JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.:---The petitioners are challenging the discrimination in the pay-scale given to them vis-a-vis the pay-scale given to other Draughtsmen Grade II in the Electricity Department. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioners are working as Draughtsmen Grade II along with other Draughtsmen in Grade II in the Electricity Department. However, excepting the petitioners, all other Draughtsmen are getting the pay-scale in the range of Rs. 1400-2300. 2.The facts, in brief, are that the petitioners were initially employed as Tracers in the Electricity Department by order dated 7-5-1981 on ad-hoc basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 260-430 and thereafter appointed on temporary basis in the same pay-scale with effect from 1-4-1983 by order dated 27-10-1983. The petitioners completed their Tracers course and passed final examination from the Board of Technical Examination in the State of Maharashtra in October, 1980. Pursuant to Fourth Pay Commission Report, the pay-scale of the Tracer was revised in the year 1986 and the post of Tracer in the Electricity Department in the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1500 was re-designated as Draughtsman Grade III in the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 499 of 1996 was promoted to the post of Draughtsman Grade II with effect from 14-4-1987 initially on ad-hoc basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 and regularised in the same pay-scale from 31-3-1988 on temporary basis. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 498 of 1996, who was holding the post of Tracer, the same post being re-designated as Draughtsman Grade III by order dated 5-4-1991, became Draughtsman Grade III and pursuant to the recommendation of D.P.C. he was promoted by order dated 16-3-1992 to the post of Draughtsman Grade II on temporary basis in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040. 3.It is the case of the petitioners that they are paid in the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 whereas others are getting the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300. Pending the decision on the basis of the Fifth Pay Commission Report, by an order dated 31-7-1996 the employees who were in the existing pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 were given the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and employees who were in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 were given pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900. 1400-2300. Pending the decision on the basis of the Fifth Pay Commission Report, by an order dated 31-7-1996 the employees who were in the existing pay-scale of Rs. 1200-2040 were given the revised pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and employees who were in the pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 were given pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900. It is the contention of the petitioners that the said revision of pay-scales does not in any way benefit to the petitioners as by the said revision the petitioners' salary was brought on par with the scale of other Draugtsmen Grade II as it was then, but their salary i.e. the salary of other Draughtsmen Grade II was further raised to Rs. 1640-2900 which benefit was denied to the petitioners in violation of the principle of "equal pay for equal work". 4.It is the case of the petitioners that the nature of duties of Draughtsman Grade II in the Electricity Department, other than the petitioners are the same as the duties of the petitioners. Being so, there is no justification for disparity in the pay-scale between that of the petitioners and the other Draughtsmen Grade II. 5.On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that as per the C.P.W.D. Manual the minimum qualification required for Draughtsman Grade II is Diploma in Draftmanship (Civil/Mechanical) from a recognised Institute of not less than 2 years (including 6 months practical training) plus practical experience of at least one year in a reputed organisation after getting the Diploma. According to O.M. of Government of India dated 13-3-1984, the original pay-scale of Draughtsman Grade III was Rs. 260-430 which was revised to Rs. 330-560 on the basis of qualification. The scale of the incumbents who did not possess the recruitment qualifications was revised from Rs. 330-560 to Rs. 1200-2040 and the scale of incumbents who possessed the recruitment qualifications was revised from Rs. 425-700 to Rs. 1400-2300. The said scales were revised according to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. Since the petitioners did not fulfil the requirements as mentioned in O.M. dated 13-3-1984, the petitioners continued in the pre-revised scale, i.e. Rs. 1200-2040. 330-560 to Rs. 1200-2040 and the scale of incumbents who possessed the recruitment qualifications was revised from Rs. 425-700 to Rs. 1400-2300. The said scales were revised according to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission. Since the petitioners did not fulfil the requirements as mentioned in O.M. dated 13-3-1984, the petitioners continued in the pre-revised scale, i.e. Rs. 1200-2040. Considering the fact that O.M. dated 13-3-1984 clearly prescribed the recruitment qualifications to be the prerequisite for the revision of pay-scale in the manner prescribed therein, and the petitioners were not satisfying the said requirement, and therefore were not entitled for the revision of their pay-scale on par with the other Draughtsmen Grade II who were having the required recruitment qualifications. 6.The contention regarding the necessity of minimum required recruitment qualifications to claim the parity in the pay-scale is sought to be countered by the petitioners by placing reliance upon the subsequent O.M. of the Government of India which is dated 19-10-1994. The said O.M. dated 19-10-1994 did not prescribe any prerequisite of satisfaction of recruitment qualifications in order to claim the revision of the pay-scale. 7.There is no dispute that the O.M. dated 13-3-1984 was modified by the Government of India by another O.M. dated 19-10-1994 to the extent of deletion of requirement of recruitment qualifications for the purpose of revision of the pay-scale. However, the fact remains, that the Territory of Goa was forming part of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu till 30th May 1987. Since 30th May 1987 the Territory of Goa was declared as State of Goa. Consequently, the O.M. dated 19-10-1994 issued by the Central Government could not have the effect of amending the O.M. dated 13-3-1984 which was in force in the State of Goa on the day of its formation. Undisputedly, there is nothing on record to show nor the petitioners have been able to establish that the O.M. dated 13-3-1984 was either modified by the Government of Goa or that the Government of Goa had adopted the O.M. dated 19-10-1994 of the Central Government. In the circumstances, therefore, for all purposes, O.M. dated 13-3-1984 stands good and effective in the State of Goa. It is also an undisputed fact that in terms of O.M. dated 13-3-1984, the revision of the pay-scale was subject to the fulfilment of requirement of recruitment qualifications. In the circumstances, therefore, for all purposes, O.M. dated 13-3-1984 stands good and effective in the State of Goa. It is also an undisputed fact that in terms of O.M. dated 13-3-1984, the revision of the pay-scale was subject to the fulfilment of requirement of recruitment qualifications. It is also an undisputed fact that the petitioners did not fulfill the recruitment qualifications as mentioned in O.M. dated 13-3-1984. Therefore, the petitioners and other Draughtsmen Grade II in the Electricity Department do not form one and the same class. The petitioners form clearly distinct class from those other Draughtsman Grade II who satisfy the necessary minimum recruitment qualifications. 8.The point, therefore, arises as to whether the disparity in the qualifications can be a justification for disregarding the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". In this regard, the decisions of the Apex Court in the matter of (State of Rajasthan v. Gopi Kishan Sen)1, reported in A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 1754 and in the matter of (Chandigarh Administration v. Anita Sood (Smt.) and others)2, reported in 1995(3) Supp. S.C.C. 613 are very relevant. In the case of Gopi Kishan Sen (supra), the Apex Court had clearly held that "the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 read with Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 making a distinction in the pay of trained and untrained teachers performing identical duties cannot be struck down on ground of illegal discrimination. The additional qualification of being trained teacher is of such a nature that it enables the teacher to do his duty better and for this reason there cannot be any legitimate objection to the grant of a better scale of pay." In the matter of Chandigarh Administration (supra), the Apex Court had held that the "qualitative difference of standard of teaching between the two teachers with different designations it cannot be claimed that they are entitled to the same pay scales." 9.In (Nain Singh Bhakuni and others v. Union of India and another)3, reported in A.I.R. 1998 S.C. 622, the Apex Court has held that "there being sharp difference as far as experience and qualifications are concerned, in the cadre of Draftsman Grade III at grassroot level in C.P.W.D. and Tracer at grassroot level in C.W.C. and their channels of further promotion from these two grassroot level cadres in both these establishments also required different weightage of experience. It cannot be said that qualificationwise the draftsmen in C.W.C. at the base level or in the higher grades of service were identically situated as compared to their counterpart Draftsman Grade III, II and I in C.P.W.D. and consequently the general recommendations for the hike in pay-scale as made by the Third Central Pay Commission which were adopted with necessary changes by the Government authorities in their application to draftsmen in different services under the Union of India could not be found fault with on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 10.In (Union of India and others v. Debashis Kar and others)4, reported in 1995 Supp. (3) S.C.C. 528, the Apex Court had upheld the decision of CAT in relation to grant of parity of pay-scales to the Draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories and Draughtsmen Grade II in C.P.W.D. referring to the fact that the prescribed qualifications for their appointment were similar or equivalent and there was consistent parity in their pay-scales in the past. 11.Considering various decisions of the Apex Court referred to above and the facts and the circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the denial of parity of scale to the petitioners with the scale of the other Draughtsmen Grade II is in violation of doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". As rightly submitted by the respondent, O.M. dated 13-3-1984 clearly provides for this different class of the employees, those who have necessary minimum recruitment qualifications and those who do not have the same, while granting revision of pay-scales. Being so, it cannot be said that the respondents have arbitrarily denied the pay-scales to the petitioners, which is otherwise being granted to the other Draughtsman Grade II in the said Department. 12.In the result, therefore, the petitions fail and the same are hereby dismissed. The rule is discharged in both the petitions. No order as to costs. Petitions dismissed. -----