DR. M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THE grievance that is raised by the petitioner in the form of the present writ petition revolves around denial of the benefit of the principle of "equal Pay for Equal Work to the petitioner for the nature of duties which the petitioner had performed as Chief Instructuress in the Cabin Crew Training School which were similar with that of the Head of the Institute of Commercial Training Centre and Management Training Centre, and who were paid a higher Grade. The other relief that is sought for by the petitioner in this writ petition is a time-bound promotion to the petitioner like all other employees who had worked in the Indian Airlines for removing stagnation which the petitioner had to suffer during her long 26 years of service. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined the Indian Airlines in the year 1963, when she was entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of raising a training centre for the Cabin Crew on All India basis Comprehensive syllabic for initial, refresher and orientation for the purpose of imparting training to the Air Hostesses appointed to the. Indian Airlines. The petitioner, competently established the said training centre and continued to impart training courses to the various Air Hostesses recruited in the Indian Airlines and also conducted refresher and orientation courses for the Cabin Crew in service and Chief and Senior Cabin Crew, respectively. ( 3 ) AT the time when the petitioner filed this writ petition, she was 55 years of age and was due to retire in the year 1989 and as a matter of fact, the petitioner retired from service in the month of August 1989 after 26 years of service as Chief Instructuress in the said Cabin Crew Training School. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was one of the very few officers in the Corporation who had not had the benefit of a single promotion during her entire continuous career spent over 26 years and many who had joined later than the petitioner in junior posts were enjoying higher Grades. The petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents and in fact certain recommendations were also made by the Head of the Department, namely. The Director of Operations, recommending that the posts at the Cabin Crew Training School be upgraded since some of the Officers had reached top of the Grade. The petitioner submitted several representations to the respondents and in fact certain recommendations were also made by the Head of the Department, namely. The Director of Operations, recommending that the posts at the Cabin Crew Training School be upgraded since some of the Officers had reached top of the Grade. One of such recommendation is on the record which is dated 13. 10. 1978. Inspite of the aforesaid representations submitted by the petitioner on the basis of which recommendations were also made by the Competent Authority suggesting upgradation of the post of the Officers in the Cabin Crew Training School, no effective steps were taken by the respondents for such upgradation and to give, either time bound promotion or upgrading the post and hence the present writ petition. ( 4 ) MR. S. L. Hans, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before me that the petitioner was appointed as the Chief Instructuress in the Cabin Crew Training School as far back as in 1963 and since then she was continuing as the Head of the Institute till the end other distinguished service career. According to him, the duties and responsibilities discharged by the petitioner were the same as that of the Head of the Commercial Training Centre and Management Training Centre, in as much as Head of their respective Institutes, all of them have to coordinate the functions of the Institute while imparting training courses to the trainees of the Institute. Accordingly his submission was that the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Head of the Cabin Crew Training School being similar to that of the Head of the Commercial Training Centre and Management Training Centre, the benefit of equal Pay for Equal Work should have been provided to the petitioner and she should have been adjusted against either Grade 15 or Grade 16 post and paid equal pay and remuneration thereof. ( 5 ) MR. Mukul Rohtagi, on the other hand appearing for the respondents submitted that there is no pleading either in the writ petition or in the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner laying down the foundation to show that the duties, functions and responsibilities of the petitioner as the Chief Instructuress of Cabin Crew Training School and that of the Heads of Commercial Training Centre and Management Training Centre are similar. He submitted that without such pleadings no relief could be granted to the petitioner as it is not possible for this Court to come to a definite conclusion that the aforesaid respective posts could be equated both in nature and responsibilities of duties. ( 6 ) THE answer to the aforesaid question depends upon several factors like evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts for although at times the functions of two posts might appear to be same or similar, but, there might be difference in quality and nature of the performance. At times, the quantity of work may look to be the same, but quality of performing the work may be different, besides it does not alone depend, either on the nature of work or volume of work to be done by the holders of the respective posts in order to come to a definite and conclusive finding that the duties and responsibilities of the respective posts are similar. There must be sufficient pleadings of the parties showing the nature and responsibilities of the duties to be performed by the holders of those posts so as to show the functions and degrees in the performance. In this writ petition only a bare statement has been made that individuals discharging similar functions and holding equivalent posts in other nontechnical departments have been placed in Grade 15 and above. No specific instances have been brought out to show what is the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Chief Instructuress in the Cabin Crew Training School compared to the duties of the Head of the Commercial training centre and Management training centre of the Indian Airlines, In the absence of such pleadings, it is not possible to enter into such a disputed question that the duties and responsibilities of the respective posts are similar or not in order to grant benefit to the petitioner of the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work . ( 7 ) IT has been held by the Supreme Court in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) Vs. Unions of India and Ors. reported in A. I. R. 1988 Supreme Court Cases 1291 that equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done and that it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work as there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Unions of India and Ors. reported in A. I. R. 1988 Supreme Court Cases 1291 that equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done and that it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work as there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. It is further held that functions may be the same, but the responsibilities make a difference and that one cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. In the present case, there is total absence of any averment made on behalf of the petitioner as to what are the functions and what are the responsibilities of the holders of the aforesaid respective posts and as to how the administration has failed to fix the appropriate scales of pay for the aforesaid post. In view of the aforesaid position I have no materials before me to come to the conclusion that the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Instructuress in the Cabin Crew Training School is similar to that of the Head of the Commercial Training Centre and Management Training Centre and thus the first submission of the learned counsel fails. ( 8 ) THE next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is entitled to have a time-bound promotion like other employees of the Indian Airlines for removing the stagnation for which she had suffered for 26 years of her service life without their being any further promotion. In support of her submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Raghunath Prasad Singh Vs. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Biharreportedmaa. R. 198 8 Supreme Court Cases 1033 and Dr. Ms. O. Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India reported in 1990 (Supple.) Supreme Court Cases 688. ( 9 ) MR. Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Biharreportedmaa. R. 198 8 Supreme Court Cases 1033 and Dr. Ms. O. Z. Hussain Vs. Union of India reported in 1990 (Supple.) Supreme Court Cases 688. ( 9 ) MR. Mukul Rohtagi, appearing for the respondents submitted before me that initially when the Cabin Crew Training School was established in 1963 there was very little business so far the respondents were concerned and, therefore, they started the said training school with only one Instructor in the capacity of Chief Instructuress, Thereafter, with the expansion of their business, they have started recruiting more persons for the training school and also opened up avenues for promotion. It is further stated that in the month of March 1995, the post of Manager, Cabin Crew (Training) has been created at the level of Grade 15, a higher Grade than that of the post of Chief Instructuress which has since been redesignated as Deputy Manager. Therefore, as of today it cannot be said that there is no incentive provided to the persons who joined the training school as Instructuress or as Deputy Manager. ( 10 ) IN Raghunath Prasad Singh s case (supra) the Supreme Court has pronounced that reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service because the same generates efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service and that in the absence of promotional prospects the service is bound to be degenerated and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly. ( 11 ) HAVING considered the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court in Raghunath Prasad Singh s case (supra) and Dr. Ms. O. Z. Hussain s case (supra), it is found that in the said cases, directions were issued by the Supreme Court to provide suitable promotional avenue for the petitioners so as to provide benefit of promotion in order to generate incentives and an efficient public service. It may. however, be noted that in both these cases the directions were issued to provide for such avenues of promotion with prospective effect. It may. however, be noted that in both these cases the directions were issued to provide for such avenues of promotion with prospective effect. In the present case, the petitioner has since retired from service in the month of August 1989 and even if this Court, follow ing the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, issues a similar direction, still no benefit could be provided to the petitioner as she has already retired from sen ice However, the said aspect need not detain me at this stage in view of the fact that, already different posts with avenues of promotion to the post of Manager. Cabin Crew (Technical) placed in the Grade 15 have been created by the respondents and as of today, it cannot be said that there is no scope of further promotion and that there is stagnation. Therefore, there is no force in the submission of the learned counsel even on this count. ( 12 ) THE counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the post of Chief Instnicturess could have been upgraded by the respondents exclusively/personally to the petitioner as was done in several other cases. In support of his submission, the learned counsel drew my attention to the statements made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioner has cited a few names who were allegedly given promotion to the next grade on a personal basis. I have perused the contents of the reply filed by the respondents in their counter affidavit and found that the aforesaid statement made by the petitioner has been denied by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner did not chose to produce any documentary evidence in support of her statement made in paragraph 21 and instead cited some other names in the rejoinder affidavit again without substantiating the same by producing any documentary evidence in support thereof In that view of the matter, I hold that the said submission of the learned counsel has no merit. ( 13 ) IN view of the findings noted above, this w rit petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed, but without any costs.