JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- State legislators illegally denied a pay raise to unionized probation and parole officers while granting a raise to other state employees, a judge ruled.

Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan concluded that the decision to exclude certain employees from a $1,200 across-the-board pay increase effective in July 2004 violated the constitutional rights of public employees to engage in union activities.

"This is a big victory," said Sara Howard, a spokeswoman for the Service Employees International Union in Missouri.

SEIU Local 2000 had argued that its members were retaliated against in the state budget because they had separately negotiated an average $1,215 annual pay raise several months earlier to compensate for increased duties and responsibilities.

The union claimed its members still were entitled to the similarly sized raise granted to other employees. The lawsuit noted that other classifications of employees who also had received separate raises still received the standard $1,200 raise in the state budget.

"This court finds and concludes that the decision to exclude probation and parole officers was to nullify the advances that had been achieved through the negotiations of SIEU (sic) on behalf of its membership," Callahan wrote in his order dated Monday.

Although declaring the state violated its own constitution and laws by the exclusionary pay raise, the judge did not immediately order the employees to be granted the raise. Instead, he delayed that decision pending an appeal.

Union attorney Greg Campbell, of Clayton, said he hoped the Legislature now would grant the pay raise, based on the judge's decision.

Attorney General Jay Nixon said Tuesday that he was quickly appealing the case.

Former Sen. John Russell, R-Lebanon, served as Senate Appropriations Committee chairman last year and led the effort to exclude most probation and parole workers from the budget's $1,200 raise. The budget did provide a slight pay increase for probation and parole workers who had received less than a $1,200 pay raise from the earlier negotiations. But Russell argued it would be unfair to other state workers to give probation and parole workers anything more than the $1,200.

Russell was outraged to learn Tuesday that the judge had ruled for the union. He said the ruling infringed on the Legislature's right to appropriate money for employee pay.

"We ought to impeach the judge," Russell said. "Seriously, if judges are going to try to legislate pay raises, what is there for the Legislature to do?"

Nixon disassociated himself with Russell's impeachment comments, but added: "I do share his concern that we make sure the various branches of government operate in the constitutional areas that they are responsible to do."

The dispute over probation and parole worker wages has its roots in 2003 bargaining talks between SEIU and the Department of Corrections. As a result of those, the department sought changes in job descriptions and wage classifications for probation and parole officers.

But the state Personnel Advisory Board, which decides such matters, approved only the changes in job titles at its November 2003 meeting, opting against placing probation and parole workers in a higher wage classification.

Armed with those new titles, the union requested further salary negotiations with the department, which responded by raising probation and parole officers two steps within their existing pay ranges. For an officer with an average salary of $31,000, that resulted in about a $1,200 annual increase.

While deciding against the Department of Corrections pay increase, the Personnel Advisory Board had approved raises of $756 to $1,176 for inspectors in the Professional Registration Division of the Department of Economic Development. The Legislature's ensuing budget gave them an additional $1,200 pay raise.

The union claimed that was unfair.

But Russell had said there was distinction: While the other raises had been approved by the personnel board, the raise for probation and parole officers wasn't but was granted anyway.

Gov. Matt Blunt's spokesman, Spence Jackson, claimed Callahan's ruling was "clearly wrong," citing "serious questions about the essentially double pay increase" that some probation and parole workers would receive.