Judgment : R. A. Sharma, J. 1. WHETHER the Labour Enforcement Officers belonging to the subordinate labour service Group-II of the State of Uttar Pradesh, are entitled to the parity in the pay scale with the Labour Enforcement Officers of the Central Government? is the question which is involved in this petition. 2. THE Government of U. P. in 1988 accepted in principle the demand of the State employees for the parity in the pay scale of the State and the Central Government employees. THE Government of U. P. accordingly, vide order dated October 14, 1988, appointed an Equivalence Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) for recommending the pay scale for State's employees after making comparative study of the structure of the pay scales of the State and the Central Government employees. THE Committee submitted its report recommending various pay scales for the employees of the State. As the Committee did not recommend the parity in the pay scale of the Labour Enforcement Officers of the State with their counterparts in the Central Government, the petitioners' association made representation before the State Government claiming such parity. THE State Government directed the Labour Commissioner, U. P., vide D. O. letter dated 7.7.1989 to examine the representation of the petitioners' association and send his recommendation in connection therewith to the Committee. THE Labour Commissioner examined the matter and submitted his report dated 11.8.1989 recommending the parity in the pay scale of the Labour Enforcement Officers of the State with their counterparts in the Central Government. THE Labour Commissioner while making the recommendation has also stated that the mode of selection, qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the Labour Enforcement Officers of the State and of those in the Central Government are similar. Inspite of the favourable recommendation of the Labour Commissioner, the Government did not grant the parity in pay to the Labour Enforcement Officers. Being aggrieved, the petitioner No. 1 which is an association formed by the Labour Enforcement Officers of the State of which petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary, has filed this writ petition. Petitioners No. 3 to 7 who are the Labour Enforcement Officers, have also been impleaded subsequently as petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioner No. 1 which is an association formed by the Labour Enforcement Officers of the State of which petitioner No. 2 is the Secretary, has filed this writ petition. Petitioners No. 3 to 7 who are the Labour Enforcement Officers, have also been impleaded subsequently as petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners has made two submissions, viz., (1) in view of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', the Labour Enforcement Officers of the State are entitled to the same pay scale which is given to the Labour Enforcement Officers of the Central Government; and (2) the State Government is bound to pay to the Labour Enforcement Officers of the State the same pay which is given to the officers of the same designation in the Central Government, because it is bound by its own decision accepting the demand of the State employees for parity in their pay scale with the Central Government employees. Learned counsel for the respondents have disputed the above contentions. 3. IN support of the first contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 and other cases dealing with doctrine of equal pay for equal work'. It is not necessary to deal with all those cases, because the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable where the employees doing the same/similar duties and functions are working under the same employer. Reference may be made to the decision of Randhir Singh v. Union of India (supra) wherein, in this connection, it has been laid down as under: "Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d), we are of the view that the principle 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of inequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer." Therefore, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be applied if the employees are not working under the same employer. IN the instant case, the petitioners are State Government employees and they cannot claim same salary which is given by the Central Government to its employees merely on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work'. The first contention, therefore, has to be rejected. IN the instant case, the petitioners are State Government employees and they cannot claim same salary which is given by the Central Government to its employees merely on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work'. The first contention, therefore, has to be rejected. 4. THERE is no dispute between the parties about the State Government's decision granting to the State employees the parity in the pay scale with the Central Government's employees. The State Government by its order dated October 14, 1988, while constituting the Committee for recommending the pay scales for the State's employees, has divided the posts in two categories, viz., (i) posts corresponding to which posts are available in the Central Government ; and (ii) the posts which have no corresponding posts in the Central Government. The Government has further laid down that the persons holding the posts of the first category will be given the central pay scales. Regarding the second category of the posts, the Committee was to recommend the pay scale after making comparative study of the pay structure of the both Governments. For finding out corresponding posts in the Central Government, the Committee has held that the designation of the posts is not decisive and what is relevant is the similarity in the educational qualifications, mode of recruitment, duties and responsibilities of the posts under the State and the Central Governments. Although the Committee has laid down the criteria for equation of the posts, but it did not decide the question as to whether the post of the Labour Enforcement Officer in the Central Government corresponds to the post of the Labour Enforcement Officer of the State Government. The result is that the question as to whether the Labour Enforcement Officers in the State are entitled to the Central pay scale has remained undecided, inspite of the detailed representation made by the petitioners' Association. The fact that the petitioners have made such a representation has been mentioned in the report of the Committee, but the report does not contain any decision/recommendation regarding the claim of the petitioners for the parity in the pay scale. No portion/part of the Committee's report containing such decision/recommendation has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties before us. As this question has not been decided by the Committee, the petitioners' again made representation before the Government. No portion/part of the Committee's report containing such decision/recommendation has been placed by the learned counsel for the parties before us. As this question has not been decided by the Committee, the petitioners' again made representation before the Government. Pursuant to the Government's order, the Labour Commissioner examined the said representations and submitted his report dated 11.8.1989 recommending the Central pay scale to the Labour Enforcement Officer of the State. The Government not having taken any action on his recommendation/ report, the Labour Commissioner has sent another report dated 31.3.1994 recommending the Central pay scale to the Labour Enforcement Officers of the State. In the said report, the Labour Commissioner has also stated that the mode of recruitment, qualifications and nature of duties and responsibilities of the Labour Enforcement Officers working under the two Governments are almost similar, but the Government has not taken any action on the second recommendation also. Inspite of the representations made by the petitioners, their claim for the pay-parity has not been decided by the Government and the Committee. Even the reports/recommendations of the Labour Commissioner, who is the head of the Labour Department of the State, could not move the Government to take a decision in the matter. The result is that the petitioner' claim has remained undecided. When the posts of the same designation exist both In the State and the Central Government, it was the duty of the Government to decide as to whether the post in the Central Government is a corresponding post. But the Government has failed to do so. In Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants Brotherhood, High Court, Allahabad v. State of U. P. and others, 1994 HVD (All) Vol 1,159, a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with similar controversy has laid down as under : "12. Before 1988 the staff of Allahabad High Court and Government of U. P. were not getting pay scales at par with the staff of Central Government, but they are agitating for being brought at par with the staff of Central Government pertaining to their scales of pay. Before 1988 the staff of Allahabad High Court and Government of U. P. were not getting pay scales at par with the staff of Central Government, but they are agitating for being brought at par with the staff of Central Government pertaining to their scales of pay. Ultimately, for the first time in the year 1988, Government of U. P. accepted their demands and took a policy decision that with effect from 1.1.1986 its staff be paid the pay scales of Central Government on the corresponding posts and thereby they became entitled to get same pay scales which were being paid to the holders of corresponding posts in the Central Government. [Vide Adhyay 2, 'Adhlkaradesh' at page 3 of the Report of Equivalence Committee, U. P. 1989 Part 1). 14. Here, it is to be noted that the posts in U. P. Government were divided by the Equivalence Committee into two categories (Vide Adhyay 5 of the report of the Equivalence Committee, U. P. 1989 Part 1). In the first category, there were such posts corresponding to which posts were available In the Central Government, whereas in the second category there were such posts corresponding to which posts were not available in the Central Government. The case of both the categories is quite different so far as the role of Equivalence Committee is concerned. For the posts of first category, the role of Committee was not in the nature of usual Pay Commissions rather, it was confined only, to compare, equate and decide that, this particular post of State Government is corresponding to that particular post of Central Government. The decision to pay the same pay scale was already taken by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The posts held by the petitioners fall in the first category." 5. THE Government in paragraph 28 of its counter-affidavit has stated that as the Labour Enforcement Officers are not gazetted officers and are merely Class III (Group C) employees of the Labour Department of the State, belonging to the subordinate labour service Group-II, they cannot be given the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3,200 which is given by the Central Government to its Labour Enforcement Officers, because the said pay scale has been sanctioned by the State Government for the gazetted officers of the Labour Department. 2,000-3,200 which is given by the Central Government to its Labour Enforcement Officers, because the said pay scale has been sanctioned by the State Government for the gazetted officers of the Labour Department. In this connection, it has further been stated that the petitioners' request for upgrading the status of their service to the gazetted rank, has been rejected by the Government by order dated 7.11.1992 and this order has not been challenged. Even If It is so, this cannot be the ground to reject the claim of the petitioners order for the pay. If the petitioners are entitled to the Central pay scale pursuant to the decision of the State Government, their claim cannot be rejected merely on the said ground. Supreme Court in Union of India and others v. Shri Debashis Kar and others, JT 19951 (5) SC 543 has, in this connection, laid down as under : "As regards the post of Chargeman Grade II being a promotional post for Draughtsman in Ordnance Factories and it being in the scale of Rs. 425-700 at the relevant time, we are of the view that merely because of promotional post of Draughtsmen in Ordnance Factories was in the scale of Rs. 425-700 cannot be a justification for denying the revision of pay scales to Draughtsmen and their being placed in the scale of Rs. 425-700 on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 if such Draughtsmen are otherwise entitled to such revision in the pay scale on the basis of the said Memorandum." 6. THE learned counsel representing the State has raised an apprehension that if the pay scale of the Labour Enforcement Officers is raised, there may be similar demand from other employees belonging to the Group C and this will create unsurmountable problems for the Government. Such an apprehension should have been considered by the Government before deciding to grant to its employees the Central pay scales. Having once taken the decision to give to its employees parity in the pay scale with the Central Government employees, it cannot withhold it now on the ground of apprehension of difficulty. It is bound by its own decision. As the Committee and the Government have failed to decide the question raised before them by the petitioners, the matter has to be remanded. 7. THIS writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. It is bound by its own decision. As the Committee and the Government have failed to decide the question raised before them by the petitioners, the matter has to be remanded. 7. THIS writ petition is accordingly allowed with costs. The Government of Uttar Pradesh is directed to decide the question of giving to the Labour Enforcement Officers of the State the parity in the pay scale with the Labour Enforcement Officers in the Central Government in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it. It will be open to the Government to decide this question itself straightaway or to refer the matter to the Committee and decide the same after getting its report.