THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No28333 of 1996 Dated 02-02-2007 Between: K.P.Goutham & others. ..... PETITIONERS AND Govt. of A.P. rep. By its Principal Secretary to Govt. Agriculture & Cooperation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.28333 of 1996 O R D E R: The claim of the petitioners, in this writ petition, is for parity of pay scales similar to that paid to the shift operators with diploma qualification. The petitioners are all I.T.I. certiﬁcate holders. It is the speciﬁc case of the petitioners that since they and the diploma holders discharge similar type of work, the artiﬁcial diﬀerentiation in pay scales between I.T.I certiﬁcate holders on the one hand and diploma holders on the other is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39-D of the Constitution of India. In the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the second respondent-Corporation, it is admitted that the petitioners, I.T.I. certiﬁcate holders and the diploma holders discharge similar type of work. Even in the counter aﬃdavit ﬁled on behalf of the Government by the Assistant Secretary in the Agriculture Department, all that is stated is that it is the Finance Department, which had rejected the claim for extending the benefit of the parity in scales of pay. In the impugned order dated 28-10-1995 addressed by the first respondent to the second respondent, it is stated that since the shift operators with diploma qualiﬁcation were assigned the pay scales of Rs.1100-2050 and the shift operators with I.T.I. qualiﬁcations were assigned the pay scales of Rs.910-1625, the shift operators with I.T.I. qualiﬁcation were not entitled to be assigned the pay scales of Rs.1010-1800. No reasons are assigned as to why there should not be parity in treatment especially in the light of the speciﬁc averment in the counter aﬃdavit of the second respondent that both the diploma holders and the I.T.I. certiﬁcate holders are discharging similar type of work. In the absence of any reasons being furnished as to why parity of treatment should not be accorded, the action of the respondents in denying extension of the said beneﬁt to the petitioners must be held to be illegal. The impugned order dated 28-10-1995 is quashed and the ﬁrst respondent is directed to pass a reasoned order and communicate the same, both to the second respondent and to the petitioners herein, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. ___________ 02-02-2007 usd