The respondent was directly recruited as a District Munsif on 10-10-1973. When he was so recruited, one M. Ramachandra Reddy and C. Rami Reddy were already promoted as District Munsiffs w.e.f. 13-11-1966. However, in the seniority list of District Munsiffs, the respondent was shown as senior to those two persons presumably because those two persons were adjusted against the quota of promotees from a date later than 1973. However, these two persons were drawing a pay which was more than the pay drawn by the respondent in view of their longer actual service as District Munsiffs starting from November, 1966.

In 1988, the respondent while working as a District Judge filed the present writ petition seeking the same pay as was being drawn by these two persons w.e.f. 1-11-1973. By an interim order, the learned single Judge of the High Court gave a direction to revise the pay of the respondent so as to make it at par with the pay actually drawn by the said two persons. Thereafter, the respondent did not seek implementation of the Interim order. However, on 16-2-1998, when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned single Judge observed that in view of the interim order of 22-12-1988, the writ petition had become infructuous and no further orders were required. The same view was taken by the High Court while dismissing the appeal of the appellants.

The position in law has been clearly laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. G. Sreenivasa Rao, reported in 1989 SC 511. In paragraph 15, this Court has observed that equal pay for equal work does not mean that all the members of a cadre must receive the same pay packet irrespective of their seniority, source of recruitment, educational qualifications and various other incidents of service. When a single running pay scale is provided in a cadre, the constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal work is satisfied. Ordinarily, grant of higher pay to a junior would ex facie be arbitrary; but if there are justifiable grounds in doing so, the seniors cannot invoke the equality doctrine. In the present case, the higher pay drawn by the juniors of the respondents is on account of their longer actual length of service in the cadre of District Munsiffs. There is, therefore, good reason for their drawing more pay than the respondent. In view thereof, neither the interim order nor the final order in the writ petition are justifiable. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned judgments of the High Court are set aside. The writ petition filed before the High Court dismissed. Appeal allowed.