JUDGMENT 1. - Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated September 8, 1992 directed the appellant State of Rajasthan to give pay scale to the members of the respondent Association at par with the pay scale of the Research Assistants of PHED/PWD, with effect from September 1, 1981. The appellant submitted a petition before the learned Single Judge seeking review of the said judgment but the review petition was dismissed on October 16, 1997. The appellant in the instant special appeal has impugned the aforesaid orders of the learned Single Judge. 2. We have heard the rival submissions. 3. On a careful scrutiny of material on record we find that on September 8, 1992 when the writ petition was listed for hearing, learned Additional Government Advocate expressed that he did not receive the case file and was not in a position to assist the court. In view of the fact that writ petition was pending since 1983 the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition without providing further time to the appellant. Thereafter an application for recalling the judgment was filed before the learned Single fudge by the appellant with the averments that the State Government came to know for the first time about the said judgment on October 6, 1994 when the General Secretary of the respondent's association placed before it a copy of the judgment and after examining the matter when it was found that there was an impediment in the way of implementation of the judgment a decision was taken to file a petition seeking review of the said judgment. Learned Single Judge did not find any merit in the petition and dismissed it on October 16, 1997. 4. It is contended by Mr. R.N. Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General that in the other departments of the State, pay scale of the post Research Assistant is not higher than the pay scale of Assistant Agriculture Research Officer (i.e. 2000-3200). The pay scale of Agriculture Research Officer i.e. the promotion post of Assistant Agriculture Research Officer is 2200-4000. Therefore grant of higher pay scale to the Assistant Agriculture Research Officer would create imbalance within the Agriculture Department and the basic principles of pay scale rules. It is further urged that as back as on Sept., " under section 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against judgment dated 8.9.92 of learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1526/84. Therefore grant of higher pay scale to the Assistant Agriculture Research Officer would create imbalance within the Agriculture Department and the basic principles of pay scale rules. It is further urged that as back as on Sept., " under section 18, Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against judgment dated 8.9.92 of learned Single Judge in SBCWP No. 1526/84. 5, 1995 a decision was taken that there existed no post in the nomenclature of Research Assistant in PWD and PHED. Reliance is placed on (1) Associate Bank Officers' Association vs. State Bank of India (1998) 1 SCC 428 and (2) Nain Singh Bhakuni vs. U.O.I. (1998) 3 SCC 348 . 5. On the other hand Mr. Mahendra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent's Association supported the impugned judgment and canvassed that the order of the learned Single Judge is based on reasons and it has not been implemented so far. 6. A look at the record demonstrates that the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the appellant State Govt. failed to handle the case properly and did not choose to a file reply to the writ petition. Ordinarily we would not have interfered with the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge in such a situation but we find that sufficient material to establish identifiable discrimination could not be placed on record. It is now well settled that unless there is identifiable discrimination, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work should not be applied. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment observed thus - "........ Although, it is true that the decision for grant of particular pay scale is to be taken by an expert body, which is fully equipped with the material and information in regard to the source of recruitment, the qualifications, nature of duties etc. but when a challenge is made before the Court that the pay scale has been prescribed arbitrarily and relevant considerations have been overlooked, it becomes the duty of the respondents to place relevant material before the court to establish that the decision regarding pay scale had been taken after due application of mind to all the relevant factors. but when a challenge is made before the Court that the pay scale has been prescribed arbitrarily and relevant considerations have been overlooked, it becomes the duty of the respondents to place relevant material before the court to establish that the decision regarding pay scale had been taken after due application of mind to all the relevant factors. The respondent has singularly failed to place such material before the court in the present writ petition." It is thus evident that the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order on insufficient material and we have no option but to set aside the said order. 7. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Associate Bank Officers' Association vs. State Bank of India (supra) indicated that when the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is sought to be extended to compare pay scales in one organisation with pay scale in another organisation, although between employees doing comparable work, the stretching of the doctrine, if at all is to be done, must be done with caution lest the doctrine snaps. 8. In the ends of justice we deem it appropriate to provide one more opportunity to the appellant to file reply to the writ petition and to place necessary material before the learned Single Judge. 9. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed and the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge are set aside. The case is now remitted back to the learned Single Judge with a request to decide it afresh after providing an opportunity to the appellant to file reply on payment of costs of Rs. 5000/- (five thousand) to the respondent association. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Single Judge on December 4, 2001.SPL. Appeal allowed. *******