Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-Joint petition has been filed by Association (petitioner No. 1) of Assistant Agriculture Research Officers ("AARO") working in various sections of the Department of Agriculture Subordinate Service in all over Rajasthan, and petitioner No. 2 who is Member of the Association, are seeking direction against the State Government to revise pay scale of the post of AARO under Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1969, 1976 & 1983 and they be made entitled for pay scale No. 18 or 19 under Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1983 ("Pay Rules, 1983") as revised from time to time based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 2. Earlier this petition was allowed by Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.1992 but at that point of time, reply of the State Government was not on record and the writ petition was decided only on pleadings of the petitioner, against which State Government preferred Special Appeal (Writ) No. 430/1998 which was allowed by Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment dated 20.11.2001 and the order dated 08.09.1992 of the Single Bench was set aside and the matter was remanded back to consider it afresh after providing opportunity to respondent State to file reply to the writ petition. In view of Judgment of Division Bench of this Court, State Government filed its reply to writ petition on 210.2002. Thus the matter has now come up for hearing. 3. Members of petitioners Association are referred as AARO and are member of Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. So, far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, he is also a member of the Association and was initially appointed in Agriculture Department in 1967 on the post of Research Assistant, requisite qualification of which was M.Sc. (Chemistry)/M.Sc. (Agr. Chem.)M.Sc. (Soil Sc.)/M.Sc.(Soil Conservation), in pay scale of Rs. 225-485/-, which was revised to 250-625/- w.e.f. 01.09.1968 under Revised Pay Rules, 1969, and was further revised to 590-1035 w.e.f. 01.09.1976 under Revised Pay Rules, 1976. By amendment in Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 ("Service Rules"), post of Research Assistant was re-designated as Assistant Agriculture Research Officer ("AARO") vide Notification dated 29.06.1978. Rule 4 of Service Rules relate to composition & strength of the Service and as per Rule 4 (ii), nature of posts included in different sections of Service as stated in Rules 4(i) as stipulated in Col. Rule 4 of Service Rules relate to composition & strength of the Service and as per Rule 4 (ii), nature of posts included in different sections of Service as stated in Rules 4(i) as stipulated in Col. 2 of Scheduled appended to Service Rules. Post of AARO exists in Sections I, II & V of Schedule to Service Rules, which was inserted vide Notification dated 01.04.1991 and prior to which, another Schedule was existing in Service Rules, which stood deleted upon enforcement of present Schedule w.e.f. 01.04.1991 and prior to which post of AARO (Agriculture Assistant/Assistant Extension Officer/Farm Manager) was existing in Section I & IV of the Schedule. But as per changed Scheme of Service Rules, promotions are to be made from the post of AARO to Agriculture Research Officer and then to post of Dy. Director (Agri.) Revised Pay Rules, 1983 were framed on the basis of recommendations of Beri Pay Commission and as per which, pay scale of AARO (earlier re-designated as Research Assistant) stood revised from 590-1035 to Rs. 780-1460/-w.e.f 01.09.1981. The Association made representations (Exhibits 2 to 12) to different Government functionaries for proper revision of pay scale of the post of AARO. 4. The case of petitioners is that post of State Librarian carried pay scale of Rs. 200-400 upto 1961, which was revised to Rs. 225-485/-from 01.09.1961, and further revised to Rs. 375-850/-from 01.09.1968; Rs. 750-1350/-from 01.09.1976; and Rs. 1000-1860/-from 01.09.1981. It has also been submitted that a number of posts viz. Lecturer in Ayurved Assistant Director Animal Husbandry, Agriculture Extension Officer, Assistant Director, Inspector of Police, Inspector Home Guards, Tehsildar, Curator in Archeology & Museum, had carried pay scales lower than that of post of AARO but at the point of subsequent revision of pay scales either from 01.09.1968 or 01.09.1976 or 01.09.1981, higher pay scales than that of post of AARO were prescribed to those posts (Supra). 5. It has also been submitted by petitioners that post of Research Assistant in States of Haryana, Punjab & Madhya Pradesh carried pay scale of Rs. 700-1600/-during revision of pay in the year 1976 qua the post of AARO in Rajasthan i.e. Rs. 590-1035/-. It has also been compared form post of Research Assistant in PWD and PHED carrying pay scale of Rs. 750-1350/-. 700-1600/-during revision of pay in the year 1976 qua the post of AARO in Rajasthan i.e. Rs. 590-1035/-. It has also been compared form post of Research Assistant in PWD and PHED carrying pay scale of Rs. 750-1350/-. Thus, as per petitioners contention, pay scale of post of AARO in Rajasthan State has been subjected to discriminatory & step-mother treatment. 6. The petitioners have also claimed that principle of equal pay for equal work has been flouted by State Government and members of the Association are also entitled to pay scale Nos. 18 or 19, as has been admissible to similar corresponding posts in other departments of State Government (respondent). 7. Shri Mahendra Singh, Counsel for petitioner Association vociferously urged that for all posts (supra) in various departments of State Government, where Degree of Post Graduate is a requisite minimum qualification, as is prescribed for post of AARO held by petitioners and who are required to undertake research activities and discharge research related functions in various species viz. horticulture, agronomy, agricultural chemistry, entomology, pathology etc., and similarly there are other posts in other departments requiring similar kind of technical qualifications carrying same functions & duties. Contrarily, State Government adopted different standards while granting pay scale to technical posts similar to post of AARO and thereby step mother treatment has been extended to members of petitioner Association. According to Shir Singh, denial of similar pay scale to petitioners, looking to their qualification and nature of duties & responsibilities, as admissible to holders of pay scale Nos. 18 & 19,is violation of Articles 14 & 39(d) of Constitution of India and is against principles of equal pay for equal work, which has been universally accepted by Apex Court. In order to support of his contention, Shri Singh has also placed on record Schedule B along with rejoinder, whereby qualification along with pay scales of various posts of other departments of the State, has been referred to therein, and according to him, all other posts in Animal Husbandry, Ayurved College Education, Udaipur University, Irrigation & Public Works Departments, for which minimum qualification prescribed for PG Degree, is carrying pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-which is higher than that of post of AARO - in scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-as per Revised Pay Rules, 1998, which according to him, is discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. 8000-13500/-which is higher than that of post of AARO - in scale of Rs. 6500-10500/-as per Revised Pay Rules, 1998, which according to him, is discriminatory and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. In support of his submission, Shri Singh relied upon decisions of Apex Court in Union of India vs. Debashis Kar, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 528, and Jaipal vs. State of Haryana, 1998 (3) SCC 354. 8. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition and inter-alia submitted that qualification, duties & responsibilities of post of AARO in Agriculture Department are not comparable to post of Librarian in other departments and they are assigned separate pay scales depending upon responsibilities & duties attached to each post, inasmuch as pay scales are revised as per recommendations of Pay Commissions. Respondents further submitted that pay scale of post of Research Assistant and/or AARO so also Librarian were revised by State Government on the recommendations made by Ranawart Pay Commission in 1969 and, thereafter, Beri Pay Commission examined nature of responsibilities, duties and qualification besides other factors attached to the posts concerned and then made recommendations-according to which pay scale of AARO was revised from Rs. 590-1035 to Rs. 780-1460/-in 1983; and that apart, even two pay scales in same category of posts is permissible if reasonable basis exists to do so and thus there cannot be any comparison among such posts of AARO or another post in different departments chan Agriculture and it cannot be said to be a case of pay anomaly. That apart, after recommendations made by pay commissions, the Government constituted pay anomaly committee which considered various aspects and decided representations made by affected persons/Associations. 9. The respondents further submitted that posts referred to by petitioner in para 6 of writ petition, such as Assistant Director Animal Husbandry and Tourism Department are in the State Services while post of AARO is in subordinate services, and like wise posts of Vikas Adhikari, Inspector of Police, Tehsildar, Assistant Accounts, Officers, Inspector in Home guards & Curator in Archeology Department, hold greater responsibility in performing their duties and there cannot be any comparison with these posts referred to by petitioner for grant of same pay scale to them on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 10. 10. It has also been submitted by respondent State that representations made by petitioner Association with regard to alleged pay anomalies, were referred to Beri Commission, which after considering totality of circumstances, recommended pay scale of Rs. 800-1500/-for post of AARO and which was referred to the Committee of Secretaries for its analysis and consideration by the Cabinet, and then the said Committee recommended to prescribe pay scale of Rs. 780-1460/-for AARO which was ultimately revised from 01.09.1983 under Pay Rules, Even grievances raised by petitioner Association were considered by Beri Commission, Samata Samiti, Equivalence Committee, Committee of Secretaries & the Cabinet from time to time, which did not find enough merit to favourably consider, and according to respondents, in the absence of any cogent material on record to justify their grievance in the light of nature of duties responsibilities etc., the comparison made on the principle of equal pay for equal work will not be made applicable to the present case. 11. I have considered rival contentions of parties and pondered over material on record. 12. While examining principle of equal pay for equal work, various comparable factors like nature of recruitment, degree of skill, experience involved in performance of job, training, and other facilities which is required to be looked into. While making comparison, petitioner has only referred to the nature of qualification attached to post of AARO, but no other material with regard to nature of duties, responsibilities, experience in performance of job, etc have been placed on record. Contrarily, the matter was examined at various levels by Pay Commissions, Samata Samiti, Grievance Committee so also by Committee of Secretaries and Cabinet but none found any error in the decision taken with regard to pay scale applicable to petitioners members holding post of AARO and there is no material on record to make any comparison with other posts which petitioners have referred to in para 6 of writ petition. 13. Apex Court has considered that equation to pay must be left to be executive and must be determined by an Expert Body like Pay commissions and they are best to evaluate nature of responsibilities and duties attached to the posts. Apex Court in State of UP vs. JP Chaurasai, 1989 (1) SCC 121 , at para 18 observed as follows:- “. . . . Apex Court in State of UP vs. JP Chaurasai, 1989 (1) SCC 121 , at para 18 observed as follows:- “. . . . It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts of equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a commission or committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.” (emphasis added) 14. It has also been examined by Apex Court while change of pay scale of a category of employee other than recommended by Pay Commission, in Union of India vs. PV Hariharan, 1997 (3) SCC 568 , wherein at para 5 it has been observed as follows:- “It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realise that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is also being misunderstood and misapplied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board.” (Emphasis added) 15. Doctrine of equal pay for equal work depends upon nature of work done and it cannot be judged by mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability & responsibility. As held by Apex Court in Secy. Fin. Doctrine of equal pay for equal work depends upon nature of work done and it cannot be judged by mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability & responsibility. As held by Apex Court in Secy. Fin. Deptt. vs. WB Registration Service Assn, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153, equation of posts and determination of pay scale is primary function of Executive and not of the Judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily Courts will not enter upon task of job evaluation which generally left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions. The Apex Court observed thus:- "....Courts must, however, realize that job evaluation is both a difficult and time-consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performance of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relatives on account of the changing nature of job requirements.." "The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of 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 coordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number." "Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so, care must be taken to ensure that such realization of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so, care must be taken to ensure that such realization of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a 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, (vi) minimum educational/technical qualifications requires, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employers capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasis that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well." 16. Therefore, Apex Court concluded that there can be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given pots and Courts interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. 17. Further, while examining doctrine of equal pay for equal work in SBI vs. MR. Ganesh Babu, 2002 (4) SCC 556 , Apex Court observed as under:-".....Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Often the difference is a matter of degree and there is an element of value Judgment s by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value Judgment is made bonafide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. So long as such value Judgment is made bonafide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The Judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value Judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bonafide, reasonably and rationally, is not open to interference by the Court. 18. In State of Haryana vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., 2002 (6) SCC 72 , while dealing with in the context of complex nature of issues, observed as under:-"In the context of the complex nature of issues involved, the far-reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration of the State Government, Courts have taken the view that ordinarily Courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decision pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the Courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the government. The Courts should approach such matter with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employee and the government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the Court holds the order passed by the Government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the state government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The Court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the government to implement the same. As noted earlier, in the present case the High Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two sections of employee, one in the state secretariat and the other in the Central secretariat. It has also ignored the basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and executive instructions issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre." 19. It has also ignored the basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and executive instructions issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre." 19. Main thrust of petitioner is on the qualification while comparing post of AARO qua other posts in departments of public works, irrigation, Ayurved College etc., in my opinion qualification can be one of the consideration but cannot be a sole consideration for grant of equal pay as admissible to other employees, as well. As laid down by Apex Court, there can be differentiation in pay scales to persons holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability & confidentiality and that can be a valid differentiation. Responsibility attached to the post and degree of reliability expected of an incumbent are also considerations while consideration of grant of pay scale for holder of posts concerned. 20. Pay Commission and the Committee constituted by Government from time to time being expert body must have taken note of nature of duties, responsibilities of various categories of posts and have reached to their bonafide conclusion while grant of pay scale to the holder of posts concerned. And they are best judge to examine pay scale made admissible to the employees after taking note of all relevant factors as referred to above, and I find no error in the decision taken by expert body and in my opinion it cannot be said to be arbitrary, unreasonable or irrational. 21. Decision of Apex Court in Jaipal vs. State of Haryana (Supra) cited by petitioner does not render any help to the controversy at hand because it was a case where on the basis of material placed on record, finding was recorded that nature of duties performed by Instructors are comparable to those of squad teachers and in this view of matter, it was examined as to whether writ petitioners were entitled for benefit of same pay scale to the post on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In that case, doctrine of equal pay for equal work was disregard on the grounds (1) of one employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature, (2) difference in mode of selection and on the plea that instructors are not transferable, and therefore, the Apex Court observed that a temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee and similarly difference in mode of selection will not affect the application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work if both the classes of persons perform similar function and duties under same employer. 22. In another decision cited by petitioner in Union of India vs. Debashis Kar (Supra), Ministry of Defence issued an order dated 03.07.1984 whereby the user organizations were required to take necessary action in terms of para 2 of office memo dated 13.03.1984 for revision of pay scales but the Ordnance factory board in its meeting held on 09.09.1986 decided that the qualification of draftsmen employed in Ordnance factories are not similar to those in the CPWD and so they were not entitled to revision of pay scales as per office memo dated 13.03.1984. But the Apex Court after examining material which was brought before the Board on the basis of which the Board withdrew the revised pay scale which they were entitled for, considered their decision to be irrational and ordered for grant of same pay scale in view of circular dated 13.03.1984 as recommended by Ministry of Defence, which is not the fact situation in present case. Hence, both the cited decisions (Supra) are of no help to petitioner. 23. In view of settle principle and scope of judicial interference as laid down by Apex Court, the decision taken by the Executive, in my opinion, cannot be faulted with in facts situation of present case. 24. Consequently, this writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.