JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. This representative action on behalf of the Fishery Extension Officers, who are holders of B.Sc. degree in Zoology, seeks parity of pay with the incumbents holding the same post but who are holders of Bachelor's Degree in Fishery Science. The relevant facts, on which the aforesaid claim has been made, may be noticed. 2. The Assam Fishery Service (Recruitment and Promotion) Order, 1989, came into effect from 30.1.90. Earlier to the promulgation of the aforesaid service order, the post of Fishery Extension Officer was in the scale of Rs. 620-1350/- p.m. and the academic qualification for entry to the said post was a degree with Zoology or B.F.Sc. The same qualification for entry appears to have been maintained by the service order made effective from 30.1.90 which also classified the post in question as a Class-III post in the Assam Fishery Department Service. By a notification dated 1.12.95 Schedule-I to the Service Order prescribing the minimum qualifications for the post of Fishery Extension Officer was amended and a Bachelor's degree in Fishery Science was made the sole academic qualification for entry to the post of Fishery Extension Officer. In other words, the alternative academic qualification of Bachelor degree in Science with Zoology was deleted. Though by a subsequent amendment made by notification dated 2.6.97, the aforesaid minimum qualification of B.F.Sc. as brought in by the amendment of 1995, was made inapplicable to the Fishery Extension Officers already appointed under Article 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Finance) Regulation 1951, before the 1995 amendment came into force, the purport of the said amendment would not be relevant for the present case. 3. The Assam Pay Commission constituted in the year 1994 recommended revision of pay scale of Fishery Extension Officer to the level of revised pay scale corresponding to the same of Rs. 1835-4825/- per month. The pay scale of Fishery extension Officers at that point of time, it may be noticed, was Rs. 1375 to 3375/- p.m. However, the aforesaid recommendation for revision was only in respect of those Fishery Extension Officers who possessed a degree in Fishery Science. The Pay Commission further recommended that such of the Fishery Extension Officers who were not holders of the degree in Fishery Science would get the revised pay scale corresponding to the existing scale of pay i.e. Rs. 1375-3375/- per month. 4. The Pay Commission further recommended that such of the Fishery Extension Officers who were not holders of the degree in Fishery Science would get the revised pay scale corresponding to the existing scale of pay i.e. Rs. 1375-3375/- per month. 4. By the R.O.P. Rules, 1998, two scales of pay of Fishery Extension Officer was introduced. For holders of a Bachelor's degree in Fishery Science the pay scale was fixed at Rs. 4390-11425/- p.m., whereas for science graduates with Zoology holding the same posts, the pay scale was Rs. 3580-8700/- p.m. Aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed after all attempts to secure relief at the departmental leave had failed. 5. The averments made in the writ application as well as in the additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner before this Court, would go to show that the Fishery Extension Officers after being appointed, perform the same work and shoulder the same responsibilities, regardless of the academic qualifications. The materials on record would further go to show that there is no distinction in the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the posts which are inter-changeable between the incumbents coming from the two different streams. Posts of Fishery Extension Officer held by holders of degree in Fishery Science has been filled up by transfer from Fishery Extension officers holding the B.Sc. degree with Zoology and vice versa. The promotional avenues for the Fishery Extension Officers coming from both the streams are identical and no distinction is made between the two sources from which the Fishery Extension Officer are recruited, upon promotion to the higher post in the Department. On the aforesaid basis Sri B.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the writ Petitioner has contended that the disparity in the pay scale for Fishery Extension Officers, on the basis their academic qualification, is not only unjustified and irrational, but such disparity in the pay scale has the effect of being contrary to the principle of "Equal pay for equal work". 6. The pleadings advanced on behalf of the writ Petitioner and the materials brought on record have not been controverted by the State by filling any affidavit. However, Mr. R.K. Borah, learned Govt. Advocate has been heard. 6. The pleadings advanced on behalf of the writ Petitioner and the materials brought on record have not been controverted by the State by filling any affidavit. However, Mr. R.K. Borah, learned Govt. Advocate has been heard. The short contention advanced on behalf of the state is that the Bachelor's degree in Fishery science would be a higher academic qualification and therefore, higher pay scale to persons with higher qualifications would be justified. 7. "Equal Pay for Equal Work" and claims for parity in pay is one of the thorny problems of service jurisprudence. Fixation of pay is essentially an executive function to be performed by the experts in the field like the Pay Commission and other such expert bodies. The role of the Court in such matters would naturally be severely limited. In recognizing the concept of equal pay for equal work first as a constitutional goal and then as a constitutional right, judicial opinion has undergone some transformation and the Courts have undertaken the exercise of scrutinizing the question of disparity in pay from the stand point of Article 14 of the Constitution. It will however be difficult and yet at the same time unnecessary to even attempt to lay down exhaustively the various factors that should go in to determination of a claim of parity in pay. Academic qualifications prescribed for appointment to a particular post; similarity in duties attached to the post in question; the responsibilities undertaken; promotional avenues and the conditions of service upon promotion are some of the factors which would have relevance. No single factor would however be determinative of the question. It is the overall picture that would emerge from a consideration of all relevant factors, which will decide the tenability or otherwise of a claim for parity in pay. 8. In the instant case, the materials on record would go to show that though different academic qualifications had been prescribed for entry to the post of Fishery Extension Officer, upon appointment to the said post for all practical purposes, no distinction has been maintained between the two categories of Extension Officer on the basis of their different academic qualifications. There is no provision for different grades with different scales of pay commensurate with higher or lower academic qualifications. The duties and responsibilities of Fishery Extension Officers are the same, regardless of academic qualifications of the incumbents. There is no provision for different grades with different scales of pay commensurate with higher or lower academic qualifications. The duties and responsibilities of Fishery Extension Officers are the same, regardless of academic qualifications of the incumbents. The posts are freely transferable and the incumbents with either qualification can hold any post of Fishery Extension Officer. The incumbents are entitled to promotion to the higher post on the basis of the same-eligibility conditions. Once promoted no distinction is maintained between the Fishery Extension Officer with different academic qualifications. The scale of pay in the higher posts and the promotional avenues are uniform. The initial distinction stands obliterated at the subsequent stages of the career of an incumbent; even at the initial stage of entry no distinction is discernible except in the matter of the scale of pay. 9. The eventual picture that therefore, emerges from the above analysis of facts, is that all Fishery Extension Officers regardless of their academic qualifications constitute one single cadre and except for a difference in the pay scale, there is no discernible difference between the two categories of Fishery Extension Officers in any other matter. Higher academic, qualification can be a valid basis for classification between the holders of same post, provided the classification is carried to its logical conclusion by providing for different grades within the cadre. The same is not the position in the present case. 10. The discussions that have preceded, thus leave the Court with no other conclusion except that disparity in the pay scale between the two categories of Fisheries Extension Officers has in fact negatived the equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, such disparity must be brought to an end by directing the concerned authority to make appropriate amends by giving all consequential relief(s) to the writ Petitioners as may legally. How from the present directions. 11. The writ petition, therefore, shall stand allowed as indicated above. Petition allowed