JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, J.—By this common judgment) and order we propose to dispose of two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and registered as C. W. P. No 248 of 1989 and a W. P. No. 54 of 1993 as the facts are similar and points of law involved are the same. 2. The facts of C. W. P. No, 248 of 1989 are as follows. The present petition has been filed by four persons who are senior clerks of the High Court against the High Court, State of Himachal Pradesh and some other persons who are working as Translators in this court. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the posts of clerks, Proof Readers and Junior Translators are in the same scale of pay but the posts of Junior Translators were re-designated as Translators and they were given a higher scale of pay and not to the present petitioners. According to the present petitioners the work of the present petitioners is arduous in S whereas the work of a translator is only which is entrusted by the High Court to the Junior Translator and he is not in a position to do and cope with the work of a clerk as a. clerk has to perform multifarious duties in he High Court. It has also been alleged that while preparing the seniority list of officers and subordinates on the establishment of the High Court, the category of senior clerks/clerks/junior translators and proof readers was kept under one head and in the final seniority list the sanctioned strength of these category is shown as 47 and a joint seniority list was prepared. The senior scale was also given to the entire category namely clerks, junior translators and proof readers etc. In the month of November 1988, the Junior Translators had been designated as Translators and while doing so the post of Junior Translator has been made Translator with a higher basic pay scale. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though initially all of them were clubbed together and given one pay scale, now by upgrading the post of junior translator to the post of translator they have been given a high pay scale. 3. The main grievance of the petitioners is that though initially all of them were clubbed together and given one pay scale, now by upgrading the post of junior translator to the post of translator they have been given a high pay scale. Therefore, the petitioners have alleged that equal pay for equal work has not been accepted while doing so and therefore the equation of posts of junior translator with the translator with higher pay scale is arbitrary in nature It has been stated that the work performed by the present petitioners, responsibility shared by them and the functions performed by them are thus comparable with those of the translators it would be seen that there is no lawful justification for not allowing this pay scale to the present petitioners which is now being enjoyed by the junior translators on being redesignated as translators. In other words, it has been pleaded, that there was violation of equal pay for equal work as envisaged in the Constitution. 4. The main reply has been filed on behalf of the High Court It is not disputed that the posts of clerks/Proof Readers and Junior Translator were clubbed together and formed a joint seniority list It has been stated that the prescribed qualification for the post of Junior Translator, now Translator, is Honours in Hindi or Urdu or degree in Hindi and Urdu as elective subject whereas the minimum qualification for the post of clerk/ Proof Reader is Matriculation with first division. Regarding nature of duties it has been stated that the junior translator now translator is a specialised job requiring certain experience and expertise whereas a clerk . has to perform different duties assigned to him depending on the branch in which he is posted. Therefore, two jobs as well as job requirement being distinct a comparative evaluation of the functional work and similarity and dis-similarity of responsibilities is not reasonably practicable Regarding equating the posts in the Secretariat, it has been stated that under the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Officers and Servants (Salary Leave Allowances and Pension) Rules, 1971. Therefore, two jobs as well as job requirement being distinct a comparative evaluation of the functional work and similarity and dis-similarity of responsibilities is not reasonably practicable Regarding equating the posts in the Secretariat, it has been stated that under the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Officers and Servants (Salary Leave Allowances and Pension) Rules, 1971. it is competent for the Honble to Chief Justice to revise from time to time the scales etc and also to equate employees of the High Court so as to bring them at par with the scale and pay and allowances which may be sanctioned by the Government of Himachal Pradesh from time to time for the corresponding or comparable categories of the employees-of the H P Civil Secretariat. The post of Junior translator has been equated with the post of Assistant in the Himachal Pradesh Secretariat in view of the change of designation and the scale of pay sanctioned for that post but the post of Clerks in the High Court Registry in view of the above rule cannot be equated with that of the post of Assistant in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat. In the affidavit it has been stated that under the High Court) of Himachal Pradesh (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1992, there is a separate line of promotion for clerks, Assistants and Deputy Superintendents on the one side and the translators and Revisors on the other side wherein ratio of promotion of posts for above-mentioned two lines for further promotion to the posts of Superintendent/Reader has been fixed. A copy of the rules has been annexed, Facts of C. W P No 54 of 1993. 5. This petition has been filed by five persons who are working as Superintendents and Senior Assistants in the establishment of the High Court against the High Court, State Government and other senior Translators which post has been re-designated as re visor. The petitioners were in the same pay scale as that of Reader to the Registrar, senior translator, Librarian, Court Officer and Record Keeper of this High Court, as per rules at Annexure PA to the petition. The petitioners were in the same pay scale as that of Reader to the Registrar, senior translator, Librarian, Court Officer and Record Keeper of this High Court, as per rules at Annexure PA to the petition. After the revision of pay scales with effect from 1-1-1978 the Honble the Chief Justice of this court was pleased to equate the existing posts of the Registry cadre with the corresponding and comparable posts in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat with the approval of the Governor of Himachal Pradesh vide Annexure PC to the writ petition. The said categories have already been stated above The scales of senior translators were revised/enhanced with effect from 24-9-1985 vide Annexure PE to the writ petition and the said post was re-designated as Translator and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1120 with a senior scale of Rs 800-1450 in the ratio of 50 : 50 It is stated that before the re-designation of the post of Junior translator as Translator, they were in the scale of Rs. 570-1080 and 400 600 and that the clerks, Junior Translators and Proof Readers from a common feeder cadre for the purpose of promotion for the post of Assistant and also placement in the senior scale of Rs. 510800 and any other benefits accruing by virtue of common seniority and common feeder cadre, it has been stated that the Assistants, Reader to the Registrar, Senior Translator, Court Officer, Liorarian and Record Keeper formed a common feeder category for senior scale and promotion to higher post and any other benefit accruing to them by virtue of their placement in this combined seniority list. All these posts have been clubbed together and the cadre remained the same. The seniority list has been annexed at Annexure PF to the petition From 26-9-1985 the posts of Senior Translator and Junior Translator have been re designated and have been placed at a higher pay scale Out of three posts of senior Translators two have been re-designated as those of revisors in the pay scale of Rs 800-1400 plus Rs. 50 special pay and remaining one post of senior translator and certain junior translators have been re-designated as Translators and they have been place in the scale-of Rs. 50 special pay and remaining one post of senior translator and certain junior translators have been re-designated as Translators and they have been place in the scale-of Rs. 600-1200 and out of the same some have been placed in the senior scale of Rs 800-1400 That apart, these posts have been equated with the corresponding and comparable posts with the Himachal Pradesh Cm! Secretariat According to thv5 petitioners, Assistants, Reader to the Registrar, Senior Translators, Court Officer, Librarian and Record Keeper were clubbed together for the purpose of common seniority list and these posts were treated together as a common feeder category for senior scale and promotion to higher post and any other benefit accruing to them by placing in the said combined seniority list. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the above posts were clubbed together and senior translators given a higher scale of pay, this is denied to the other category of posts and they are deprived from their status. It has also been stated that the nature of duties performed by the Assistants and other categories of posts are more arduous and multifarious then those performed by junior and senior translators inasmuch as the only duty performed by a translator is to translate documents filed in this High Court. It has also been stated that the Assistants are dealing with day to day work in the Registry of this court such as to keep all manuals, Acts, Rules etc. The petitioners have submitted that the discrimination which has now been made has resulted in anomaly inasmuch as persons similarly situate with the petitioners have been stepped up in pay scale and the category below the petitioners have been brought at par with the petitioners. This has been done merely because monetary benefit and different name have been given to the posts which have been re-designated. It has also been stated that though the pay scale of the senior translators and junior translators have been stepped up, there is no change in duties and functions of the posts which have been re-named and re-designated. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39 of the Constitution. It has also been stated that though the pay scale of the senior translators and junior translators have been stepped up, there is no change in duties and functions of the posts which have been re-named and re-designated. Therefore, the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39 of the Constitution. As per direction of this court dated 24-5-1989 passed in C. W. P. No. 207 of 1989, the petitioners filed a petition before the Honble Chief Justice which was rejected on the ground that the equation of posts and grant of benefit can only be allowed to the extent permissible to the corresponding and comparable categories of employees in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat, It may be stated that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowances and Pension) Rules were amended whereby the post of senior translator, now revisor, junior translator, now Translator, were re-designated and the posts were equated with the higher post of Deputy Superintendent and Assistants respectively The petitioners have challenged this action as arbitrary and against the law. 6. Reply has been filed on behalf of the High Court and in the said reply it has been stated that in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the Honble the Chief Justice with the approval of the Governor framed the Himachal Pradesh High Court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowances and Pension) Rules, 1971 and the said rules came into force from 25-1-1971. In Schedule I of the said rules pay scales of the posts of Reader to the Registrar, Court Officer, Record Keeper (Assistant) Librarian and Senior Translators have been shown separately and all those posts were equated with the post of Assistant in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat At the request of the High Court, the State Government on 13-4 1987 conveyed the approval of the Governor for the equation and re-designation and revision of pay scales of the posts of Senior Translator and Junior Translators and also for equation of the re-designated posts with the corresponding and comparable posts in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Accordingly the High Court amended the rules and the post of Senior Translators were re-designated as Revisors and those of Junior Translators and other senior Translators as Translators. Pay scales were also prescribed and according to the said pay scale Rs 800-1400 plus Rs 50 as special pay was given to the revisor and Rs. 600-1200 for the post of Translator. Senior Scale of Rs. 800-1400 was given to 50 per cent posts of Translators Consequently, the rules were amended. By the said amendment the post of revisor was equated with the post of Deputy Superintendent and the post of translator was equated, with the post of Assistant in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat It may be stated that at the time there were only three posts of senior translators and out of the three, two posts were re-designated as revisors and one post was kept as translator. 7. In the reply affidavit it has been stated that after coming into force the Himachal Pradesh High Court (Recruitment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1992, promotions have been made to the posts of Superintendents and Readers from amongst the graduate Deputy Superintendents Revisors in the ratio of 4 : 1 and the posts of Deputy Superintendents are filled up from Senior Assistants, clerk/Proof Readers forming a feeder category for the post of Assistant. On the other hand, Revisors are being promoted from amongst the Translators and, therefore, there is no question of drawing the new seniority list in view of the above rules Regarding nature of duties, it may be stated that so far as the work of a Revisor is concerned, it is a specialised job requiring certain experience and expertise But an Assistant has to perform the same functions and duties depending upon the Branch in which he is posted. Having regard to the different nature of duties discharged and functions performed by a Revisor and an Assistant it is difficult to evaluate the quantity and quality of work on a comparative basis. Regarding educational qualification, it has been stated that the post of Senior Translator can be filled up from amongst Junior Translators with a minimum service of five years in the court. On the other hand, matriculates with first division can be appointed as clerks and promotion to the post of Assistants can also be made from amongst the clerks without the requirement of a particular period of service. On the other hand, matriculates with first division can be appointed as clerks and promotion to the post of Assistants can also be made from amongst the clerks without the requirement of a particular period of service. Regarding Junior Translators which have now been re-designated as Senior Translators, it has been stated that the minimum educational qualification prescribed for the post of Translator is a Masters degree holder either in Hindi or in English whereas for the post of Deputy Superintendent, Senior Assistant, Clerks it is matriculate. 8. We have heard Shri D. D. Sood, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri A. K. Goel and Shri Rajiv Sharma for the High Court, Shri Indar Singh, Advocate General for the State and Shri K. D. Sood for the respondents in both the cases. 9. In support of his contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on decisions of the apex Court. The first decision is Mervyn Continho and others v. Collector of Customs, AIR 1967 SC 52. In this case the question was regarding the fixation of seniority by rotation system, that is, by alternately fixing promoters and direct recruit in seniority list. In our opinion, there is no such question of fixation of seniority and, therefore, this decision of the apex Court is not applicable to both the petitions. The next decision of the apex Court is Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1889. In this case also the question was absorption of direct recruits and promotees in one cadre and there can be no discrimination for future promotion In both the petitions also the question of absorption of different cadres of employees is not relevant and, therefore, this decision is also not applicable to both the petitions. 10. In K C. Arora v. State of Haryana and others, 1984 Lab IC 1015, the question which came up for consideration was regarding giving of weightage of military service to a person appointed in civil post. Such a question is not involved in both the petitions 11. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lakha Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1985 (2) SLR 695. Such a question is not involved in both the petitions 11. Our attention has also been drawn to a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Lakha Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1985 (2) SLR 695. In this case the question of seniority of Head Constables had come up for consideration In both the petitions before us, the question of fixation of seniority is not involved and therefore, this decision is not relevant for the purpose of the present petitions, 12. On behalf of the High Court reliance has been placed on a decision of the apex Court in Secretary 9 Finance Department and others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, AIR 1992 SC 1203. In that case their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales are the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily Courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts, must however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake some times on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees From the Annexures annexed to both the petitioners it is absolutely clear that the pay scales of different categories of posts were fixed separately The posts of clerk, Assistant, Junior Translator and Senior Translators were shown separately and pay scales were also shown. Therefore, from these documents it cannot be said that they formed a common cadre. On the top of that as stated above, the qualification laid down for entry to the post of clerk is different from the qualification laid down for entry to the post of Junior or Senior Translators. There is absolutely no comparison regarding educational qualification of these posts. On the top of that as stated above, the qualification laid down for entry to the post of clerk is different from the qualification laid down for entry to the post of Junior or Senior Translators. There is absolutely no comparison regarding educational qualification of these posts. That apart, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the work of a translator is the same or similar to that of a clerk or an Assistant Therefore, all these posts stand on a separate footing. It is true that initially a common seniority list was prepared for these posts, but that by itself cannot give a right to the petitioners to claim the revised pay scales given to the translators and revisors. It may be stated that in the counter filed by the High Court, it has been clearly stated that the question of preparing a common seniority list after increase of pay scale of the translators and revisors cannot arise. 13. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court it appears that for revision of pay scale of both Senior Translators and Junior Translators a proposal was taken up by the High Court and thereafter it was revised to the present pay scale. As laid down in Secretary Finance Department and others (supra), sitting as a writ Court, we are unable to determine the pay scales of the petitioners in both the petitions and give them the pay scales as claimed by them. It is the primary duty of the executive and not of the judiciary. That apart, we have given out due consideration and we find it very difficult to do so. We also do not find that the present petitioners have been treated arbitrarily while fixing the pay scales of Senior Translators and Junior Translators. 14. Fixation of pay scales and equation of the posts of the High Court employees are done by the Honble the Chief Justice by exercising powers under Article 229 of the Constitution. It is settled law that powers under Article 229 of the Constitution is a legislative power and this Court cannot give any direction to a legislative body to do it in a particular way. On this count also the writ prayed for cannot be granted. It is settled law that powers under Article 229 of the Constitution is a legislative power and this Court cannot give any direction to a legislative body to do it in a particular way. On this count also the writ prayed for cannot be granted. Situated thus, we hold that the post of clerk/Assistant of this High Court cannot be equated with the post of translators including revisors inasmuch as the nature of duties performed by them are quite different and on top of that the educational qualifications for initial appointment as clerk are much lower than initial entry for appointment as Translators. Therefore, the question of equal pay for equal work cannot arise. We also do not find any arbitrariness while increasing the pay scales of Translators and Revisors. 15. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in both the petitions and accordingly these are dismissed. No costs Petitions dismissed.