JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, J. - This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by seven persons who are employed in the Government Press at Allahabad of the State of U P. under the control of the Superintendent, Printing and Stationery. The Government also has its branches at Lucknow, Roorkee, Rampur and Varanasi. The printing work of Government Departments is done in the Government Press. A large number of employees are working in the Press. These employees have been classified into various categories. Out of these employees, two classes, with which the present petition is concerned, are these of (1) Compositors, and (2) Binders. Out of the seven petitioners, one is working as compositor, whereas other are working as binders. Their pay scales were revised from time to time. In 1972, the pay scales fixed for compositors and binders were Rs. 185-265 and Rs. 170-240 respectively. 2. In the year 1976, the State of U.P. appointed a Pay Commission for making recommendations in respect of revision of pay scales of Government employees. The Commission submitted its report in 1981. The Pay Commission evolved principles for categorisation of the Government employees. On the recommendations of the Pay Commission, the Government by its order dated 23-4-1982, fixed the pay scales o the employees of the Government Press The scale of pay fixed for compositors was Rs. 350-495 and for binders Rs. 315-447. The petitioners. thereafter, filed a representation to the State Government against the scales awarded to them claiming that although compositors and binders belonged to class III service of the Government of U. P., but they were given the scale "practically of Class IV employees of the Government of U. P ". Their grievance was that there was no rationale or reason behind the attitude of the State Government in fixing the pay scales of the compositors and binders in the pay scale of Class IV employees. 3. As the representation of the petitioners was not decided, they approached this Court for : (1) Mandamus commanding the State of U. P. to fix pay of compositors and binders working in the Government Press equal to the emoluments fixed for other Government Presses. (2) Mandamus directing the State of U. P. to fix the pay scales of compositors and binders of the Government at pay with the members of the Technical Supervisory staff. (2) Mandamus directing the State of U. P. to fix the pay scales of compositors and binders of the Government at pay with the members of the Technical Supervisory staff. (3) Fixing the pay scales at part with the other Government Departments of Class III posts. 4. The controversy, which has been raised by the petitioners, is that they were class III employees and on that account they were entitled to fixation of higher pay scales than what was given to them by the State of U. P. by its order dated 23-4-1982. 5. In the counter affidavit, the State of U. P. has disputed the claim of the petitioners that they were class III employees of the State. The case of the State Government is that the State of U. P. has classified the services according to pay scales admissible to them into four categories. This had been done earlier in the year 1976, but, subsequently, in 1982 a fresh classification of the services under the State by means of the Government Oeder dated 27-2-1982 was made. This was in accordance with the revision of pay scales based on the recommendations of the Pay Commission. According to the aforesaid Government Order, the categories of the employees were now known as Ka, Kha, Ga, Gha, and not as Classes I to IV. The minimum of the pay scale of the petitioners since was less than Rs. 354, they would fall in the category Gha, which has been described in the Government Order as remainder. 6. The petitioners also have alleged in the writ petition that they were the members of the supervisory staff and on that account their pay scales should have been fixed treating them to be of the same category. 7. For the purpose of establishing that the petitioners were of the tegory of supervisory staff, the petitioners' could took us through the various annexures filed along with the writ petition and the rejoinder as supplementary affidavits. 8. We have carefully examined the documents and we are of opinion that neither the compositors nor the hinders would be included in the supervisory staff. 8. We have carefully examined the documents and we are of opinion that neither the compositors nor the hinders would be included in the supervisory staff. We do not consider it necessary to go into the past history of the classification of compositors and binders of the Government Press inasmuch as the rights of the petitioners are now to be governed by the recommendations of the Pay Commission which had been accepted by the Government. The Pay Commission, admittedly, had fixed the pay scales of the compositors and binders as Rs. 330-495 and Rs. 31.5-440 respectively. There being clear fixation of their pay scales, the petitioners would not be entitled to get any other scale or obtain fixation of their pay in the scales other than those which had been recommended by the Pay Commission. While holding this, we have at this place considered the question of equality which would be dealt with separately. We wish to note that the Pay Commission had elaborately gone into the question of fixation of pay scales of the employees, of the Government Press, and for this purpose it had also taken the assistance of the experts of the said branch. The fixation of pay scales is an executive job and it is not possible, in the absence of the allegation of discrimination, for this Court to interfere. Reference in this respect be made to the authority of the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 879 , where it was observed : "We concede that equation of posts and equation of Pay are matters, primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal, that is where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments." 9. From the recommendations of the Pay Commission it is also found that the Pay Commission had made recommendations by taking into consideration the nature of jobs done by the compositors and binders of the Government Press as well as of the other presses of the Government. From the recommendations of the Pay Commission it is also found that the Pay Commission had made recommendations by taking into consideration the nature of jobs done by the compositors and binders of the Government Press as well as of the other presses of the Government. It was on the recommendations of the Pay Commission that Pay scales were fixed of the Government Press at Allahabad of the compositors and binders, as well as that of others. 10. The petitioners' counsel next urged by referring to paragraphs 15 to 22 of the petition that although the petitioners are doing the same work and discharging the same functions as the compositors and binders in the other presses of the Government, but the emoluments and pay scales of the compositors and binders of the Government Press at Allahabad are lesser than those which are obtained at these places. 11. Before the Pay Commission, representations were made by the various Unions of the Government Press at Allahabad. These Unions were not unanimous in their demands. The Pay Commission, however, considered all the demands and thereafter made recommendations on the basis of which pay scales were fixed. It was observed by the Pay Commission that so far as compositors were concerned, they had good chances of promotion to higher scale and, consequently, that factor was also taken into account in making the recommendations. 12. With regard to the plea of the petitioners taken in paragraph 21 of the writ petition that compositors and binders of the Government Press at other places in Uttar Pradesh are getting more, no details or satisfactory evidence has been given before us. We are, therefore not in a position to express any concluded opinion on the said controversy. The petitioners have filed their representation to the State of U.P. It will be open to the State of U.P. to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners relating to the classification of their demand with regard to other presses of the State of U.P. This question is, therefore, left undecided. 13. The petitioners have filed their representation to the State of U.P. It will be open to the State of U.P. to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners relating to the classification of their demand with regard to other presses of the State of U.P. This question is, therefore, left undecided. 13. So far as discrimination from the presses established and run by the Harijan and Social Welfare Department of the State of U.P. is concerned, it has been denied in the counter-affidavit that the nature of work done by the presses run by the Harijan and Social Welfare Department is the same as that of the Government Press at Allahahad. It appears from the counter-affidavit that Harijan and Social Welfare Department of the State is running an Institute known as Pravadhik Udyogik Prashikshan Kendra. In this Kendra, there are no posts of compositors and binders. There are posts of Junior Instructors (composing) and Junior Instructors (Binding). Their nature of work is different from what is done by the compositors and binders in the Government Press. 14. Discrimination has also been alleged with the compositors and binders of the Regional Institute of Printing Technology, Allahabad. The pay scale recommended for both the posts of compositors and binders by the Pay Commission and accepted by the State of U. P. is Rs. 515-840. The petitioners have claimed that since they are doing the same work as in the aforesaid institution, therefore, they, should be given the same pay scale. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit it has been alleged that the Institute of Printing Technology does not have any past bearing the nomenclatures of compositors and binders. In justification. it has further been alleged that the pay scales of the aforesaid institutions are higher because of their higher educational qualifications and responsibilities. If the educational qualifications arc different and the work assigned to Junior Instructors (composing) and Junior Instructors (Binding) is different, there could be no comparison in the payment of salary. This fact as taken into account by the Pay Commission while fixing or recommending different pay scales for the employees in the Printing Technology, in the presses run by the Harijan and Social Welfare Department, as well as in the Government Press. 15. This fact as taken into account by the Pay Commission while fixing or recommending different pay scales for the employees in the Printing Technology, in the presses run by the Harijan and Social Welfare Department, as well as in the Government Press. 15. It was argued by the petitioner's counsel that simply because that Government servants are working in different Departments, that would not entitle the Government to discriminate in the matter of payment of salary. The preposition of the petitioners' counsel as it goes may be assumed to be correct. But, if different grades are created on the ground of higher educational qualifications or on account of the nature of the work being different, it is not possible to accept the complaint of dissimilar pay. It has come in the counter affidavit that the compositors and binders (admitting for argument's sake that Junior Instructors can be compared with compositors and binders) are acquired to impart education to persons who join these institutions, as such, their work could not be compared with that of compositors and binders of the Government Press. These institutions are not similarly situated. 16. Comparing themselves with the employees of Moti Lal Nehru Regional Engineering College, Allahabad, and G. B. Pant University, Pantnagar, Nainital, the petitioner's counsel urged that there was no justification in discriminating the petitioners doing the same work as compositors and binders and those two institutions. The nature of work of the compositors and hinders of these institutions is not the same. Counsel urged that no special importance could be attached to the fact asserted by the State Government that compositors and binders of those institutions participate in teaching the students who join them inasmuch has the petitioners also are assigned work to teach and guide the apprentices. In this view of the matter, there is no difference of functions, duties and responsibilities by them. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India (supra) the Supreme Court held that a differential treatment in appropriate cases can be justified, when there are two grades based on reasonable grounds, and stated as follows : "It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher academic qualifications or experiences based on length of service reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be applied to them." 17. Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in P. Savita v. Union of India (2) and a recently delivered judgment by it where the payment of different salaries to the daily wagers has been found of to be invalid by the Supreme Court. We have pointed out above that the nature work of the petitioners being different, it is not possible to direct the State Government to equate the scales of pay of compositors and binders of the Government Press. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this Petition. 18. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition, subject to what we have relating to the disposal of the representation filed by the petitioners by the State Government. No order as to costs.