ORDER
N.Y. Hanumanthappa, J.
1. The identical question involved in all the three writ petition is: Whether Section Officers, Scrutiny Officers and Court Officers as also Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges in the High Court and Section Officers in the Lokayukta are entitled for special pay of Rs. 175/- per month on par with Section Officers of A.P. State Secretariat, Legislature and Raj Bhavan Secretariat Hence all these petitions are clubbed and disposed of by a common order.
2. A few facts which are necessary to dispose of these petitions are as follows: The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 21308 of 1994 are working as Section Officers, Scrutiny Officers and Court Officers in the High Court whereas the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 21362 of 1994 are working as Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2552 of 1996 are working as Section Officers in Lokayukta. The conditions relating to payment of salary in respect of the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos. 21038 and 21362 of 1994 are governed by Rule 2(2) of C.C. A. (sic.) Rules which were framed after approval of the Government as required under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. The pay conditions of the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2552 of 1996 are governed by Rule 17 of the A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Rules 1984 (sic. Rule 17(1) of A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Officers and Employees) Service Rules, 1986) which were framed by the Government. In the year 1993 the Pay Revision Commission submitted its recommendations to the Government revising the pay scales of various officers and officials in the State including the Section Officers in the Secretariat, High Court, Lokayukta etc. Regarding this there is no dispute. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by its G.O.Ms.No. 363, Finance and Planning, dated 29-10-1994 extended granting of special pay of Rs. 175/- to the Section Officers working in the Secretariat, A.P. Legislature and Raj Bhavan Secretariat by giving following reasons:
'The Government have carefully examined the request and have decided to give some relief by way of special pay to the Section Officers working . in the Secretariat considering the arduous nature of duties performed by them. Accordingly Government hereby order that a special pay of Rs. 175/- (rupees one hundred and seventy five only) per month, be sanctioned to the Section Officers working in the A.P. Secretariat including Legislature and Raj Bhavan Secretariat with effect from 1-10-1994.
The above special pay shall not be admissible to S.C. Section Officers working in the Department of A.P. Secretariat'.
Coming to know of the discrimination in not extending the similar benefit of extending special pay to them some attempts were made by both the Association of the Section Officers and Court Masters on administrative side. After satisfying with the nature of work discharging by these officers in the High Court, the Chief Justice recommended that the Section Officers, Court Masters etc., are also entitled for special pay as their brethern getting in the State Secretariat and Raj Bhavan. In the case of Section Officers in the Lokayukta, they gave a representation requesting to extend the said benefit to them but their request was turned down by the Government by an order dated 10-1-1996.
3. In spite of the recommendations made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Lokayukta respectively no action was taken or if taken only an incorrect stand by the Government. Hence the petitioners have filed these writ petitions seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to extend the benefit of Special pay of Rs. 175/- to them on par with the Section Officers in the Secretariat in terms of G.O.Ms.No. 363 dated 29-10-1994.
4. The petitioners are working in various capacities as Court Officers, Scrutiny Officers, Section Officers, Court Masters, Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court. The duties of all these officers are more onerous than the Section Officers working in the Secretariat, Legislature and Raj Bhavan. The scrutiny officer completes his scrutiny and endorses as 'may be filed' again written (sic. or may be) 'rejected'; in effect it becomes final subject only to the orders of the Hon'ble judges after hearing the advocates. In the case of Court Officers the entire work in the Court is virtually subject to 'no appeals' or (sic.) by any superior authority. The Section Officers in the High Court are functioning under much more tension whereas in the Secretariat they are in hierarchical level. A Section Officer in the Secretariat has to initiate a file by way of note but does not decide anything like Court officers. In the case of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges again their duties when compared to the Section Officers in the Secretariat are more onerous and responsible. As per standing order of the A.P. High Court of 1992 the duties of Court Masters and Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges, they have to take dictation in various types of cases in open courts for hours together. Final orders and interim orders shall be transcribed then and there itself. These officers are possessing graduation (only) in addition to their technical qualifications which enable them to transcribe the orders and judgments in a proper manner and to facilitate the work of the Hon'ble Judges. The Personal Secretaries to the Hon'ble Judges have to attend the residence of the Hon'ble Judges whenever called upon to take down judgments in important cases. Apart from carrying on judicial work the Personal Secretaries have to attend the work of Hon'ble Judges in administration which are all confidential in nature. While preparing judgments these officers will be assisting the judges in taking out important decisions, Acts and provisions of law. By way of amendment dated 26-4-1988 issued in Notification No. 90-B/Spl. to the A.P. High Court Officers and Staff Scales of Pay Rules 1979 these officers of the High Court are entitled for payment of special pay on par with Section Officers of the Secretariat. In case of Section Officers in Lokayukta it is averred that they are working as Section Officers, Accounts Officer and Personal Assistants to Registrar Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. Their services are governed by A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Officers and Employees) Service Rules, 1986. As per the said rules the categories mentioned in column (1) of Schedule II shall correspond to the posts in the Secretariat. These officers are discharging more arduous nature of work. Their representation seeking special pay of Rs. 175/- on par with the Section Officers of the Secretariat' was rejected arbitrarily by the Government by its order No. 1653/SCE/94-7, dated 10-1-1996.
5. It is also averred in all the three petitions that denial of special pay to these officers working in these institutions on the ground that their category is not specified in the Government order is quite incorrect.
6. The State has filed its counter in Writ Petition No. 21038 of 1994. Its stand is one of denial both on the status of the officers of these two institutions and the Secretariat and the nature of work they are turning down. According to the State, denial of special pay to the Section Officers in the two institutions is neither arbitrary, nor deliberate. According to the State, Section Officers in the Secretariat are placed in a pivotal role in the administration as they have to deal with formulation of policy, new schemes, preparation of cabinet cases. They have to analyse various proposals submitted by the Heads of Departments and they will assist the Government in taking final decisions. They will also analyse the issues in formulating various policies of the Government. They will deal with all confidential nature of duties and they will attend to Assembly and also to the Court cases. They have to approve Various bills. A section officer in the Secretariat is a first category Gazetted Officer and he co-ordinates between lower and Higher officers in the Secretariat. He has to attend the office in early hours and leave office in late hours. They have to bring Government Pleaders as well as senior officers in day to-day business in disposing of the cases. They are answerable to the higher officers as well as to the visitors, namely, non-official members of various committees who visit in large number to the Secretariat on every day to make enquiries about the release of funds for the developments in their areas. In order to carry out work entrusted to them they have to attend the Court, Assembly, residence of Government Pleader and senior officers along with files for which they have to incur expenditure from their pockets. They have not been paid any conveyance allowance nor they have been provided with any vehicle. This work they have to do in addition to their desk work in the Section. In case of emergencies the Section Officers are also attending to the work of typing of circulation notes, memorandum to the council of Ministers, etc. The post of Section Officer in Secretariat has become an Executive job as well as desk job. While the duties of the writ petitioners are limited only to the desk work. Thus there is no justification to seek for special pay. It is also stated that the writ petitioners of High Court association have sought relief without making representation to the Government. Thus (it is) contended that the petitions be dismissed.
7. No counter has been filed for the respondents 1 to 3, in W.P. 2552/96. But the fourth respondent filed counter supporting the case of the petitioners therein. Its stand is that Section Officers in the Lokayukta are under category 5 Gazetted Under Rule 17(1) of the A.P. Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta (Officers and Employees) Service Rules, 1986. The posts of gazetted categories 1 to 5 are equated with the posts specified in column 2 of Schedule (II) for purpose of pay, allowances, leave, encashment of leave, leave travel concession and other benefits as received (sic. revised) from time to time. It is stated that denial of similar benefits of special pay of Rs. 175/- to these officers is quite incorrect.
8. In support of the stand taken in the writ petitions and the counter filed the learned counsel appearing on both sides contended as follows: The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, Sri M. Adinarayana and Sri J.R. Manohar Rao in the three Writ petitions is that in view of Rule 2(2) of the A.P. High Court Officers and Staff Scales of Pay Rules 1979 and Rule 17 of A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Rules 1984 which were framed after following the constitutional requirements, that too, they are either approved or framed by the Government, it is not open for the Government now to say that the petitioners are not entitled for special pay when pay itsfelf includes special pay but excludes other, items like compensatory allowance and other concessions. In spite of their entitlement not extending of similar benefit to the petitioners, who are similarly placed is a clear case of discrimination and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu v. K.V. Seshadri, 1988 (2) SLR 52 to show that under similar circumstances the decision of Madras High Court extending the benefit of special pay to the Personal Assistants and Judgment Writers was affirmed by the Supreme Court. They also placed reliance on the decision in P.P. Mastan Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, : 1994(2)ALT197 in support of their contention that the petitioners are entitled for special pay.
9. Sri Gulam Ahmed, the learned Government Pleader for Finance and Planning contended that extending benefit of special pay to the Section Officers working in the Secretariat, Raj Bhavan and Legislature Secretariat is a mistake and unless the petitioners establish a right vested in them to request for such a relief, this court cannot issue a writ of Mandamus to do an illegal act merely because it was done in some other case. Sri Ahmed contended that concession cannot be claimed as a matter of right and a writ of Mandamus cannot be issued commanding an authority to show indulgence. The rules referred to by the petitioners do not bind the Government. Equation would have arisen if the Pay Revision Commission had recommended as to the nature of the duties discharging by the officers of these institutions and Secretariat as similar. He also contended that special pay is given exclusively taking into consideration the arduous nature of the work turning out by the Section Officers of the Secretariat. It is something like compensatory allowance given out of grace, as such there is no compulsion or binding nature on the part of the Government to extend the similar benefit to the petitioners herein. To support this contention he placed reliance on the decisions in Rajalakshmaiah v. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993 and State of M.P. v. G.C. Mandazvar Sri Gulam Ahmed, : (1954)IILLJ673SC contended that the recommendations made by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this court equating the posts of Section Officers in the High Court with that of the Section Officers in the Secretariat on administrative side are not binding on the Government.
10. To appreciate the rival contentions it is proper once again to refer to the orders under challenge and relevant provisions of the rules which govern service conditions with reference to special pay. G.O.Ms.No. 363 dated 29-10-1994 which granted special pay to Section Officers of Secretariat is extracted hereunder:
'Government of Andhra Pradesh
Abstract
Public Services - A.P. General Service-Section Officers - Sanction of special pay to the Section Officers - Orders - issued.
Finance and Planning (FW.TA) Department
G.O.Ms.No. 363 dated 29-10-1994.