ORDER
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. These petitioners seek a relief for stepping up of salary of the petitioners on par with that of the third respondent. It is not disputed that the petitioners are the direct recruits to the post of Junior Clerk while the third respondent was promoted from a lower cadre and he has even initially served as a Peon and then promoted to the post of Record Tracer and then to the post of Junior Clerk. May be the third respondent due to his length of service earned increments and was drawing more salary. But the fact remains that while he was promoted to the post of Junior Clerk from the lower cadre, the petitioners were directly recruited to the post of Junior Clerk and are admittedly seniors in that cadre to the third respondent. It is needless to mention that both the petitioners and third | respondent discharge the same functions and ordinarily are entitled for equal pay and more so when the petitioners are admittedly seniors to the third respondent. But the complaint of the petitioners is that leaving apart paying more salary to the third respondent, the petitioners are even denied equal pay along with the third respondent on the ground that the third respondent had been in service right from the post of Peon and then earned increments.
2. Mr. Ram Mohan, appearing for counsel for respondents, vehemently contends that equal pay for equal work cannot be applied here as the personnel both the petitioners and the third respondent, are governed by regulations and he adverted my attention to F.R. 22(C) as also Rule 9 (1) (a) to (c) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. Mr. Ram Mohan, submits that as the third respondent had earned increments while being in long standing service it is not arbitrary to pay him more salary than the petitioners and that the conditions which are stated in the regulations referred to above, for stepping up salary do not exist in the instant case. It is to be borne in mind that any rule or regulation is sub-survient to the constitutional guarantee and more so fundamental rights enshrined under the Indain Constitution. While directive principles guide for payment of equal pay for equal work, the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 mandates treatment of equals equally. But in the instant case both equals i.e., the petitioners and third respondent are in the cadre of Head Clerks and though they discharge same duties are being treated unequally in the payment of salaries. This anomaly has got to be set right as otherwise it would infract equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. What is more, even the Board of the first respondent society has taken a decision in its meeting on 7-10-1992 to ratify the minutes of sub-committee held on 14-9-1992 for stepping up of salary of seniors on par with juniors. This decision of the Board is given in consonance with the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
3. In the circumstances, I allow this writ petition and direct the first respondent to pay the petitioners the same salary on par with the third respondent but the monetary benefits shall be given from the date of the admission of the writ petition i.e., 1-9-1989 onwards. The said arrears shall be paid to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs.