ORDER C.K. Prasad, J. Petitioners are employees of respondent No. 2 and are working in the Radiology and Pathology Section of Medical department of Bhilai Steel Plant and by this writ petition filed under Articles226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, they pray for a direction to the respondents to pay the overtime wages to them from the date of their employment after completion of working hours of 36 hours in a week; alternatively their prayer is to direct the respondents to take work for 36 hours only by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that by order dated 14th October, 1961 (Annex. R-3), Bhilai Steel Plant decided to grant overtime allowance to the office staff. Clause 3(c) of the said order explains overtime work, which reads as follows:-- " 'Overtime time' work means work done in excess of 45 minutes over the prescribed hours of work on any working day and includes work done on any Sunday or any other holiday." Clause 3(d) of the aforesaid order defines prescribed hours of work as follows:-- " 'Prescribed hours of work' means hours of work prescribed in any office in respect of employees working in that office." Petitioner's assertion is that they are ministerial staff and working hours of ministerial staff having been fixed at 36 hours, they are entitled for grant of overtime allowance if they work for over 36 hours. Their further assertion is that working hours of the employees in the Radiology and Pathology Section of Medical Department in all the Steel Plants of respondent No. 1 is 36 hours in a week, whereas petitioners working hours is treated to be 48 hours. On the aforesaid premises, grievance of the petitioners is that non-payment of overtime allowance for working beyond 36 hours is discriminatory and violates their fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Stand of the respondents is that petitioners are not ministerial staff and in fact, they are paramedical staff. It has been specifically averred that nature of working and working condition of the ministerial staff and the para-medical staff are different and as such petitioners who are para-medical staff cannot be treated as ministerial staff. Stand of the respondents is that petitioners are not ministerial staff and in fact, they are paramedical staff. It has been specifically averred that nature of working and working condition of the ministerial staff and the para-medical staff are different and as such petitioners who are para-medical staff cannot be treated as ministerial staff. It is the stand of the respondents that certain department like medical department, public health, water works, dairy etc., are required to work for all the 24 hours and consequently their employees are required to work for 48 hours a week. Further stand of the respondents is that service condition of the employees of other units are different and in case their duty hours is fixed for a lesser time, petitioners cannot claim that their working hours should be the same on the ground of parity. Shri Gupta, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that the petitioners do not belong to the category of either officers or industrial workers they must necessarily fall under the category of ministerial staff. Shri Chaphekar, however appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the petitioners specifically come within the category of para-medical staff and they cannot be treated as ministerial staff by implication. I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not ministerial staff, but assuming that they are, respondents have placed on record the decision regarding working hours (Annex.R-5) which clearly shows that the working hours of the employees in the Pathology and Radiology Section is 48 hours per week. In my opinion, fixation of working hours is prerogative of the employer and unless it is shown that the same is arbitrary or in violation of any statute, the same is beyond judicial review. Faced with this situation, Shri Gupta submits that fixation of different working hours for the petitioners and the ministerial staff is discriminatory. Petitioners are working in the Pathology and Radiology Section of the Medical Department and by its very nature the medical department is required to work for 24 hours whereas the same situation does not exist for ministerial staff. Thus the ministerial staff and the employees working in medical department constitute different and distinct class and as such, the complaint of discrimination is absolutely misconceived. Thus the ministerial staff and the employees working in medical department constitute different and distinct class and as such, the complaint of discrimination is absolutely misconceived. Shri Gupta submits that service condition of the petitioners and ministerial staff are one and the same and in that view of the matter respondents are bound to treat them equally; meaning thereby that the petitioners should be paid overtime allowance after working for 36 hours. In this connection, Shri Gupta points out that para-medical staff and ministerial staff are paid the same D.A. in accordance with their pay scale. It is pointed out that leave rules, pay fixation, overtime, profit sharing bonus and other company benefits are equally applied in the case of the ministerial and para medical staff. It is further contended that in matters of discipline and pay fixation as also grievance procedure, they are governed by the same rules. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no justification for fixation of 48 hours as working hours for the staff working in pathology and radiology section of the medical department. This according to the learned Counsel smacks of discrimination. I am not at all impressed by this submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. True it is that in relation to certain service conditions both the ministerial staff and para medical staff are governed by the same set of rules, but this will not lead to the conclusion that in all matters, their working hours shall also be the same. Persons working in different departments and even in different unit of one department can have different job requirements and in that view of the matter, their working hours cannot be fixed in one yardstick. Here in the present case, petitioners are working in Radiology and Pathology section of the Medical department and as the hospital has to run for all the 24 hours, employer has fixed their working hours for 48 hours a week. This, as stated earlier, is the prerogative of the employer and I am of the considered opinion that notwithstanding the fact that many of the service rules apply to both categories of employees i.e. the ministerial and para-medical staff, it cannot be said that fixation of different working hours for ministerial and para medical staff is discriminatory. I negative this submission of the learned counsel. I negative this submission of the learned counsel. Petitioners also plead discrimination vis-a-vis other employees working in Radiology and Pathology Section in other Steel Plant of respondent No. 1. It is the stand of the petitioners that in all the Steel Plants of respondent No. 1 i.e. the Steel Authority of India, other than the employees working in Bhilai Steel Plant, are required to work for 36 hours in a week and in case their working hours exceed the normal working hours of 36 hours they are paid the overtime wage. In this connection, Shri Gupta has drawn my attention to an affidavit filed by Assistant Director (Medical Administration), Ispat General Hospital, Rourkela Steel Plant before the Supreme Court (Annexure-A1). My attention has been drawn to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said reply, which read as follows:-- "3. In reply to paragraph 3, I state that the Medical and Public Health Department of Rourkela Steel Plant has made payments to the ministerial employees in terms of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court dated 2nd September, 1986. I further state that while the judgment of this Hon'ble Court covered only the ministerial staff, the respondent has made payment of overtime also to the para-medical staff in terms of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court. In reply to paragraph 4 of the application, I state that payment of overtime to the ministerial staff working in the Medical and Public Health Department has been made in terms of the Supreme Court Judgment. The allegations in para 4 are denied." Respondents in paragraph 5 of their return have categorically denied this assertion of the petitioner, and it has been further averred that the service condition in each of the Steel Plant as prescribed by their respective managements. It is the stand of the respondents that the working hours of the employees in Radiology and Pathology Section of the Medical Deptt., in the Bhilai Steel Plant have all along been 48 hours per week. Respondents in the return have clearly stated that the petitioners' contention that employees working in Pathology and Radiology Section in all other Plants are required to work for 36 hours a week is not correct and is denied. Respondents have cited the instance of working hours of such employees in Durgapur Steel Plant and i.e. 43 1/2 hours per week. Respondents in the return have clearly stated that the petitioners' contention that employees working in Pathology and Radiology Section in all other Plants are required to work for 36 hours a week is not correct and is denied. Respondents have cited the instance of working hours of such employees in Durgapur Steel Plant and i.e. 43 1/2 hours per week. Shri Gupta in support of his submission submits that the employees of the nature of the petitioners work for 36 hours is established by the counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court by Rourkela Steel Plant (Annexure A-1). Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the statement made in the counter affidavit and reproduced above cannot be read to mean that the working hours of the employees of the Radiology and Pathology section is 36 hours. Statement in the counter affidavit referred to above only pertains to grant of overtime to para medical staff in terms of the judgment of the Court. This in no way suggest that the working hours of employees of Pathology and Radiology in other Steel Plants is 36 hours. Further I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners cannot claim the same working hours as that of other steel plants, as each plant is required to prescribe working hours according to its own need and requirement. Thus, I do not find any substance in this submission of Shri Gupta also. Shri Gupta then contends that there is discrimination amongst the para medical staff themselves. In this connection he has drawn my attention to the statement (Annex. R-5) filed by the respondents. According to the aforesaid chart, working hours of certain category of para medical staff namely Pharmacist, Physio therapist, Refractionist, Dental Hygienist, Dental Mechanic and Cardiographer are 40 hours whereas that of Pathology, Radiology and other para medical staff that is Nursing staff, Ward Attendant, Sanitation Staff, Chowkidar, Store (Medical) etc. have been fixed to 48 hours. This according to Shri Gupta makes out a clear case of discrimination. Shri G.M. Chaphekar however, appearing, on behalf of the respondents submits that amongst the para medical staff itself there are certain categories of staff which are required to be in the hospital for 24 hours a day whereas certain categories of employees may not be required in the hospital for 24 hours everyday. Shri G.M. Chaphekar however, appearing, on behalf of the respondents submits that amongst the para medical staff itself there are certain categories of staff which are required to be in the hospital for 24 hours a day whereas certain categories of employees may not be required in the hospital for 24 hours everyday. According to his submission persons like Pathologist and Radiologist are required in the hospital for all the 24 hours which is not in the case of a Pharmacist or a Physio therapist and other employees whose working hours have been fixed at 40 hours a week. Thus according to Shri Chaphekar, there is reasonable distinction between them. Having heard Shri Gupta for the petitioner and Shri Chaphekar for the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that petitioners have not been able to make out any case of discrimination. Times without number, Courts have said that plea of equality is applicable amongst equals. Here in the present case there is distinction between para medical staff working as Radiologist or Pathologist vis-a-vis other para medical staffs. Accordingly I negative this complaint of the petitioners of discrimination. According to the condition of service, petitioners are entitled overtime allowance which means work done in excess of 45 minutes over the prescribed hours of work. Prescribed hours of work means hours of work prescribed and in the present case, the working hours of the petitioners has been fixed at 48 hours a week. It is not the grievance of the petitioners that they are not being paid overtime allowance after working for a period more than 48 hours. Having negatived all the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Security amount, if deposited be refunded to the petitioners. Writ petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed