R. PAL J. ( 1 ) THE 34 petitioners are wireless cleaners under the Calcutta Police Department. According to them they perform, in essence, the identical duties as police constables. However, they get a lower scale than the police constables. They submitted a representation before the Commissioner of Police for being treated on par with police constables. Their representation was recommended by the then Commissioner of Police to the Government of West Bengal by Memo No. 1202/spc dated 31st March, 1987. In the recommendation, the then Commissioner delineated the duties of wireless cleaners and said that they were strenuous. It was also noted that there was no scope for promotion of wireless cleaners. The then Commissioner of Police, apart from recommending parity of pay with constables, also recommended certain subsidiary matters including re-designation of wireless cleaners as wireless helpers. ( 2 ) THE State of West Bengal re-designated the petitioners as wireless helpers on the basis of the recommendation but did not implement the recommendation as far as parity of pay was concerned. ( 3 ) THE petitioners moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution being C. O. No. 14705 (W) of 1991. The writ application was disposed of on 24th November, 1993. The learned Judge said that :"having regard to the recommendation of the Police Commissioner him-self and the points taken in the writ petition it appears to me that the petitioners have a good case in claiming parity in pay scale with the Constables of Calcutta Police. However, since the Government is the proper authority at the first instance to consider the matter, I hereby direct that the Government of West Bengal including the respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 4 will consider the claim of the petitioners for upgradation of their pay scale to the level of the scale enjoyed by the Constables of Calcutta Police and dispose of the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or their representative by passing a speaking and reasoned order bearing in mind the principles of fixation of pay scale as enunciated in the Supreme Court decision in Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court at page 1221 and also keeping in view the specific recommendation of the Commissioner of Police, Calcutta which is annexure-B to the writ application, as earlier mentioned. The decision in the matter will be taken by the Government within four months from the date of communication of this order. " ( 4 ) THE respondent No. 1 referred to in the order was the Home Secretary (Police) and the respondent No. 4, the Secretary, Finance. ( 5 ) THE petitioners were called for a hearing by the Home Secretary, Government of West Bengal. The Home Secretary by his order dated 3rd March, 1994 rejected the petitioners prayer for pay at par with the scales of pay admissible to police constables. It appears from the order dated 3rd March, 1994 that the Home Secretary referred the matter to the Finance Department for necessary concurrence. The Finance Department objected to the proposed parity stating that the nature of the duties of the post of wireless helpers and constables are not the same as there was "some difference" in both recruitment rules and nature of duties. It is not clear whether the Finance Department heard the petitioners before expressing its views. Nor does it appear that any copy of the Finance Department objection was communicated to the petitioners. ( 6 ) THE Home Secretary himself based his rejection on the ground that although the recruitment rules for the two posts were similar nevertheless the selected candidates for the post of wireless cleaners/helpers were not required to undergo a course of training in Police Training College or School. The second reason given was that "the strain of work, disagreeableness of task, hazards attendant at work and fatigue involved in the two posts were not similar. The Home Secretary merely repeated the language of the Supreme Court in Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India ( AIR 1984 SC 1221 ) without stating the grounds or materials on which he reached the conclusion. ( 7 ) CHALLENGING the decision of the Home Secretary the petitioners filed a second writ application [c. O. No. 5889 (W) of 1994]. ( 8 ) SUBSEQUENTLY on 6th June, 1994 a decision was taken by the Board of Control of Training that wireless helpers should be trained at the Police Training School. Pursuant to this decision each of the 34 wireless helpers have been trained. ( 9 ) ON 31st July, 1995 the next Police Commissioner asked the State Department to re-consider the order of the Home Secretary dated 3rd March, 1994. Pursuant to this decision each of the 34 wireless helpers have been trained. ( 9 ) ON 31st July, 1995 the next Police Commissioner asked the State Department to re-consider the order of the Home Secretary dated 3rd March, 1994. It was pointed out by the Police Commissioner that the wireless helper had not only to carry out technical jobs but they also had to perform duties in big football matches and cricket matches. It was further stated that the job of wireless helpers hazardous and yet they were getting the lowest scale of pay. It was noted in the Police Commissioner's report that the matter had been recommended to the Pay Commission but no report had been given by the Pay Commission. It was therefore also requested that as an interim measure till the reconsideration by the Pay Commission, that wireless helpers should be allowed to draw the scale of pay drawn by Syces and Dandis and Manjis. ( 10 ) THESE subsequent facts were brought on record by a supplementary affidavit by the petitioners in the pending writ application. ( 11 ) BECAUSE of the setting up of the State Administrative Tribunal the writ application was transferred to the Tribunal under The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Affidavits were filed by the State respondents before the Tribunal justifying the order of the Home Secretary. The Tribunal rejected the writ application. ( 12 ) THE reason given by the Tribunal for rejection of the writ petition were as follows :1. THE petitioners' process of recruitment was altogether different and their nature of duties were different; and 2. The petitioners belong to Group-D category of employees whereas the constables belong to Group-C. ( 13 ) THE finding of the Tribunal has been challenged before us by means of a third writ application. ( 14 ) WE are of the opinion that the challenge of the petitioners must be upheld. The finding of the Tribunal that the process of recruitment to the two posts was "altogether different" is contrary to the order of the Home Secretary. According to the order of the Home Secretary the only difference in the process of recruitment between the constables and wireless helpers obtaining at the material time was that the latter did not have to undergo a course of training in a Police Training College or School. According to the order of the Home Secretary the only difference in the process of recruitment between the constables and wireless helpers obtaining at the material time was that the latter did not have to undergo a course of training in a Police Training College or School. The Tribunal did not consider the petitioners' case that this difference has since been removed not only by the decision of the Board of Training but also by the several orders issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police requiring the petitioners to undergo training. ( 15 ) IT is true that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is primarily the function of the executive, "but that it is not to say that the court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction " (see : Secretary, Finance Dept. v. W. B. Registration Service Association : AIR 1992 SC 1203 ). In Jaipal v. State : AIR 1988 SC 1504 the court itself went into the matter and determined the equation of two posts. ( 16 ) IT is also well settled that the task of job evaluation is generally left to expert bodies, like the Pay Commission, etc. courts are normally reluctant to interfere with the decision of such a body of experts (see : Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India : AIR 1984 SC 1221 ; State of J. K. v. T. N. Khosa : AIR 1974 SC 1 ; State of West Bengal v. H. N. Bhowal : AIR 1994 (4) SCC 78 ] although on occasion, even the decision of the Pay Commission has been successfully challenged and parity of scales of pay granted by the court [see : Randhir Singh v. Union of India : AIR 1982 SC 879 ]. Unfortunately, in this case, although the petitioners' case was referred to the Pay Commission, no report has been produced before us to show that their case has in fact been considered. ( 17 ) ON the question of dissimilarity in the work the Supreme Court reported in Jaipal v. State of Haryana reported in AIR 1988 SC 1504 at page 1509 held that the doctrine of "equal work equal pay" would apply on the premises of similar work but it does not mean that there should be complete identity in all respects. Besides, the Tribunal failed to consider that no reason had been given in the order of the Home Secretary as to why the recommendations of two successive Police Commissioners could not be accepted. The Tribunal itself has not discussed the material on the basis of which it drew the conclusion that the nature of the two posts were dissimilar. In Secretary, Finance Dept. v. West Bengal Registration Service Association (supra) apart from laying down some of the relevant factors which should be taken into consideration while evolving "pay structure" the Supreme Court also laid down some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view for job evaluation which is a requisite condition precedent for "equation of posts" and determination of "pay Scale". Such relevant factors for job evaluation are " (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected to him, (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties, (v) the extent of powers vested in him, (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers, (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other department, etc. ". ( 18 ) THE Supreme Court also went on to say:"ordinarily pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e. g. , (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualification required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. " ( 19 ) THERE has been no consideration of several of these aspects either by the Home Secretary or by the Tribunal. ( 20 ) FINALLY, the Tribunal's finding that the constables and wireless helpers belong to different groups appears to be incorrect. According to the West Bengal Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1990 dealt with by the Third Pay Commissioner, scales of pay have been classified on the basis of pay scales. ( 20 ) FINALLY, the Tribunal's finding that the constables and wireless helpers belong to different groups appears to be incorrect. According to the West Bengal Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules 1990 dealt with by the Third Pay Commissioner, scales of pay have been classified on the basis of pay scales. The constables do not fall within Group-C. ( 21 ) THE finding of the Tribunal as well as the order of the Home Secretary dated 3rd May, 1994 are both set aside. In our view the matter of the determination of equation of pay scales should be left to an authority who would have experience and expertise on the subject. In the circumstances the State Government is directed to set up expert body constituted of persons who would have adequate experience in the matter to determine the question of equation of pay scales of wireless helpers with constables. The Committee must be set up within a period of 2 weeks. The Committee shall give the petitioners an opportunity of being heard before taking any decision in the matter. The decision shall be a reasoned one and taken within 4 months from the constitution of the Committee. The decision must be communicated to the petitioners within a week of the taking thereof. The writ application is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs. D. P. Kundu, J.- I agree. Application allowed.