JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are working as Artists in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan being aggrieved by the pay scale in which they are presently placed have assailed the impugned order dated 8.9.1993 (Annexure-9) issued by the State Government on the ground of denial of the parity in the matter of pay scales with that of similarly placed Artists, working in the Department of Public Relations of the State of Rajasthan who are getting the benefit of higher pay scales. 2. The grievance of the petitioners in short is that they have been working as Artists in the Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan and they are aggrieved by the pay scales in which they are presently working on the grounds inter alia that they have been discriminated qua similarly placed artists, who are performing similar functions and duties in the Department of Public Relations, Government of Rajasthan and who are enjoying the benefit of higher pay scales despite that fact that the petitioners, who are similarly placed artists performing same nature of duties and responsibilities in the Agriculture Department of the State have been discriminated in the matter of pay scales and other benefits, which according to them is clearly in violation of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioners have further contended that they were appointed as Artists by way of direct recruitment under Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 "for short the Rules 1978" vide orders dated 16.10.1990 and 17.7.1992 respectively. The petitioners were holding the posts of Artists in substantive capacity and by way of illustration, the petitioners have prepared a statement showing their duties in terms of their appointment, qualification and present place of posting vide Schedule-A on the record. The petitioners have further contended that there is absolutely no difference in the matter of their duties, responsibilities, and educational qualifications, therefore, there should be no disparity in the matter of pay scales qua the similarly placed artists in the Public Relations Department of the State Government. 4. The petitioners have further contended that there is absolutely no difference in the matter of their duties, responsibilities, and educational qualifications, therefore, there should be no disparity in the matter of pay scales qua the similarly placed artists in the Public Relations Department of the State Government. 4. In view of the dispute raised by the respondents, the matter was examined by the State Government and it finally came to the conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to the relief of higher pay-scales nor they are entitled to claim any parity with the similarly placed artists in the Public Relations Department particularly when the artists in the two different departments are not performing same duties and functions and hence they cannot be held entitled to the same pay-scales. The respondents on being noticed by this Court have filed their reply opposing the writ petition on the grounds inter alia that the petitioners are not entitled to claim any parity in the matter of pay-scales with the Artists of Public Relations Department for the reason that posts of artists in Agriculture Department are filled up to the extent of 50 per cent by way of direct recruitment and 50 per cent by promotion as provided in column-4 of Annexure-6, while the appointment of Artists in Public Relations Department are made hundred per cent by direct recruitment and thus the criteria for recruitment of the two categories of Artists in two different departments as referred to above are dissimilar and hence no parity can be claimed by the petitioners. Further there is also the difference in the educational qualifications of the two categories of Artists. The minimum qualification, which is required for recruitment of Artists in Public Relations Department are higher than the Artists of Agriculture Department. This fact is borne out from Annexure-6 dated 28.11.1992, Column- 3, from which it is apparent that the minimum qualifications which are required for appointment for an Artists in Agriculture Department is Graduate or Higher Secondary with Certificate from I.G.O. (Bombay) or Diploma from any recognised institute of fine/commercial arts, certificate in Photography with two years' practical experience. The educational qualification, required for Artists in the Public Relations Department is diploma from a recognised school of Art and Commercial Art with minimum practical experience of three years. The educational qualification, required for Artists in the Public Relations Department is diploma from a recognised school of Art and Commercial Art with minimum practical experience of three years. With regard to the Artists in the Agriculture Department their minimum grade in the matter of their pay-scale is Rs. 1025-1800 p.m. whereas the minimum grade of the Artists in Public Relations Department is Rs. 1400-2600/-. With regard to the nature of duties and responsibilities, there is also the difference in respect of the Artists of the Agriculture Department and those of the Artists in Public Relations Department. In the Agriculture Department the duties and responsibilities of Artists are confined strictly to Agriculture purposes only whereas the Artists of Public Relation Department have to cover the work of Art in various fields and likewise the duties are neither similar nor correlated to those of the Artists in the Agriculture Department. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined their rival claims and contentions as well as the relevant documents and the pleadings on the record. 6. Prima facie, I am of the considered opinion that before the petitioners can claim parity in the matter of pay-scales they have to make out a case of claiming similarly in not only with regard to their educational qualifications, but they have also to make out a case that there is a great similarity in the matter of their nature of duties and responsibilities with reference to rules applicable to the them qua the rules applicable to artists in the Public Relations Department of the State. In absence of this, the petitioners are not entitled to invoke the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India, even though they may be working under different employers and unless the petitioners can establish their case beyond any shadow of doubt only then they can claim parity in the matter of pay-scales. 7. In this case the petitioners have failed to make out any case by which they can claim parity in the matter of pay scales since the duties and responsibilities of Artists of Agriculture Department as well as of the Artists in Public Relations Department of the State are quite different as aforestated and hence the question of claiming parity in the matter of pay- scales does not arise. 8. 8. I am further of the view that the Article 39(D) of the Constitution of India is not attracted to this case since there is no violation of the petitioners' fundamental rights under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. During the course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Randheer Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 , Jaipal v. State of Haryana, reported in 1988(3) SCC 354 and Natwar Lal Thanvi etc. v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1988(1) Raj LR 932. 10. In the matter of Randheer Singh v. Union of India, (supra), the Apex Court while dealing with the principle of "Equal pay for equal work" held that it is true that equation of posts and equation of pays are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for courts but 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. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same. 11. The ratio of the aforesaid decision is not attracted to this case since the petitioners have failed to make out a case by satisfying primary foundations, which are relevant to be considered before they can claim parity in their pay-scales with regard to the employees of the respondent-department since as per the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court they have not made out a case in the matter of parity either with regard to the parity in their nature of duties and responsibilities with the Artists of respondent- department and also minimum education qualifications, which obviously are higher in the respondent-department than that of the petitioner and hence since there is vital difference with regard to the same, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any parity in their pay scales with the Artists of respondent-department. Likewise I have also examined the ratio of other decisions as referred to above, which are not applicable to this case. 12. As a result of the above discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merit and deserves dismissal. Since the petitioners have failed to make out any case for invoking the exercise of jurisdiction by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition is dismissed with no order at to costs.Petition dismissed. *******