicable  to  Deputy Secretaries  and  Assistant Secretaries were  revised.   The posts  of Assistant Secretaries were shown as  belonging  to the ordinary time-scale of the R.S.S., carrying the grade of Rs.  250-25-500-EB-25-750  with a special pay of  Rs.  75/-. Further, it was laid down that there will be selection posts for  members of the R.S.S. which were indicated as posts  of Deputy Secretaries to Government by putting this designation in brackets, and a new scale of Rs.  500-30-740-EB30-800-50- 900  without special pay was prescribed for these  selection posts.   In  the remarks column, there was a note  that,  on promotion  as Deputy Secretary, an Officer will receive  Rs. 5001- or a minimum increase of Rs. 150/- on his basic pay as

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

Assistant  Secretary  whichever is higher.  These  were  the Rules  in force when, on 10th January, 1959,  the  appellant was  appointed  as Deputy Secretary.  On that date,  he  was drawing a salary of Rs. 475/p.m. in the ordinary time  scale of the R.S.S. and was also getting a special pay of Rs. 75/- ,  as he was holding the post of an Assistant  Secretary  to Government.   Consequently,  on his  appointment  as  Deputy Secretary,  which was a selection post for the  R.S.S.,  his salary was fixed at Rs. 650/-.  Under the formula laid  down in   the  remarks  column,  mentioned  above,   the   salary admissible to him 433 came to Rs. 625/-, but, since in the new grade fixed for the selection posts there was no stage at Rs. 625/-, his pay was fixed at Rs. 650/- at the next higher stage above the amount calculated in his case on the basis of the formula laid down in the remarks column.  This procedure was adopted under the Government  instructions.  Subsequently, the grades for  the posts  of  Dy.  Secretaries and Assistant  Secretaries  were again revised by the Governor of Rajasthan under the proviso to  Article  309  of the Constitution  by  promulgating  the Rajasthan  Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1961.   Under these Rules, the grade applicable to Assistant Secretary  to Government  belonging  to the R.S.S. was prescribed  as  Rs. 360-25-560-30-590-EB-30-860-900.   The Rules also  indicated that  this revised scale had been prescribed as a result  of merging the special pay in the grade pay itself.  The  grade for Deputy Secretaries to Government was also revised to Rs. 550-30-820-EB-30850-50-1    100.        It   appears    that, subsequently, there was another revision of scales of pay in the  year  1966,  and the latest  grade  applicable  to  the members   of  the  R.S.S.  holding  the  posts   of   Deputy Secretaries is Rs. 900-50-1500. Apart  from  these various Rules which, from time  to  time, were  applicable  to  members of the  R.S.S.,  we  may  also indicate  the Rules that were applicable to members  of  the Rajasthan Administrative Service (hereinafter referred to as "the  R.A.S.")  when holding posts  of  Deputy  Secretaries. Under  the  Rajasthan  Civil Services  (Unification  of  Pay Scales) Rules and Schedules, 1950, which were in force until the  year  1956, a member of the R.A.S., on  appointment  as Deputy Secretary, drew salary in the same grade of Rs.  500- 25-700 with a special pay of Rs. 100/- in the same way as  a member  of  the  R.S.S. When the  Rajasthan  Civil  Services (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules & Schedules, 1956 came into force, this principle was departed from.  While  laying down the grades of pay applicable to members of the  R.A.S., their senior and junior scales were combined into one  scale shown  as the time scale of Rs. 250-25-500-EB-25-750 with  a selection grade of Rs. 500-30-740-EB-30-800-50-900 which was to  be  admissible  personally  to  Officers  who  had  been appointed substantively earlier to the grade of Rs.  500-25- 700  vide  Government Orders issued on 9th April,  1951  and 19th  January,  1955.  Then, it was further laid  down  that special pay would be admissible on certain posts to Officers of the R.A.S. on time scale or selection grade, and, amongst these,  were the posts of Deputy Secretaries to  Government. The  Rules  prescribed a special pay of Rs.  1501-  for  the members  of  the R.A.S. when appointed to  posts  of  Deputy Secretaries  to Government.  In the subsequent  revision  of grades  under  the  Rajasthan Civil  Services  (Revised  Pay Scales) Rules, 1961, the grade of the R.A.S. was revised  to Rs. 285-25-510-EB-25-560-30-800 for the ordinary  time-scale and Rs. 550-30-820-EB-30-850-50-950 for 4 3 4

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

posts  in the senior scale, together with a selection  grade of  Rs.  65050-1250.  Under these Rules again, it  was  laid down  that  an Officer of the R.A.S. holding a post  in  the senior  scale  on  appointment as Dy.   Secretary,  will  be entitled to a special pay of Rs. 150/Under the last revision in  1966,  a  member of the R.A.S., on  appointment  as  Dy. Secretary,  was to draw salary in his regular time-scale  of Rs.  550-30-820-EB-30-850-50-1100, subject to a  minimum  of Rs. 640/-, with a special pay of Rs. 1501-.  In the case  of a member of the R.A.S. holding a post in the selection grade applicable  to  his service, he was to draw the pay  in  his selection  ,grade with a special pay of Rs. 1501.  Thus,  in the  case  of members of the R.A.S. appointed  to  posts  of Deputy Secretaries, a special pay remained admissible, while the  principle  of granting special pay to  members  of  the R.S.S. on appointment as Deputy Secretaries was abolished. It was on the basis of these Rules that the appellant  filed a  petition  under Art. 226 of the Constitution  before  the High  Court  of Rajasthan claiming that the  words  "without special    pay"    in   the   Rajasthan    Civil    Services (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules & Schedules, 1956  may be  declared as invalid and violative of Articles 14 and  16 of the Constitution.  The High Court dismissed the  petition and,  consequently,  the appellant has now come up  to  this Court by special leave. The  claim  of  the  appellant has to  be  examined  in  two different aspects,.  The first aspect is that the Rules,  as applicable  from  time to time to members of the  R.S.S.  on appointment to the posts of Deputy Secretaries, were, at  no stage,  made  less  favourable  than  the  Rules  previously applicable.   As  has  been  mentioned  earlier,  under  the Rajasthan Civil Services (Unification of Pay Scales) Rules & Schedules,  1950, a person serving in the  Rajasthan  Secre- tariat,  on appointment as Deputy Secretary, was  placed  in the  time-scale  of  Rs. 500-25-700 and  was,  in  addition, entitled to a special pay of Rs. 100/-.  When the Rules were revised  for  the  first  time  under  the  Rajasthan  Civil Services (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules &  Schedules, 1956, a member of the R.S.S., working on the ordinary  time- scale  as  Assistant  Secretary,  became  entitled,  on  ap- pointment  as Deputy Secretary, to pay in the scale  of  Rs. 500-30740-EB-30-800-50-900.   It  is  true  that,  on   such appointment  under these Rules, he was not entitled  to  any special pay; but the principle for fixation of pay given  in the  remarks column ensured that the pay admissible  to  the Officer  would certainly be higher than the pay which  would have  been admissible if the earlier Rules had continued  in force.   The scale of pay prescribed for the post of  Deputy Secretary  was higher than the previous scale.  Further,  on promotion  as Deputy Secretary, every Officer of the  R.S.S. received  a minimum increase of Rs. 1501/- on his basic  pay as  Assistant  Scretary.  The fact that the special  pay  as Assistant Secretary was 435 ignored  in  fixing the pay on appointment to  the  post  of Deputy  Secretary  did not result in any  reduction  of  the emoluments to be received under the new scales, as  compared with the emoluments which he would have received if the  old scales  had  continued to remain in force.   The  subsequent revisions in 1961 and 1966 also observed this principle,  so that  the  Rajpramukh  or  the  Governor  of  Rajasthan,  in promulgating  these  various Rules revising the  pay  scales applicable  to Deputy Secretaries, ensured that  no  revised Rule operated to the prejudice of a member of the R.S.S., as compared  with  the  earlier Rules under  which  rights  had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

vested in him.  Further, it was, at no stage, urged that the Rajpramukh  or  the Governor was incompetent  to  promulgate these  revised  Rules from time to time in exercise  of  his power under Article 309 of the Constitution.  The Rules thus applicable to the member of the R.S.S. on appointment to the post  of Deputy Secretary, against which the appellant  made his  grievance  in  the High Court, cannot  be  held  to  be vitiated  in any manner, if considered by themselves in  the light  of rights which the members of the  R.S.S.  possessed from time to time. The second aspect, and the one on which reliance was  mainly placed by learned counsel for the appellant in. this appeal, is  that the Rules, on the face of them, show that,  in  the case   of  members  of  the  R.S.S.  appointed   as   Deputy Secretaries, no special pay is admissible, while special pay is admissible to members of the R.A.S. when holding  similar posts.  It is on the basis of this apparent  differentiation that  the  appellant urged that Articles 14 and  16  of  the Constitution  were violated when special pay was  denied  to the members of the R.S.S., while special pay was  admissible to members of the R.A.S. There  are  two reasons why this grievance  put  forward  on behalf  of the appellant has to be rejected.  The  first  is that  the appellant comes to the post of a Deputy  Secretary from  the R.S.S., which is a service distinct  and  separate from the R.A.S. The methods of recruitment,  qualifications, etc.,  of  the  two Services are not  identical.   In  their ordinary time-scale, the two Services do not carry the  same grades.   Even the posts, for which recruitment in  the  two Services  is made, are, to a major extent,  different.   The members  of  the  R.S.S. are meant to  be  employed  in  the Secretariat  only,  while members of the R.A.S.  are  mostly meant  for  posts which are outside the  Secretariat  though some  posts in the Secretariat can be filled by  members  of the R.A.S. In such a case, where appointment is made to  the posts of Deputy Secretaries of government servants belonging to  two different and separate Services, there can arise  no question of a claim that all of them, when working as Deputy Secretaries, must receive identical salaries, or must neces- sarily  both be given special pay.  It is entirely wrong  to think  that  every  one,  appointed to  the  same  post,  is entitled to claim that be L5 Sup.CI/67----14 436 must  be  paid  identical emoluments  as  any  other  person appointed  to  the  same post, disregarding  the  method  of recruitment,  or the source from which the Officer is  drawn for appointment to that post.  No such equality is  required either  by  Art. 14 or Art. 16 of  the  Constitution.   This principle  was explained by this Court first in the case  of All  India Station Masters’ and Assistant  Station  Masters’ Association  & Others v. General Manager,  Central  Railways and  Others(1).  In that case, the question arose about  the rights of promotion of Assistant Station Masters and  Guards already  employed  in the Railway  Service.   The  Assistant Station   Masters  claimed  equality  of   opportunity   for promotion  qua  the  Guards on the  ground  that  they  were entitled  to  equality  of  opportunity  in  the  matter  of employment  or appointment to any office of the State  under Art.  16(1) of the Constitution.  This Court held :  "It  is clear  that, as between the members of the same  class,  the question  whether conditions of service are the same or  not may well arise.  If they are not, the question of denial  of equal opportunity will require serious consideration in such cases.  Does the concept of equal opportunity in matters  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

employment  apply, however, to variations in  provisions  as between members of different classes of employees under  the State ? In our opinion, the answer must be in the  negative. The  concept of equality can have no existence  except  with reference   to   matters  which  are   common   as   between individuals, between whom equality is predicated.   Equality of  opportunity in matters of employment can  be  predicated only as between persons, who are either seeking the same em- ployment, or have obtained the same employment."  Proceeding further,  the  Court held : "There is, in  our  opinion,  no escape  from the conclusion-that equality of opportunity  in matters of promotion, must mean equality as between  members of  the  same class of employees, and not  equality  between members   of  separate,  independent  classes."   The   same principle  was  later  confirmed  in  the  case  of  Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India(2).  In that case, persons appointed  to Class 11 of Income-tax Officers  claimed  that there was discrimination against them in the matter of  pay- scales,  as  compared  with  Income-tax  Officers  recruited direct  to the Class I Service.  The Court,  rejecting  this argument,  held : "The only other contention raised is  that there  is  discrimination  between  Class  I  and  Class  II Officers inasmuch as, though they do the same kind of  work, their pay scales are different.  This, it is said,  violates Art.  14  of the Constitution.  If this contention  had  any validity, there could be no incremental scales of pay  fixed dependent  on  the duration of an  officer’s  service.   The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do  with  Art.  14.   The contention that  Art.  14  of  the Constitution has been violated, therefore, fails." The claim of the appellant in the present case that, (1)  [1960] 2 S.C.R. 31 1. (2) A.I.R. 1962 S.C. 11 39. 437 on appointment as Deputy Secretary, he must be held entitled to  receive  special pay on the ground of  being  placed  on parity with the members of the R.A.S., has, therefore, to be rejected. The second ground, which shows that the claim made on behalf of  the appellant has no basis, is that, under  the  various Service  Rules  themselves,  a  member  of  the  R.S.S.,  on appointment  as  Deputy Secretary, is given pay in  a  grade specially  and  separately  fixed for the  posts  of  Deputy Secretaries, while a member of the R.A.S., is not placed  in that  grade at all.  Thus, under the latest Rules, a  member of  the  R.S.S., on appointment as Deputy  Secretary,  draws salary in the grade of Rs. 900-50-1500.  On the other  hand, a  member of the R.A.S., appointed as Deputy  Secretary,  is not granted pay in this scale.  In his case, he continues to draw his salary in the scale applicable to him in the R.A.S. and is allowed a special pay of Rs. 1501-.  This special pay allowed  to  a member of the R.A.S. is,  therefore,  not  in addition  to the pay in the grade specially  prescribed  for the posts of Deputy Secretaries.  That grade is much  higher than the grade applicable to the member of the R.A.S.  which continues  to  apply  to him on his  appointment  as  Deputy Secretary,  and it is only in addition to that  lower  time- scale that a member of the R.A.S. is allowed the special pay of Rs. 1501-.  It is thus clear that the method of  fixation of salary for members of the two Services, on appointment as Deputy  Secretaries,  is quite different.  A member  of  the R.S.S. is allowed a special higher grade, while a member  of the R.A.S. continues on his old scale and only gets an extra salary of Rs. 1501- per month.  In such a case, no  question can  arise of holding that a member of the R.S.S. must  also

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

be granted a special pay in addition to being placed in  the higher  grade  of  pay prescribed for  the  post  of  Deputy Secretaries  when  that post is held by the  member  of  the R.S.S. In  this connection, learned counsel for the appellant  drew our attention to Rule 7(3 1) of the Rajasthan Civil  Service Rules,  1951, framed under Article 309 of the  Constitution, defining  special pay.  The definition given in the Rule  is that  "Special Pay" means an addition of the nature of  pay, to  the  emoluments of a post or of  a  government  servant, granted in consideration of :-               (a)   the  specially  arduous  nature  of  the               duties,               (b)   a  specific  addition  to  the  work  or               responsibility; or               (c)   the  unhealthiness  of the  locality  in               which the               work is performed. It was urged by learned counsel that, if the post of  Deputy Secretary  was  considered as  involving  specially  arduous nature  of  duties for members of the R.A.S.,  there  is  no reason  to  hold that that post is not equally  arduous  for members  of the R.S.S. and, consequently, there would be  no justification for denying special pay 438 to  members of the R.S.S. holding such a post, when  special pay  is  granted to members of the R.A.S. It appears  to  us that this submission is made on a misconception of the scope of this Rule.  The Rule, in defining special pay,  envisages an addition of the nature of pay to the emoluments of either a  post or of a government servant and, consequently, it  is clear  that a special pay is to be granted, if a  person  is appointed to a post which is specially arduous in nature  as compared  with the earlier post held by him.  Similarly,  it may be granted to a government servant who is appointed to a post involving specially arduous duties as compared with the posts to be held by him ordinarily, while continuing in  the Service  in  which  he  holds  his  permanent   appointment. Special  pay does not arise out of any inherent  quality  of being  arduous  in nature of the post  itself.   Thus,  when special  pay  is  granted  to a  member  of  the  R.A.S.  on appointment as Deputy Secretary, the reason may be that  the post  is  considered more arduous in nature  than  the  post which would be held by him, if he had continued on a regular post  borne on the cadre of his Service.  In the case  of  a member  ,of  the R.S.S., the post of a Deputy  Secretary  is already designated as a selection post for hi-in and in view of  this  difference  between  the  post  to  which  he   is appointed,  as  compared  with the  post  of  -an  Assistant Secretary  earlier held by him, he is granted a special  and higher  grade,  so that there is no question  of  his  being granted  a special pay on the basis that the post of  Deputy Secretary  is  more  arduous  in nature  than  the  post  of Assistant  Secretary.   The Rules, ,as  framed,  are,  thus, based  on well-recognised principles for granting salary  to members of different Services, even when they are -appointed to  the  same  post.  In these  circumstances,  no  question arises   of  any  discrimination  under  Art.  14   of   the Constitution,  or ,of any denial of equality of  opportunity under Art. 16 of the -Constitution.  The appeal has no force and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs. R.K.P.S.                                  Appeal dismissed. 439

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9