JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner which is a representative body of the members of the Rajasthan Subordinate Services Association of the employees working in medical and health department of the State Government, has filed this writ petition on the grounds inter-alia seeking directions against the respondent to remove a long standing pay anomaly of the Ophthalmic Assistants employed in medical and health department of the State Government. 2. The Petitioner has contended that Ophth. Assistants were made to suffer as a result of the errors committed by the Directorate Medical and Health Department whereby a lower pay scale No. 7, i.e., 880-1680 had been sanctioned for the said employees treating them equivalent to Laboratory Technicians who are less qualified as compared to the Ophthalmic Assistants in the Directorate of Health. It has further been contended that though the respondents have admitted their mistake in this regard, still inspite of the repeated reminders no action has been taken at their end and as a result the aforesaid category of the employees have continued to suffer. The Ophthalmic Assistants have been deputed to undertake important assignment in the matter of control of blindness through-out the country in the National Programme on similar lines as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India and in order to meet the requirements for participating in said programme, the aforesaid employees had participated in a crashed training programme which was devised in the year 1980. The said scheme which is known as National Programme for Control of Blindness has been included in the category-I of Centrally sponsored Plan Scheme from 1981-82 and the entire cost for establishment of the training unit for achieving the said cost was funded by the Central Government. 3. In pursuance of the aforesaid and keeping with the directions of the Central Government, the Government of Rajasthan arranged a training programme by creating posts of Ophthalmic Assistants under the National Programme for Control of Blindness. It was stipulated that the expenditure would be charged to the budget head 282-Public Health Sanitation and Water Supply (A) Public Health and Sanitation (B) Prevention and Control of Diseases (vii) National Programme for Prevention and Visual Impairment and Control of Blindness (Plan Expenditure) Centrally Sponsored Scheme. Later on the expenditure was charged to the Budget Head 2210-Medical & Public Health 06-Public Health. Later on the expenditure was charged to the Budget Head 2210-Medical & Public Health 06-Public Health. 101- Prevention & Control of Diseases (vi) National Programme for Control of Blindness (Non Plan). Reference may be made to letter No. F12 (8) MPH/85/Gr. II dated 25.02.1987 of Deputy Secretary to the Government, Medical & Health Department Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. The educational qualification which was required for appointments of Ophthalmic Assistants as fixed by the Government of Rajasthan was 1st year T.D.C. with Science and Biology as subjects, those selected on the basis of their merit were required to undergo extensive training of two years for completing the certificate course prior to being absorbed in service. The pay-scales as fixed by the Government of Rajasthan initially for the said employees was Rs. 660-1240 which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 490-840 vide order dated 23.08.1986 of the Director, Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereas the pay scale of Physio-Therapist was fixed at Rs. 1200-2420 by the orders of the Joint Director,(Ophth.) dated 11.08.1987. Prior to it the Director, Medical & Health had proposed the pay scale of Rs. 660-1240 for the post of Ophthalmic Assistant which was altered to their disadvantage by reducing to Rs. 490-840 under some miscalculated belief by somebody on alternation by deletion of Rs. 660-1240 and substitution of Rs. 490-840 and the said correction has not been signed or verified by the concerned authority on the document dated 23.08.1986 (Annexure-7). It has further been contended that the pay scales of Physio-Therapist and Senior Physio-Therapists are as under : Sr. Physiotherapists 1400-2825 (scale No. 15) Physiotherapists 1200-2420 (scale No. 13) 5. The minimum qualification for admission to the Physio- Therapist course is 1st year T.D.C. with Science & Biology viz. Physics, Chemistry & Biology), and the training period prescribed is two years. The petitioner has sought equivalence in pay scales prescribed by the Directorate, Medical & Health for Physiotherapist which is Rs. 660-1240 and which has been further revised to R. 1200-2420 (pay scale No. 13) as against the pay scale of Ophthalmic Assistants of Rs. 880-1680 on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The petitioner has sought equivalence in pay scales prescribed by the Directorate, Medical & Health for Physiotherapist which is Rs. 660-1240 and which has been further revised to R. 1200-2420 (pay scale No. 13) as against the pay scale of Ophthalmic Assistants of Rs. 880-1680 on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". It has further been contended by the petitioner that the Director, Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur realising its error in fixing the aforesaid pay-scale of Opthalmic Assistants issued a Corrigendum vide its order dated 09.4.1987 (Annexure-8) by mentioning therein that the reason for proposing the pay-scale of Rs. 490-840/- was that the employees like Laboratory Technician, Ex. Tech. were also getting the same pay-scale and hence without giving much thought of equivalent post, the said pay-scale was proposed. When it came to the notice of the concerned authorities that the Physiotherapists in the Departments with equal education qualifications and equal training period as prescribed for Ophthalmic Assistant were fixed in the pay-scale of Rs. 660-1240-, then another proposal was sent for revision of the pay-scales of Ophthalmic Assistants from Rs. 490-840/- to that Rs. 660-1240/- vide order dated 09.04.1987 of the Secretary to Government, Medical & Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Annexure-8). 6. This fact is also borne out from the several representations which were made by the affected members of the petitioner Association from time to time vide Annexures 9 to 15 but the respondents have not initiated any action in the matter to remove the existing anomaly in the pay scales. The petitioner has further contended that equivalence has been claimed in the matter of pay scales also on the ground that the educational qualifications prescribed under the rules of Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (for short "the rules of 1965") for Laboratory Technician is mantric with a training of 9 months, while that of Ophthalmic Assistants and Physiotherapists is that they should be 12th class passed and should have further undergone minimum training of two years. Unfortunately the Ophthalmic Assistants have been given the pay- scales of Laboratory Technician (Scale No. 7) while they are entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- as admissible to Physiotherapists since educational qualifications as well as the training required to be undergone for both the posts is one and the same as aforesaid. 7. Unfortunately the Ophthalmic Assistants have been given the pay- scales of Laboratory Technician (Scale No. 7) while they are entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- as admissible to Physiotherapists since educational qualifications as well as the training required to be undergone for both the posts is one and the same as aforesaid. 7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended at the bar that notwithstanding the clear directive of the State Government of Rajasthan in terms of its letter dated 22.12.1990 addressed to All Departmental Heads and the Collector wherein it has been emphasised that the employees having same qualification are entitled to similar pay-scales, the respondent-state has not extended benefits to the members of the petitioner-association of its own order as aforesaid and thereby making a case of gross discrimination in the matter of pay-scales by not removing the existing anomaly be extending them the benefits of same pay-scales as that of Physiotherapists. This fact is also borne-out from the letter of the Director, Medical & Health, Government of Rajasthan addressed to the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Medical & Health Department, Jaipur dated 16.02.1987 (Annexure-16) in which it has been emphasised that while sending the proposals for the creation of posts of Ophthalmic Assistants the pay-scales of Rs. 490-840/- had been mentioned, whereas it ought to have been the pay-scale of Rs. 660-1240 and thereafter 950- 1680 as that of Physiotherapists since the duration of training for both the said posts was two years with educational qualification as of 12th standard with Science subjects, being the same to revision of the pay-scales in favour of Ophthalmic Assistants was recommended with a view to place them at par with the Physiotherapists. This clarification is also borne-out from the repeated correspondence of the concerned authorities vide letter dated 20.03.1987 (Annexure-10) and the Joint Director (Ophthalmic), dated 06.08.1988 (Annexure-18) vide the letter dated 29.11.1988 (Annexure-2) of the Director, Medical & Health Services Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Deputy Secretary to Government of Rajasthan, Medical & Health Department, Jaipur requesting for providing equivalence in pay-scales of Ophthalmic Assistants at par with Physiotherapists i.e. pay-scale No. 12 of Rs. 1200- 2400/-. 8. 1200- 2400/-. 8. Keeping in view the above stated fact and circumstances of the case, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition, wherein they have challenged the order dated 29.06.1992 of the State Government, whereby an amendment was made in the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay-scales) Rules, 1989 by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay-scales) (19th amendment) Rules, 1992, by which Ophthalmic Assistants were placed in the pay-scales of Rs. 880-1680 instead of the pay-scale of Rs. 950-1680 vide Notification dated 29.6.1992, issued by the Finance Department, Government of Rajasthan (Annexure-21). 9. In this writ petition, the petitioner association has contended that its members are entitled to claim parity and equivalence in pay-scales to that which is being given to Physiotherapists on the principle of equal pay for equal work on the grounds inter-alia that: (a) their qualifications and nature of duties are almost the same; (b) it is an admitted position that in the year 1987 while sending the proposal for creation of the posts of Ophthalmic Assistants, the pay-scale was mentioned as Rs. 490-840/-, whereas it should have been Rs. 660-1240 as that of Physiotherapists. 10. This position stands admitted from the Correspondence from the functionaries of the concerned department i.e. Deputy Director, Medical & Health dated 16.2.1987 to the Deputy Secretary of the same department and further stands clarified in the letter dated 9.4.1987 addressed to the Secretary, Medical & Health, which position has already been clarified by this Court in the correspondence, which has been annexed with the writ petition. 11. The petitioner-association has further contended that the members of the association had made several representations in the past to the State Government to remove the existing anomaly in the existing pay-scales but all to no effect. 12. The respondents have thus admitted this anomaly that it was an act of over-sight by fixing the members of the petitioner- association in lower pay-scale of Rs. 880-1680, while it should have been the pay-scale No. 13 of Rs. 1200-2400 equivalent to Physiotherapists. 13. 12. The respondents have thus admitted this anomaly that it was an act of over-sight by fixing the members of the petitioner- association in lower pay-scale of Rs. 880-1680, while it should have been the pay-scale No. 13 of Rs. 1200-2400 equivalent to Physiotherapists. 13. During the course of hearing, it has been brought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-association that it is an admitted position that the post of Ophthalmic Assistant is equivalent to the post of Physiotherapist, which fall under para-medical group-B, which though a higher post, but the post of Ophthalmic Assistant has not been provided in the schedule to the Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'the rules of 1965'). 14. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner-association has brought to the notice of this Court that the Joint Secretary of the Medical & Health Department had recommended the revision of the existing pay-scales of the Ophthalmic Assistants from Rs. 950-1680 to Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.9.1988 vide his recommendations dated 18.5.1992, but no clarification has been given by the learned counsel for the petitioner-association as to whether the recommendations of the Joint Secretary as aforesaid have been accepted by the State Government or not ? 15. In this regard I am of the considered opinion that revision cannot obviously be done in the manner as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner-association unless & until the said recommendations are accepted by the State Government. 16. In reply to the show cause notice, the respondents have controverted the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner-association on the grounds inter-alia that the petitioners are not entitled to seek the relief sought for since the petitioner-association is not a legal entity or a registered body and hence cannot claim the representative character. 17. On merits it has been contended that the post of Lab. Technicians is not lower in character and functions than that of Ophthalmic Assistants since this type of service requires extra care, skill and caution. 18. With regard to the internal correspondence of the department of Medical & Health, recommending higher pay-scales to the petitioners at par with that of Physiotherapists, it has been contended by the respondents that the contents of the said documents are merely recommendatory in character without being based on comparative statistics and data. 18. With regard to the internal correspondence of the department of Medical & Health, recommending higher pay-scales to the petitioners at par with that of Physiotherapists, it has been contended by the respondents that the contents of the said documents are merely recommendatory in character without being based on comparative statistics and data. However, the respondents have not disputed that Physiotherapists are placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-. 19. It has further been contended by the respondents that the pay-scale of Ophthalmic Assistants (Rs.880-1680/-) was fixed keeping in view the major care, skill and attention required by them in discharge of their duties and no comparison and contrast in duties with that of Physiotherapists and Lab. Technicians has been made out by the petitioners. The claim made by the petitioners is merely recommendatory in character without any reasons and since all three categories of service personnels stand at no parity in the matter of pay and functions being constitutionally and distinctly different and not at par with each other, hence no equivalence can be claimed as contended by the petitioner-association. By way of additional pleas the respondents have contended that the pay-scale of employees along with other service emoluments is fixed with a view to allowing fair livelihood to the incumbents specially in the context of hardness, risk, skill, extra-care etc. and in the case of Ophthalmic-Assistants, the existing pay-scale (Rs. 950-1680/-' does not require any revision. 20. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner-association has placed reliance upon Judgments of this Court in the matter of S.K. Ghosh v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in 1984 RLR 966 , Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and others. reported in 1992(1) SCC 119 : [1992(1) SLR 60 (SC)] , D.B. Judgment of this Court in the matter of Padam Kumar Jain, President, R.J.S. Association, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1987(2) RLR page 807: [1988(2) SLR 231 (Raj.)] and the Judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Hirday Narain v. Income-tax Officer, Bareilly, reported in AIR 1971 SC 33 . 21. 21. In the matter of All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and others (supra), the members of the subordinate judiciary had by way of the writ petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India had sought directions from the Apex Court for setting up of an All India Judicial Service and for bringing about uniform conditions of service and perks for members of the subordinate judiciary throughout the country. Appropriate directions were issued by the Apex Court in this regard. The Apex Court after taking into consideration the noticeable distinction in the nature of work and duties of the executive officers and judicial officers who are called upon to perform and in view of different service conditions of the members of executive compared to that of judicial officers was finally of the view that All India Judicial Service should be set-up and the Union of India should take appropriate steps in this regard. The Apex Court further recommended that steps should be taken to bring about uniformity in designation of officers both in Civil & Criminal side by a particular date aria the age of superannuation of judicial officers be raised to 60 years and appropriate steps be also taken by the Union of India in this regard. The Apex Court further directed the Central Government to make necessary arrangements for providing essential facilities such as residential accommodation to every judicial officer, availability of office room and automobiles within the fixed time frame-work as specified and also the setting up of the in-service institution within one year at the Central and State or Union Territory level. 22. The Apex Court further directed the Central Government to make necessary arrangements for providing essential facilities such as residential accommodation to every judicial officer, availability of office room and automobiles within the fixed time frame-work as specified and also the setting up of the in-service institution within one year at the Central and State or Union Territory level. 22. With due respects to the observations of the Apex Court as referred to above, I am of the view that the ratio of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court as well as other decisions, which have been relied upon by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner-association are not attracted to the facts of the instant case for the reason that the Apex Court while pronouncing the aforesaid judgments was primarily of the view that there should be no disparity in the matter of pay-scales of the Judicial Officers with the equivalent posts in the executive with a view to bring about uniformity in the judicial cadres in the different States of the country and its Union Territories with a view to bring about an appropriate enhanced uniform age of retirement for the Judicial Officers throughout the country, uniform pay-scales, providing of residential accommodation, prescribed facilities and conveyance allowances etc. as well as the adequate perks by way of library allowance, residential office allowance and sumptuary allowance to be provided to the Judicial Officers, had given the aforesaid recommendations in this regard. 23. In the facts of the present case, no such recommendations can be made by this Court because the petitioner-association has claimed equivalence in the matter of pay-scales of the Ophthalmic Assistants with that of pay-scales of Physiotherapists on the ground that the qualifications prescribed for the said two posts are the same, the revision of pay-scales of Ophthalmic Assistants having been recommended by the various functionaries of the Department of Medical & Health, they should be brought at par with the pay-scales of Physiotherapists. Prima-facie, no material has bee placed on the record by the petitioner from which it may be inferred that there is any equivalence with regard to nature of duties and functions of the two posts viz. Prima-facie, no material has bee placed on the record by the petitioner from which it may be inferred that there is any equivalence with regard to nature of duties and functions of the two posts viz. Ophthalmic Assistants and Physiotherapists and which in fact are all together quite different and hence equivalence cannot be claimed as a matter of right merely on the basis of equivalent educational qualifications and experience prescribed under the rules for both. 24. From the correspondence placed on the record by the petitioner-association, it cannot be inferred as to whether the same has been accepted by the State Government and what was the rationale adopted by the concerned officers of the Department of Medical & Health who had made such recommendations nor there is any document to show that despite the acceptance of the said recommendations, there has been any delay on the part of the State Government in implementing the recommendations. 25. The contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner-association are merely based on the correspondence, which is recommendatory in character and from which it cannot be inferred that any equivalence can be claimed by the members of the petitioner-association in the matter of pay-scales with that of Physiotherapists in absence of any rationale which formed the basis for the said authorities to have made such recommendations for the proposed equivalence in pay-scales of the two category of posts. 26. I am further of the view that merely by alleging that recommendations were made by the concerned authorities with regard to the proposed equivalence, no legal right flows in favour of petitioner to claim parity in pay scales with that of Physiotherapists who form a separate and distinct class. 27. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the functionaries of Medical & Health of the State Government have themselves recommended the revision of pay-scales of the Ophthalmic Assistants with a view to place them at par with Physiotherapists, I am of the view that in the event of the State Government accepting and implementing the said recommendations on the basis of a rational policy the same should be given effect to and implemented by the respondents at the earliest. 28. 28. I am further of the view that the 'principle of equal pay for equal work' cannot be applied to the facts of the instant case keeping in view the recommendatory nature of the correspondence on which the reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-association and from which no legal and constitutional right to claim any equivalence in pay-scales can be inferred in favour of the members of the petitioner association with that of Physiotherapists. 29. In view of the above observations, the writ petition does not survive any further for consideration of this court and the same is dismissed being not maintainable on merits with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******