JUDGMENT - H.W. DHABE, J.:---The petitioners who are working as surveyors in the Geology Mining Department of the State Government claim that their pay scales should have been fixed in Grade -10 recommended and accepted by taking into consideration the nature of the duties performed by them. 2. Briefly the facts are that the State Government appointed Bhole Pay Commission for rationalisation and also revision of the pay scales applicable to the various cadres and posts ( other than those included in the All India Service) as per its Resolution dated 24-2-1975. As per the terms of reference, the Bhole Pay Commission went into the question of rationalisation of the pay-scales of various cadres and posts. Broadly, it recommended 10 grades and common pay-scales for non-gazetted posts and while doing so, it took into consideration the factors such as nature of duties, qualifications, promotional avenues etc. and then fitted various non-gazetted Cadres and posts in the Government service in the aforesaid 10 common pay scales proposed by it. The State Government thereafter accepted the recommendations of the Bhole Pay Commission making the pay scales proposed by it applicable from 1-4-1976. 2-A. The Surveyors in the Directorate of Geology Mining were given the pay scale of Grade -6 as proposed by the Bhole Pay Commission. The petitioners and their Association made a representation to the State Government that looking to the nature of the duties performed by the surveyors and the difficult conditions in which they work, the surveyors in the Directors of Geology Mining should have been given the pay scale in Grade 8 by the Bhole Pay Commission. The Directors of Geology Mining while forwarding the representation to the Government on 21-2-1978 recommended that looking to the nature of duties of the surveyors in the Directorate of Geology Mining and looking to the fact that they have mearge chances of promotion, they should be given the pay-scale in Grade 8. The said recommendation was reiterated by him in the subsequent letter dated 23-6-1978, addressed to the Section Officer, industries, Energy Labour Department. The State Government, however, by its letter dated 14-5-1985 informed the Director, Geology Mining, Nagpur, that his proposal for giving the pay scale of Grade -8 to the Surveyors in Geology Mining Department cannot accepted. 3. The said recommendation was reiterated by him in the subsequent letter dated 23-6-1978, addressed to the Section Officer, industries, Energy Labour Department. The State Government, however, by its letter dated 14-5-1985 informed the Director, Geology Mining, Nagpur, that his proposal for giving the pay scale of Grade -8 to the Surveyors in Geology Mining Department cannot accepted. 3. Feeling, therefore, aggrieved the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition claiming the relied that their pay fixation in Grade 6 should be set aside. Although originally no relief about their proper pay fixation was claimed, by amendment the relief is claimed that the Surveyors in the Geology Mining Department should be given the pay scale in Grade -10. Since all the facts and circumstances were averred in the petition, and all the necessary data was placed before us, the proposed amendment, which was merely technical, was allowed by us. The respondents have resisted the petition by filing their return, the main submission being that the pay scale in Grade 6 given to the surveyors in the Geology Mining Department was properly fixed. 4. On the basis of the rival submissions the main question which arises for consideration before us is whether the claim of the petitioners for fixation in higher grade was considered by the State Government or not. It may be seen that the Surveyors in the Geology Mining Department as well as in other Departments of the State Government such as B. C. Irrigation and Land Record Departments possess technical qualifications below the graduation level. They are holding either diploma in Civil Engineering or S.S.C. qualification with I.T.I. course in surveying for surveyors in the Geological Mining Departments. The existing pay-scale as per the Badkas Pay Commission and the revised pay-scale as per the Bhole Pay Commission of the surveyors in various departments of the State Government were as follows : Existing pay scale Revised pay Scale Grade as per Badkas Pay as per Bhole Pay Commission. Commission. Geology Mining, Irrigation and B. C. Departments 160 - 340 290 - 540 6 in Land Records Department 130 - 220 335 - 680 7 It is also pertinent to notice that as per the new revised pay rules which have come in force in 1988, the revised pay-scale for the surveyors in the Geology Mining Department, B. C. Departments, and the Irrigation Department is Rs. 1200-1800 and for the Theodolite surveyors in the Land Records Departments, it is Rs. 1400-2600. 5. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice some of the recommendations of the Bhole Pay Commission. Rationalisation of pay-scales is considered by it in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 deals with the formulation of pay-scales. It is clear from reading the said chapters that for the non-gazetted posts, the classification of the pay scales is made into 10 grades, Up to Grade-6 , the pay scales are provided for those who have passed the S.S.C. and one year or two year diploma or certificate course and from grades 7 to 10, the pay-scales are for those who have acquired graduate qualification in different disciplines. Although broadly the pay scales are fixed with reference to the qualifications in para 4.23, special factors are also referred to and are taken into account for graduation of certain posts. For instance, for the post of Geological Assistants, although the gradation was considered as justified in Grade -7 according to the qualifications, its special feature that the work was in difficult consolidations was taken into considerations and hence the gradation recommended for the said post by the Bhole Pay Commission was Grade 10. Similarly, the tabular statement in para 4. 23 also shows that although in regard to certain posts the qualification is below the graduation level, taking into consideration the special features of the said posts, gradation higher than Grade 6 i.e. the gradation which is meant for the posts having graduate qualification, is given to the said posts. It is this para 4.23 which is pressed into service on behalf of the petitioners to claim higher grade for them. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has also brought to our notice the recommendations of the Bhole Commission in regard to the technical grades in paras 7.32 and 7.33 to show the basis for its awarding Grade 6 to the surveyors in the Geology Mining Department. Perusal of the recommendations therein show that expect for the technical posts in the Dairy Development Printing Stationery Departments which have been covered by job evaluation, the pay scales recommended for other technical posts in para 7.33 are not on basis of the minimum qualification only. 6. Perusal of the recommendations therein show that expect for the technical posts in the Dairy Development Printing Stationery Departments which have been covered by job evaluation, the pay scales recommended for other technical posts in para 7.33 are not on basis of the minimum qualification only. 6. It is the submission on behalf of the petitioners that as per the nature of duties performed by them, they should have been given the pay scale in Grade 8 and after considering the special feature of their duties that they have to work in difficult conditions viz. hazardous places, they should have been granted two further grades as is done by the Bhole Pay Commission in para 4.23 of its report. It is thus that the petitioners in the instant writ petition have claimed Grade 10. It is then urged that giving the pay scale in Grade 6 to the petitioners is arbitrary because the surveyors in the Land Records Department, whose existing pay scale was 130-220, which was lower than the existing pay scales of the surveyors in Geology Mining Department were given higher pay scale of Rs. 335 - 680 in Grade 7 by the Bhole Pay Commission, whereas the surveyors in Geology Mining Department, whose existing pay scales was higher, were given lower pay scale in Grade 6. On the basis of the above anomaly, it is urged that if the surveyors in the Land Records Department were given the pay scale in Grade 7, the Surveyors in the Geology Mining Department whose existing pay scale was higher should have been given the pay scale in the higher grade i.e. Grade 8. Considering then the risk factor involved in their work, it is urged that the pay fixation in still higher Grade 10 should have been made in accordance with para 4.23 of the recommendation of the Bhole Pay Commission. 7. The petitioners claim that their case is fortified further by the recommendation in their favour given by the Director of Geology Mining as per his latter dated 21-2-1978, addressed to the section Officer of the Industries, Energy Labour Department. 7. The petitioners claim that their case is fortified further by the recommendation in their favour given by the Director of Geology Mining as per his latter dated 21-2-1978, addressed to the section Officer of the Industries, Energy Labour Department. It is urged that after taking into consideration the nature of the duties performed by the Surveyors in Geology Mining Department, the mearge promotional arrangements afforded to them and the anomaly in the grades given to the surveyors in the Land Record Department and the surveyors in the Geology Mining Departments, the Director has recommended that the surveyors in the Geology Mining Department should be given the pay scale of Grade 8. 8. In appreciating the above submission made on behalf of the petitioners, it may be seen that the representation made by the various employees of the State Government, including the representations made by the Surveyors, were referred to the Anomoly Committee constituted by the State Government to go into their representations and/or grievances about their pay fixation. The Government has also constituted a Secretaries Committee to go into the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee and/or the grievances of the employees about their pay fixation. After the recommendations made by the Director of Geology Mining Department, it appears that the matter was referred to the Finance Department of the State Government for its consideration. The minutes of the consideration by the Finance Department are shown to us by the learned Counsel appearing for the State. A copy of the said minutes is also placed on record. It is clear from the said minutes that the Anomalies Committee, as well as the Secretaries Committee which examined the recommendations of the Anomalies Committee, have considered the question of proper scales to be given to the surveyors in the Geological Mining Department. Both these Committees have come to the conclusion that there is no anomaly in the pay scale recommended for the surveyors by the Bhole Pay Commission. 9. It is also pertinent to see that for the Surveyors in the Geological Mining Department, the promotional posts are of the Senior Surveyors and the Head Surveyor, for which the revised pay scales as per the Bhole Pay Commission are Rs. 365 -735 and Rs. 500-900, respectively, which are the pay scales in the Grades 8 and 10. 9. It is also pertinent to see that for the Surveyors in the Geological Mining Department, the promotional posts are of the Senior Surveyors and the Head Surveyor, for which the revised pay scales as per the Bhole Pay Commission are Rs. 365 -735 and Rs. 500-900, respectively, which are the pay scales in the Grades 8 and 10. If the pay scale in Grade-8 or Grade 10 is awarded to the surveyors, it would then create an anomaly because the pay-scale of the surveyors would then be the same as that of the present promotional posts having supervisory duties. It is material to see that Grade -10 , which is claimed by the surveyors is the highest in the non-gazetted posts and the said grade is given to the promotional post of Head -Surveyor, which cannot, therefore, be further revised. 10. It may be seen that as regard the non-gazetted technical posts after taking into consideration the factors enumerated in para 7.33 of the report and in particular the difficulties experienced in grading such posts on the basis of the qualifications only expect in the case of the technical posts in the Dairy Development and Printing stationery Departments which were covered by job evaluation the Bhole Pay Commission has grouped the existing scales of the technical posts and has equated them to a common grade out of aforesaid 10 categories of pay scales or grades recommended by it. However, the said fixation in para 7.33 was made subject to the certain exceptions and as provided in para 7.34 for justifiable reasons departure from the pay scale recommended in para 7.33 in regard to the technical posts by placing the post in the higher or the lower grade was allowed. It is further clear from para 7.35 that in the case of Foremen and other comparable supervisory categories, the Bhole Pay Commission has generally recommended Grade -8 irrespective of their existing scales. It is for this reason that it appears that the posts of Senior Surveyor which is a supervisory category is given the pay scale of Grade -8. The Head Supervisors is still a higher post as compared to the post of surveyor and senior surveyor for which reason the pay- scale of Grade -10 is recommended for the said post. It is for this reason that it appears that the posts of Senior Surveyor which is a supervisory category is given the pay scale of Grade -8. The Head Supervisors is still a higher post as compared to the post of surveyor and senior surveyor for which reason the pay- scale of Grade -10 is recommended for the said post. It is thus clear that looking to the hierarchy of the posts in the Geology Mining Department, as referred to above, it is not possible to give higher grade to the post of surveyor. 11. Apart from the above reason about the pay-scales recommended for the promotional posts, the Finance Department has given good reasons why the proposal for revision of pay scales for the surveyors cannot be accepted. It has also referred to the report of the Anomalies Committee as well as the Secretaries Committee which have rejected the representation of the petitioners for revision of pay scales. The reasons given by the Finance Department cannot be said to be erroneous or perverse. It may be seen that fixation of pay scale or its revision is principally an administrative or managerial function and when the Pay Commission appointed by the Government has evolved certain norms and taken into consideration the exceptions also to the said norms and thereafter fitted the cadres and posts of the Government servants in the various scales recommended by it, no interferences is called for unless it is a glaring case of injustice see : (State of U.P. others v. J.P. Chaurasia others)1, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 19 and (Umesh Chandra others v. Oil Natural Gas Commission others)2, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 29. Moreover, the State Government has provided further checks upon any omissions that might have been made or any injustice that might have been caused to the Government servants in the Report of the Bhole Pay Commission by appointing two Committees, viz. Anomalies Committee and thereafter Secretaries Committees, to consider the grievances of the Government servants. In regard to their revision of pay by the Bhole Pay Commission. The said Committees have considered the grievances of the petitioners and rejected the same. No interference is, therefore, called for in the revision of pay scale recommended by the Bhole Pay Commission. 12. Anomalies Committee and thereafter Secretaries Committees, to consider the grievances of the Government servants. In regard to their revision of pay by the Bhole Pay Commission. The said Committees have considered the grievances of the petitioners and rejected the same. No interference is, therefore, called for in the revision of pay scale recommended by the Bhole Pay Commission. 12. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has, however, urged before us that the factor about the nature duties performed by the surveyors in the Department of Geology Mining was not considered by the Anomaly Committee or the Secretaries Committee before reaching their conclusions. In the first place, there is no such specific averment in this regard. However, even otherwise, there is no substance in the above submission because the principal factor which has to be taken into consideration and looked in to and which was represented by the petitioners to the State Government was about the nature of their duties. It may, however, be seen that the nature of duties cannot be the sole or an isolated factor in fixing and revising the pay scale. Apart from the other relevant factors such as qualifications, promotional avenues etc., the scheme of rationalisation or revision the pay scale has to take into consideration the pay scales to be fixed for other posts in the same department, particularly the promotional posts or similar posts in other departments. Sometimes, looking to the special features or the structure of pay scales or the set up of a particular department, although it may have a post similar to the post in another departments, its revision of pay scale may not be the same as in the other departments, its revision of pay scale may not be same as in the other departments. Such is the case of the post of surveyor in the Land Records Department which we have dealt with separately. 13. As pointed out above, applying the criteria of nature of duties attached to the post of surveyor, its pay scale has to be fixed by taking into consideration the pay scale to be fixed for the higher promotional post an application of the said criteria of nature of duties attached to such promotional posts. 13. As pointed out above, applying the criteria of nature of duties attached to the post of surveyor, its pay scale has to be fixed by taking into consideration the pay scale to be fixed for the higher promotional post an application of the said criteria of nature of duties attached to such promotional posts. The first question to be considered in this instant case, therefore, would be what the pay scale of the higher non-gazetted posts of the Senior Surveyors and the Head Surveyors in the Department of Geology Mining should be looking to the nature of duties attached to these posts. It is not in dispute that there are higher posts having supervisory duties. It may be seen that for the non-gazetted posts 10 common pay scales are recommended out of which the pay scale of Grade 10 is the highest. If looking to the nature of duties attached to the post of Head surveyor the higher pay scale of Grant -10 is recommended to the post of Head Surveyor then on the basis of nature of duties, attached to the post of surveyor surely the said pay scale cannot be attached to the post of surveyor, which is a post lower than the post of Head Surveyor. Similarly, since the post of senior surveyor carries admittedly supervisor duties, as provided in para 7.35 of the Report of Bhole Pay Commission, the pay scale of Grade - 8 is given to the said post. 13-A. It is thus clear that even looking to the nature of duties attached to the post surveyor, the pay scale of a grade below Grade-8 could only be fixed for the post of Surveyor in the Geology and Mining Department. It appears from the pay Schedule for the posts in the Directorate of Geology and Mining that Grade-6 was recommended by the Bhole Pay Commission for the post of surveyors in the said Department because the same grade was recommended for the post of Surveyors in the Public Works Department vide page 301 of part II of the Report of Bhole Pay Commission. In para 8 116 ( Part I of the Report) relating to the post of surveyors in the irrigation Department, Bhole Pay Commission has given reasons why Grade-6 is recommended for the said post of Surveyor in the irrigation Department. In para 8 116 ( Part I of the Report) relating to the post of surveyors in the irrigation Department, Bhole Pay Commission has given reasons why Grade-6 is recommended for the said post of Surveyor in the irrigation Department. The same reasons are adopted for giving Grade-6 to the post of Surveyor in the Public Works Department in para 8.125 of the Report ( Part I) of the Bhole pay Commission. As regards the post of Surveyor in the Directorate of Geology and Mining, although no reason is given which is peculiar to the said Department, the pay-scale of Grade 6 is given because it appears that the existing pay-scales of the post of Surveyors in the Irrigation Department, the Public Works Department and the Directorate of Geology Mining was the same. This criteria of common pay-scale for similar posts in these Departments is made applicable by Bhole Pay Commission while giving Grade-6 to the post of Surveyor in the Geology Mining Department as is clear from the remark against the said post at page 301 of the report referred to above. It cannot be said that the application of the said criteria is either erroneous or perverse or has no rationale or basis. The said recommendation therefore, cannot be interfered with in our writ jurisdiction. 14. As regards the last question about giving higher pay scale to the surveyors in the land Records Department, it may be seen that although apparently it appears that there is discrimination in giving higher pay scale to the surveyors in Land Records Department, it would appear that looking to the set up, the pay structure of the non-gazetted posts and the peculiar problems in the said Department, higher pay scale was given to the post of surveyors in that Department. The Bhole pay Commission has considered the question of posts and problems peculiar to some departments in Chapter 8 of its Report. It has considered the peculiar problems of the land Records Department in paras 8.181 to 8.184. In para 8.183, it has found that there were four groups in the non-gazetted Class III categories with the pay scales as shown in the said para. After examining the material on record, the Bhole Pay Commission came to the conclusion that it was necessary to rationalise the posts in Group-II and Group-III by combining them and by giving them one common pay scale. After examining the material on record, the Bhole Pay Commission came to the conclusion that it was necessary to rationalise the posts in Group-II and Group-III by combining them and by giving them one common pay scale. It is, therefore, clear that it is because of the above rationalisation and combining of the posts in groups II and III that the surveyors in the Land records have been given the higher pay scale in Grade-7. If the recommendations of the Bhole Pay Commission in giving the pay scale of Grade-7 to the Surveyors in the Land Records Departments is based upon rationalisation of the posts in the said department as discussed above, it cannot be said that its action is arbitrary or discriminatory only because the pay-scale attached to the similar post in the Geological and Mining Department is lower i.e. of Grade -6. For all these reasons, the submission of the petitioners that there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution cannot, therefore, be accepted. 15. In the result, the instant writ petition fails and is dismissed. Under the circumstances, however, there would be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed