D. N. Chowdhury, J.- Writ Appeal No.380 of 1994 arises out of judgment and order dated 8.9.93 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule Nos.2439 of 1990 and 2440 of 1990; thereby allowing the writ petitions with the following directions: “(i) The petitioners and all other similarly situated persons shall be regularized in their services and confirmation will be done according to rules within a period of 3 (three) months from today. (ii) The petitioners will be entitled to all other incidental benefits of regularisation and confirmation of service like leave facility, Provident Fund, Pension, Group Insurance Scheme, regular promotion to higher posts and other benefits which may be available to them. (iii) The petitioners will be entitled to the same ration money as available to the members of the State Armed Force of Assam. (iv) Kit allowances as available to the members of the Armed Force of the State of Assam shall also be made available to the petitioners. All other benefits which will be available because of regularisation shall also be given to the petitioners. (v) All these things are to be sorted out by the respondents within a period of 4 (four) months from today.” Similarly. Writ Appeal No.391 of 1994 arises out of judgment and order dated 8.9.93 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule Nos.2439, and 2440 of 1990 and Writ Appeal No.494 of 1994 arises out of judgment and order dated 13.7.94 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.3795 of 1991. thereby directing the respondent State to regularise the writ petitioners/respondents in service as Home Guards and further restraining the State from removing them from service. 2. Writ Appeal No. Ill of 1996 is directed against the judgment and order dated 14.6.93 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Rule No.277 of 1991, by which the respondent appellants have been directed to consider the case of the petitioners regarding their confirmation in the light of the judgment and order passed in Civil Rule No.51 of 1988 and Civil Rule No.397 of 1990 within a period of two months from the date of passing of the order. 3. 3. So far as the Writ Appeal Nos.380 of 1994, 391 of 1994 and 494 of 1994 are concerned, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, as quoted above, are common. It is only in Writ Appeal No. 111 of 1996 that the direction made by the learned Single Judge is for consideration of the writ petitioner respondents case for confirmation in their services. 4. Aggrieved by the same, all these appeals have been preferred by the State of Assam. Since they involve common questions of law. they were heard and disposed of together. 5. In order to clarify the position this Court by its order dated 16.8.95 directed the Director General. Civil Defence and Commandant General of Home Guards to file affidavit in respect of the directions as quoted above. 6. As regards the first direction, the Director General in his affidavit has referred to the following four statutory rules and orders governing services of Home Guards : (a) The Assam Home Guards Act, 1947. (b) The Assam Home Guards Rules, 1947. (c) Home Guards Compendium of Instructions, 1985. (d) Creation (Scheme) of Border Wing Home Guards Battalion, 1976.” According to him there are three cadres in Home Guards Organisation, they are - “(a) Home Guards Volunteers in the District. (b) Part-time Guardsman of Boarder Wing Home Guards Battalion. (c) Regular Guardsman of District Home Guards, Assam Special Reserve Force Battalion and Border Wing Home Guards Battalion.” The District Home Guards Volunteers on completion of training can be called out for law and order duty/security duty under various deploying agencies such as Police and Forest Department etc. for which they are paid only duty allowance @ Rs.23/- per day/per head. They can be called out while they are on active roll which can be for four years only. Part time Guardsman of Border Wing Home Guards personnel were recruited from the 30 Miles Balot Zone of the Border Districts from amongst the Rural Home Guards Volunteers of the district. Initially they were attached with the BSF on International Border and after derequisition by the BSF. they have been engaged under District Superintendent of Police for law and order duties since 1992 for which they are being paid monthly salary as per prescribed pay scale and the}' are getting ration money as approved by the Govt. of India. Initially they were attached with the BSF on International Border and after derequisition by the BSF. they have been engaged under District Superintendent of Police for law and order duties since 1992 for which they are being paid monthly salary as per prescribed pay scale and the}' are getting ration money as approved by the Govt. of India. The regular Guardsman are recruited from amongst the trained Home Guards Volunteers of District Home Guards as regular Guardsman/ Constable in the District Home Guards Offices and Assam Special Reserve Force Battalions for security duties/law and order duties and they are given prescribed pay scales etc. along with financial benefits as applicable to State Armed Police Battalion. Part-time Guardsman of Border Wing Home Guards Battalion are recruited by the Commandant Border Wing Home Guards Battalion from amongst the trained Home Guards volunteers of the district. The recruitment of regular Guardsman/Constable is done by a Recruitment Board constituted under the Assam Home Guards (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 1991 from amongst Home Guards -Volunteers of the district. As for regularisation the deponent stated : “.....no Home Guards except regular Guardsman/Constable are regularized till date. But the services of 343 Nos. of part time Guardsman of Border Wing Home Guards Battalion are in continuity entitling them pay and allowances as per judgment dated 18.1.90 passed in Civil Rule No.51 of 1988 passed by this Hon'ble Court. Subsequent judgments passed in the light of Civil Rule 51 of 1988 and these 343 Nos. of Border Wing Home Guards Battalion personnel are in continuity of service till date.........initial appointments of Border Wing Home Guards personnel were made as per instructions issued by the Govt. of India vide their letter No. 1/17/75 DGCB(HG) Dated New Delhi, the 15th October, 1976. No schemes have been made so far as regards regularisation of Border Wing Home Guards Battalion part time personnel.” 7. The Govt. of Assam had constituted a Pay Commission in 1988. Resolution of the Govt. of Assam on the report of the Pay Commission, 1988 and the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1990 have been published in the Assam Gazette, Extraordinary on 11.12.90. The State Govt. after consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Commission have accepted the same with certain modifications. The writ petitioners/respondents have placed on record photostate copy of the resolution on the report of the Assam Pay Commission. The State Govt. after consideration of the recommendations of the Pay Commission have accepted the same with certain modifications. The writ petitioners/respondents have placed on record photostate copy of the resolution on the report of the Assam Pay Commission. 1988 and the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1990. It is in the light of this acceptance of recommendations by the Govt. of Assam that the writ petitioner/respondents have prayed that since they are now getting full scale of pay as per the above recommendations with dearness allowance, medical allowance, etc. and other service benefits, such as, promotion, increment, as available to the members of the Sate Armed Police, the question of sanction of posts to regularise their services now does not arise. They however prayed for incidental benefits. The recommendation to grant Kit and Kit Maintenance Allowance to the Home Guards personnel at par with police personnel in comparable posts, is left for detailed examination by the concerned departments. 8. The question of equal pay for equal work and parity of employment between the members of the Volunteer Force under the West Bengal National Volunteer Force Act, 1949 and the members of the Police Force came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in State of WB & others vs. Hari Narayan Bhowal & others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 78 and the Supreme Court held as follows: “It is true that such volunteer force has to perform when called upon, the duties of the police force while maintaining law and order. But according to us, the whole concept of the National Volunteer Force, is different from that of the police force. In respect of the volunteers, it can be said that it is a standby force, not. only for law and order, but for different emergencies, to aid and help the regular police force or members of the other services. In public services, nature of work in two services or in the same service, the nature of the work of the two groups maybe more or less same. But merely on that ground they are not entitled to the same scale of pay. It is well known mat scales of pay are fixed by expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, which consist of persons having specialized knowledge of the subject. But merely on that ground they are not entitled to the same scale of pay. It is well known mat scales of pay are fixed by expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, which consist of persons having specialized knowledge of the subject. Such Commissions while fixing the scales of pay or revising the same have to go in depth, not only into the nature of work by members of the same service and members of different services but also various other factors before the scales of pay are fixed. One of the primary concerns of such Pay Commissions is to remove any anomaly and to see that members of different services get scales of pay and other emoluments not only according to the nature of work but also according to educational qualifications, responsibilities of the posts and experience etc. As such, before any direction is issued by the Court, the claimants have to establish that there was no reasonable basis to treat them separately in matters of payment of wages or salary.” 9. In the instant case as noted, the Pay Commission has already struck a balance and fresh appointments already issued. So far as the payment of salary is concerned, no order to be made on that count. So far as the regularisation is concerned in Garhwal Jal Sansthan Karmachari Union vs. State of UP & others, (1997) 4 SCC 24 , the Supreme Court has held : “As indicated earlier, some of the duties and functions discharged by the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan are similar but the question is whether that by itself is a decisive factor to hold that the employees of the first appellant Union are entitled for the parity of pay scales with the employees of Jal Nigam. Can the principle of equal pay for equal work be applied to the two sets of employees in different organisations who are discharging duties and functions to some extent similar without reference to the qualitative commonality thereof? From the scheme of the Act, the duties and functions assigned to the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan, are in many respects qualitatively different. Jal Nigam is a corporation fully controlled by the State and extending the jurisdiction all over the territory of Uttar Pradesh whereas the duties and functions of Jal Sansthans are restricted to local area and under the control of local bodies. Jal Nigam is a corporation fully controlled by the State and extending the jurisdiction all over the territory of Uttar Pradesh whereas the duties and functions of Jal Sansthans are restricted to local area and under the control of local bodies. From the material produced before us, we are constrained to say that there is qualitative difference in the duties and functions discharged by the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan and, therefore, the claim of equal pay for equal work on the plea of discrimination under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution is without any foundation. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not be applicable where qualitative difference in functions and responsibilities is apparent. This Court in the State of MP vs. Pramod Bhartiya had occasion to consider the application of this principle. After careful consideration of various decisions on this subject, this Court held as under : “It would be evident from this definition that the stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar conditions. Further as pointed out by Mukherji, J. (as he then was) in Federation of All India Custom & Central Excise Stenographers vs. Union of India, the quality of work may vary from post to post. It may vary from institution to institution. We cannot ignore or overlook this reality. It is not a matter of assumption but one of proof. The respondents (original petitioners) have failed to establish that their duties, responsibilities and functions are similar to those of the non technical lecturers in technical colleges. They have also failed to establish that the distinction between their scale of pay and that on non technical lecturers working in technical schools is either irrational and that it has no basis, or that it is vitiated by malafides, either -in law or in fact (see the approach adopted in Federation case). It must be remembered that since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article 14, the burden is upon the petitioners to establish their right to equal pay, or the plea of discrimination, as the case may be. This burden the original petitioners (respondents herein) have failed to discharge.” In State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh this Court observed that principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. This burden the original petitioners (respondents herein) have failed to discharge.” In State of Haryana vs. Jasmer Singh this Court observed that principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same organisation. This Court observed as follows : It is, therefore, clear that the quality of work performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have to be evaluated. There maybe diffrences in educational or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which may justify differences in pay scales on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that good performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job. This Court has repeatedly observed that evaluation of such jobs for the purpose of pay scale must be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any malafides, its evaluation should be accepted.” 10. In view of the above, the directions as made by the learned Single Judge, are not per se implementable they are only to be considered by the appellant State for their implementation subject to avaliability of funds and other relevant considerations. The appeals stand allowed to the extent indicated above.