JUDGMENT 1. - This petition has been filed by the Association of Survey-ors/Amins of the Settlement Department, claiming that the provisions contained in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules 1989, in short the Rules of 1989, in so far as they provide pay in the scale of 950-1680, to the Settlement Surveyors, be declared illegal, and the respondents be directed to pay to the Settlement Surveyors in the scale of 1200-2050, with consequential benefits. Other relief claimed is, for issuance of direction to the respondents, to grant Hard Duty Allowance, so also that the provisions contained in Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Traveling Allowance Rules, 1971, be declared illegal, and a direction has been claimed, to grant T.A. & D.A., to the Settlement Surveyors. 2. It is alleged by the petitioner, in the writ petition, that the revenue work of the Department is mainly divided in two parts, Survey and Settlement, and Revenue. Survey and Settlement Department conducts the survey of the lands other than urban lands, and after conducting the survey the settlement record is prepared, which records measurements of the lands, its situation, khasra number, classification, and determination of rent, and on that basis revenue records are prepared, for determining rights and titles of the parties. In the Settlement Department, duties of Settlement Surveyors have been prescribed by the Settlement Commissioner, as detailed in Annex.-1. It is then alleged, that like Rajasthan, Settlement Department is in existence in almost all the States, as well as in Government of India, and that, the main work of this Department, in all the States, and the Central Government, is the same, which is being done by the Settlement Department of Government of Rajasthan. With this background, it has been alleged, that the State Government had not been paying equal scales of pay to the surveyors working in the Settlement Department, in comparison to the scales given to the surveyors of the Central Government. Then, it is alleged, that along with other department, the employee of the Settlement Department also went on strike in January 1989, and a settlement was arrived at on 24.2.1989, to the effect, that a committee will be established by the State Government, which will decide the question of grant of equal pay scales to the employees of the State Government, in comparison to the employees of the Central Government. Accordingly, a committee was constituted, before whom, the petitioner Association submitted its claim, claiming pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040, and creation of grade of 1400-2600, as selection grade. It is alleged, that the Settlement Commissioner forwarded the claim, along with his recommendations in favour of the petitioner, vide Annexure-6. Then, representations were made, and the Assistant Secretary of the Government is also alleged to have made recommendations for grant of pay scale, as suggested by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the Committee appears to have been satisfied with the submissions, that the pay scales deserves to be increased, but instead of making recommendations for grant of pay scale, equal to that of Central Government, the recommendations have been made for the grant of Scale No. 6 i.e., 950-1680, and accordingly the Revised Pay Scales Rules of 1989 have been framed. It is alleged, that along with the representation, the pay scale rules of various State Governments were also referred, to show, that number of other states are providing Settlement Surveyors the pay scale of 1200-2040, and that, persons working as Junior Surveyor in the Government of India are being given the pay scale of 1200-2040, since 1.1.1986. The details of the duties discharged by the Junior Surveyors in the Central Government, so also, the pay scale being given by the other states, have been pleaded in para B-11 of the writ petition. It is claimed, that all the State Governments have granted almost identical pay scales to the employees, including those working in the Settlement Department, equivalent to the pay scales given by the Central Government, but in Rajasthan, it has not been done so. Then in para B/12/(ii), it has been pleaded "that under the Rules of 1989 almost all categories of employees who were earlier getting pay in scale 880-1680 under the Rules of 1987 have been given pay in scale of 1200-2050". With this, the petitioner has purportedly produced a schedule, showing the details of pay, granted to the categories of the employees mentioned therein to show, that the petitioner should also be placed in the same pay scale. With this, the petitioner has purportedly produced a schedule, showing the details of pay, granted to the categories of the employees mentioned therein to show, that the petitioner should also be placed in the same pay scale. Then regarding T.A., it is pleaded, that when posted at particular place, and when they have to go distant place, for the purpose of conducting survey, and they can return only after the survey is complete, the employees are provided only the expenses incurred in reaching the place of survey, and return, and no allowance, in the form of Daily Allowance, or any other compensatory allowance, to meet the expenses for continuously remaining at that place, are given, and that, they are given the House Rent Allowance in accordance with the place of their posting, irrespective of the place where they have been sent for survey. It is also contended, that according to Rajasthan T.A. Rules, 1971, the halting allowance is admissible to an employee for each day of stay at a station beyond 8 kms. from the duty point, provided that the stay at that station on a particular day is for a period beyond 8 hours, but then, this is denied to the surveyors. It is also contended, that various State Governments, and the Central Government, have been compensating the persons so working, by making payment of special pay, or fixed T.A., on monthly basis, but then, all this is denied to the members of the petitioner Association. Then, Hard Duty Allowance has also been claimed, contending, that the Surveyors have to go for discharging the duties outside their headquarters, and have to remain in the field till the job is complete, and in that process have to remain out of headquarters for months together, but then, no facility has been provided for stay, or for compensating them towards expenses, and that, very nature of the work shows that Surveyors have to discharge the numerous duties, they have to travel on foot in remote areas, have to remain standing in the fields for hours together, irrespective of climate and thus, the duties cannot be said to be anything less than Hard Duty. It is contended, that previously Hard Duty Allowance was given under the Rules of 1961 but was subsequently stopped, and in 1969, and 1984 recommendations were made to restore the Hard Duty Allowance. It is contended, that previously Hard Duty Allowance was given under the Rules of 1961 but was subsequently stopped, and in 1969, and 1984 recommendations were made to restore the Hard Duty Allowance. Then, it is pleaded, that the constables in the Police Department are given Hard Duty Allowance Similarly the Guards working in the Excise Department are also given Hard Duty Allowance, and similarly the members of the petitioner Association are also entitled to Hard Duty Allowance. The claim is substantially sought to be supported, on the anvil of Article 14, 16 and 39(d). 3. In reply, it is contended, that the work done by the Surveyors employed in the Settlement Department of Government of Rajasthan is not identical to that of the Junior Surveyors working in the Central Government, and as such they cannot be compared. It is pleaded, that duties, responsibilities, qualification, and mode of recruitment of the Surveyors (Amins) under Government of India are not the same, as that of the Surveyors employed in the Government of Rajasthan. It was admitted, that the State Government took a policy decision, to revise the pay scale of the employees of the State Government, at par with the pay scale of the similar posts existing in the Government of India, and to implement, a committee was constituted, and the committee looked into the matter, also heard the representatives of the petitioner Association, but then, they could not satisfy the Committee, and they could not furnish any facts in support of their claim. It was pointed out, that the qualification of Surveyors under the State Government is Secondary, whereas the Surveyors under the Government of India are required to be Graduate. Thus, the pay of the two cadres cannot be compared. It was also pleaded, that the field of discharging duties by the Surveyors of the Central Government is wider than that of the Surveyors of the State Government. The Surveyors of the Central Government can be sent to any part of the country for the survey purpose, while the Surveyors of the State Government cannot, therefore, also they cannot claim parity. Regarding the plea of pay scales in other states, it was pleaded, that they are not legally entitled to pay such claim, as they cannot claim parity with the conditions, or pay scales, governing the pay scales of the other states. Regarding the plea of pay scales in other states, it was pleaded, that they are not legally entitled to pay such claim, as they cannot claim parity with the conditions, or pay scales, governing the pay scales of the other states. Regarding Schedule- A, it was pleaded, that the Surveyors cannot claim parity with the Teachers, as the qualifications of the two are different, inasmuch as, the teachers are required to undergo two years training, and obtain a certificate of B.S.T.C./B. Ed., which is an extra qualification, necessary for the appointment on the post. Regarding T.A., it was pleaded, that the field staff are not allowed T.A. for performing the duties within their jurisdiction as the normal part of their duties. However, they are allowed the actual fare, when they go for long movements, and are also paid actual cost of carrying Survey Instruments, whenever they are sent on duty. Then, replying para-D-6, wherein parity was sought to be claimed, with Settlement Inspectors, it was contended, that the Inspector is required to supervise five or more Surveyors, and he has to travel from village to village, and therefore, a fixed T.A. is allowed to Settlement Inspector, apart from the fact that the scope of the duties of the two posts is different. The duties include Traversers, survey soil classification, attestation and disposal of objection etc., and for this purpose, he is required to have a fast movement from one place to another. Then, regarding Hard Duty Allowance, it was pleaded, that earlier Hard Duty Allowance of Rs. 10/- per month was permissible to the Surveyors, but then, was subsequently merged with the new pay scale, as the new pay scale was adequately improved, as recommended by the Pay Commission in para-126 of Chapter XVI of the Ranawat Pay Commission, and therefore, they are not entitled to lay any claim on this count. It was pleaded, that the provisions of the Rules of 1989 are neither discriminatory, nor violative of Article 39(d) of the Constitution. 4. No rejoinder has been filed to controvert the factual averments in the reply, about the different qualification, for different posts, and different nature of duties. It was pleaded, that the provisions of the Rules of 1989 are neither discriminatory, nor violative of Article 39(d) of the Constitution. 4. No rejoinder has been filed to controvert the factual averments in the reply, about the different qualification, for different posts, and different nature of duties. During pendency of the writ petition, at the direction of the Court, the respondent submitted the extract of the recommendations made by the Equivalence Committee, along with the affidavit, as to how, and why, the scale of 950-1680 was recommended for the post of Surveyors. Then few more documents have been filed by the respondents. 5. Arguing the writ petition, the contents of the schedule were highlighted, according to which, the Teacher Gr. III, P.T.I., Craft Teacher, Music Teacher, were all in the same pay scale No. 7, as were the petitioners, in the Pay Scale Rules of 1969, 1976, 1983, 1987, so also in 1989 Rules, the persons serving in these cadres have been given pay scale No. 9, being 1200-2050, while the petitioners have been given pay scale No. 6, being 950-1680, which also shows, that the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police were also getting same pay scale No. 7, in the Pay Scale Rules of 1969 and 1976, but in 1987 Rules, they were given Pay scale No. 8, instead of Scale No. 7, so also notwithstanding 1987 Rules, and in 1989 Rules, have been again brought at part with the other cadres, who were given scale No. 7, and were given scale No. 9. Thus, it is contended, that the scales are discriminatory. Attention was also invited to the pay scales being paid to Surveyors by the State Government in the State of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, and the Surveyors working in the Central Government. Then, attention was also invited to fix allowances being paid to the Surveyors working in the Central Government. Then, attention was also invited to fix allowances being paid to the Surveyors of the State Government, in the State of Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. It was then pleaded, that the reason considered by the Equivalence Committee, about non admissibility of selection scales to the Teachers is not correct, inasmuch as, by notification of 1998, the Teachers have been held entitled to the selection scale on completion of 10 years of service instead of 9 years, at which the other persons are entitled. It was then pleaded, that the reason considered by the Equivalence Committee, about non admissibility of selection scales to the Teachers is not correct, inasmuch as, by notification of 1998, the Teachers have been held entitled to the selection scale on completion of 10 years of service instead of 9 years, at which the other persons are entitled. Submissions for T.A. and D.A. etc. were also made. Reliance was placed on judgment of this Court in S.K. Ghosh v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1984 RLR 966 , to submit, that therein, this Court had considered the pay scales of P.S. to C.J. and other Judges of this Court, vis-a-vis the P.S. of the Commissioners and Secretaries of the State Government, in the matter of pay scale, and appreciating that, a mandamus was issued, directing the State Government, to amend the High Court Staff Rules, or otherwise by making an executive order, so as to give effect to the five points, catalogued in para-36 of the judgment, which include, a direction to the effect, that an official who has actually worked as Personal Assistant cum Judgment Writer/Private Secretary to Chief Justice/Judges of the High Court, in the pay scales mentioned therein, for a continuous period of at 3 years, shall be eligible for being appointed to a post, in the cadre, as directed in point No. (a). Then, for excess number of posts, reconstituted into the new cadre, is to form a distinct cadre, carrying a distinct designation, like Personal Assistants cum Judgment Writers, and enjoying the pay scale, allowances and status, at part with the Personal Assistants in the State Secretariat, and that, not less than one third posts, out of the posts, as per point No. (c), shall be given the pay scale, and status, equal to the pay scale and status of Senior Personal Assistants in the State Secretariat, with effect from 1.4.1984, etc. Thus, it was claimed, that for the Surveyors also, a mandamus is required to be issued. Reliance was then placed on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Bharat Petroleum (erstwhile Burmah Shell) Management Staff Pensioners v. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. reported in AIR 1988 SC 1407 : (1988 Lab IC 1662) , wherein, consequent upon taking over of the company by the Government Company, the pension was allowed to be escalated, at per with the other similar companies. Reliance was then placed on yet another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter v. Union of India reported in (1989) 2 SCC 299 : (1989 Lab IC 1336) , wherein, the petitioners who were carpenter, mason, painter, etc. of Military Engineering Services under the Ministry of Defence, commonly known as MES, assailed the upgradation Of some of the trades, out of the 15 trades, and Hon'ble the Supreme Court found, that the employees of the different trades, in the skilled grade, cannot be treated differently, i.e., by allowing higher scale of pay to employees of some of the trades, from an earlier date, and giving the same benefit to members of other trades, in the skilled grade, from a later date, and accordingly the benefit was directed to be given. 6. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent, maintaining, that the petitioners could not satisfy the Equivalence Committee, it was contended, that the work of the Junior Surveyor in the Central Government, and the qualifications required for appointment are not the same, as are required for the Surveyors in the State of Rajasthan, so also regarding Teachers. Then, the pleadings taken in respect of the claim of T.A. and Hard Duty Allowance were reiterated. Then reliance was placed, by Mr. Thakur, learned Addl. Advocate General, on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of H.P. v. P.D. Attri, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 217 : (1999 AIR SCW 4897) , wherein, it was held, that parity, which is only traditional, but not based on any legal principle, and there is no law against departure from such parity, and the judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court, giving benefits, at par with those, being given in Punjab and Haryana High Court, was set aside, inasmuch as, the claim was not upheld from the time it was given in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It was also held, that any change in the pay scale, following Punjab and Haryana High Court, can set in motion other employees which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation, among various categories of employees, and therefore, rules of different High Courts were required to be examined independently, and that, there cannot be any such law, that the Himachal Pradesh High Court has to suo moto follow the same rules, as applicable to the employees, working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Reliance was then placed on another judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of West Bengal v. Deb Kumar Mukherjee reported in AIR 1995 SC 1889 , wherein, considering the principles of Article 39(d), (equal pay for equal work), it was found, that there is nothing common between the Animal Husbandry Department and Housing Department, so as to claim parity of pay scales, by the Inspectors of the two Departments. Thus, the claim was declined. Reliance was then placed on the latest judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association reported in AIR 2002 SC 2589 : (2002 Lab IC 2630) , wherein it was held in para-10, that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal, to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay, and determination of parity, in duties and responsibilities, is a complex matter, which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter, several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered, keeping in view the prevailing financial position, and capacity of the State Government, to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind, that the priority given to different types of posts, under the prevailing policies of the State Government, is also a relevant factor, for consideration, by the State Government. In the context of 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 decisions, pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. In the context of 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 decisions, 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 matters, 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 employees, 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. Thus, it was prayed, that no interference is required to be made, in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, to strike down the rules. 7. In rejoinder, it was contended, that vide Annexure-6, the respondent No. 2, who is the Head of Department, and who is the right man, to assess the duties and difficulties of the members of the petitioner Association, had also recommended, as claimed by the petitioner Association, and therefore, there is every justification for the petitioners to claim the pay scales, and other allowances as claimed. 8. I have considered the submissions, and have gone through the various judgments, so also perused the Revised Pay Scales Rules, including Pay Scales Rules of Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised New Pay Scales) Rules, 1976, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1983, Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1987 and the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1989. 9. Before proceeding further I may better deal with the judgments cited by either side. 10. 9. Before proceeding further I may better deal with the judgments cited by either side. 10. So far as the judgment in S.K. Ghosh's case is concerned, that does clearly support the case of the petitioner, on all the fours, inasmuch as, in that case, the pay scales, and status, of the employees of a particular category, in one department, was considered for the purpose of parity, qua the employees of the same nature, in the High Court, and the directions were given to appropriately amend the Rules, or otherwise to make an executive order. It may be noticed here, that S.K. Ghosh's judgment is rendered by learned Single Bench of this Court. 11. So far the judgment in Bharat Petroleum's case (1988 Lab IC 1662) is concerned, that in my view, has no application on the facts of the present case, inasmuch as, the controversy involved in that case was entirely different, being to protect the rights of the persons, including the right of terminal benefits, consequent upon one of the oil company having been taken over by the Central Government Company. 12. Then taking up the case of Bhagwan Sahai (1989 Lab IC 1336) , this case does lay down, that the act of the Department, in allowing higher scales of pay to the employees of some of the trades, from an earlier date, and giving the same benefit to members of other trades, in the skilled grade, from a later date, is discriminatory. However, what is significant to note is, that all the employees were in the same cadre, being the skilled grade, and they were simply working in different trades, While in the present case, the petitioner seeks parity, with the pay scales of different types of teachers. Suffice it to say, that the parity, sought to be claimed, in the present case, cannot be found supportable by the findings given by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 13. On the other hand in Deb Kumar Mukherjee's case, ( AIR 1995 SC 1889 ) dealing with the case of Inspectors working in two different departments being Housing Department, and Animal Husbandry Department, of the same State Government, Hon'ble the Supreme Court declined the claim of parity, even on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 13. On the other hand in Deb Kumar Mukherjee's case, ( AIR 1995 SC 1889 ) dealing with the case of Inspectors working in two different departments being Housing Department, and Animal Husbandry Department, of the same State Government, Hon'ble the Supreme Court declined the claim of parity, even on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The High Court in that case had directed the pay to be given in the same scales, but then, it was held in para 7 as under:- "There is patent fallacy in the reasoning. There is nothing common in the Housing Department and the Animal Husbandry Department. The two departments stand apart. Neither the judgment of the learned Single Judge nor that of the Division Bench indicates any factual material to show that the duties of the Inspectors in the two departments are similar. The reasoning and the findings of the High Court, on the face of it, are untenable and can-not be sustained." Then, the judgment in P.D. Attri's case is much nearer to the controversy involved in the present case, inasmuch as, that was a case, where a composite State of Punjab was trifurcated into States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh. Later on, Himachal Pradesh was also granted full statehood. Himachal Pradesh had generally been following the service conditions laid down by the State of Punjab, from time to time, for its employees. This very position prevailed for the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. In that background, the controversy, that came before Hon'ble the Supreme Court was, in the manner, that the High Court of Himachal Pradesh had allowed the writ petition, filed by certain categories of employees of the High Court, seeking parity in the pay scale from a particular date, and re-designation of their posts, with the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The High Court had directed the State Government "to accord and convey the approval for the re-designation and equation of the posts of Senior Translators and Junior Translators with Revisors and Translators and equate them with the posts of Superintendents Grade II and Assistants in the Himachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat from 23.1.1975 within two months from today and on receiving this appeal, the second respondent will take the consequential steps within one month thereafter and grant such other and further reliefs to the petitioners that may flow out of the same". It was noticed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, that the High Court was guided by the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sunder Sham Kapoor v. Hon'ble Chief Justice, P and H. High Court reported in (1987) 4 SLR 460 : (1987 Lab IC 1699) , and on that basis, the benefit of re- designation and equation 6f posts was directed from 23.1.1975. That judgment in Sunder Sham Kapoor's case was reversed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide judgment reported in (1997) 9 SCC 174 : (1997 Lab IC 258) , and it was held, that the Revisors earlier designated as Translators, would be entitled to revised pay scale from 5.8.1980, as per the order dated 17.11.1987, and not from 23.1.1975. It was conceded before Hon'ble the Supreme Court, that the respondents would be satisfied, if the Court orders, that the respondents would be entitled to similar pay scale, as provided to their counterparts in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, w.e.f. 5.8.1980. However, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed as under:- "We do not, however, think it is a simple as that." 14. Then, considering the various submissions, it was found by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, that the Union of Territory of Himachal Pradesh was given status of full statehood in 1970, and in order to safeguard the seniority, pay scales etc., of the composite State, who were taken in various departments of Himachal Pradesh, the State of Himachal Pradesh followed the Punjab pattern of pay scales. However, after attaining the status of full statehood, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh formulated its own rules and regulations, for its employees. However, after attaining the status of full statehood, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh formulated its own rules and regulations, for its employees. Then, when the Punjab and Haryana High Court gave effect to a certain portion of its Rules from 25.9.1985, by notification dated 23.1.1986, as a result of which re-designation of the posts of the Senior Translator and Junior Translators were equated to the posts in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, in the Himachal Pradesh High Court similar effect was given to its rules, for its employees, when the Punjab and Haryana High Court gave effect to those rules from 23.1.1975. The State Government did not agree to the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court to follow the same course. It was noticed, that it is true, that till now the Himachal Pradesh High Court has been following the rules applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and it may go on following those rules, as may be amended by the Punjab and Haryana High Court from time to time, but certainly, it is not bound to so follow. It was held, that no law commands the State Government to follow the rules, applicable to the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, to the employees of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. It was also held, that any change in the pay scale, following the Punjab and Haryana High Court, can set in motion chain reaction for other employees, which may give rise to multiplicity of litigation among various categories of employees,and that, there cannot be any such law, that the Himachal Pradesh High Court has to, suo moto, follow the same rules, a applicable to the employees working in the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Thus, the appeal of the State of Himachal Pradesh was allowed, and the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court was set aside. Though it was observed, that the recommendations of the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, should be considered by the State Government, having regard to the observations made above, and decision taken at an early date. Thus, the ratio of this judgment is, that parity cannot be claimed, under Article 226, by the employees of one state, with the similar employees of the other States. 15. Thus, the ratio of this judgment is, that parity cannot be claimed, under Article 226, by the employees of one state, with the similar employees of the other States. 15. Then, the judgment in Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association's case (2002) Lab IC 2630) is much nearer to the present case, inasmuch as, in para-10 thereof, it has categorically been ruled, that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, and then it has been held in para-10 thereof as under:- "10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the State Government. In the context of 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 decisions 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 matters 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 employees and the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees 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." 16. Thus, this judgment clearly holds, that in such cases, the Courts should approach 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 employees, and the Government, while taking the decision, has ignored factors, which are material, and relevant, for a decision in the matter, and the Court should avoid giving a declaration, granting a particular scale of pay, and compelling the Government to implement the same. Thus, this judgment clearly defines the scope of interference in such matters, by this Court under Article 226. 17. The claim of the petitioner is now required to be examined, on the above parameters, and within the four corners, as laid down above by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. 18. Examining the case of the petitioner within the above parameters, to repeat, the petitioner's grievance is, that under the Pay Scale Rules of 1969, 1976, 1983, 1987, four category of teachers were given the scale no. 7, and in the Rules of 1989 they have been given Scale No. 9, while the Amins have been given the Scale No. 6. 19. A look at the Pay Scale Rules of 1969 shows that thereunder, the Scale No. 7 was given in the Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Services to the L.D.Cs., Bus and Tractor Drivers. In Secretariat, Assembly, Public Service Commission, Governor Secretariat, and Vigilance Commission Scale No. 7 was given to L.D.Cs. Then, in Agricultural Department, Scale No. 7 was given to the Librarian possessing matriculate with Certificate in Library Science, while degree or diploma holder in Library Science, while degree or diploma holder in Library Science were given Scale No. 11. Then Laboratory Assistant were given Scale No. 11. Then Laboratory Assistant were given Scale No. 7 if matriculate, otherwise scale No. 6 for non-matriculate. Then Field Assistant, Field-man were given scale No. 7 if matriculate, otherwise scale No. 6 was given. Then, in Animal Husbandry Department Compounders, Stockmen, Enumerators, Chemical Assistant, Computer etc. Then Laboratory Assistant were given Scale No. 11. Then Laboratory Assistant were given Scale No. 7 if matriculate, otherwise scale No. 6 for non-matriculate. Then Field Assistant, Field-man were given scale No. 7 if matriculate, otherwise scale No. 6 was given. Then, in Animal Husbandry Department Compounders, Stockmen, Enumerators, Chemical Assistant, Computer etc. were all given scale No. 7. Likewise in Archaeology and Museum Department, Laboratory Assistant, and Supervisor Forts and Palaces were given Scale No. 7. Then in Ayurved Department, Compounder Gr. I, Nurse Gr. I, Botany Assistant and Laboratory Assistant were given scale No. 7. Then, in Colonisation Department, the Assistant Office Kanungo, Junior Draftsman, Tracer, Draftsman, Patwari, Computer, were given Scale No. 7. In Commercial Taxes Department, Computer were given Scale No. 7. Then, in Development and Panchayat Department, Tracer was given Scale No. 7. Then, in Public Works Department, Tracer was given Scale No. 7. In Irrigation Department, Patwari, Amin, Telephone Operator, Canal Signalers, Mistri were given Scale No. 7. In this process, in Education Department, Teacher Gr. III, P.T.I., Assistant P.T.I., Librarian,etc. were also given scale No. 7. Then, Teacher Gr. III in Deaf, Dumb and Blind Schools were also given Scale No. 7. Drawing Teacher, Music Teacher and Sitar Teacher Gr. III were also given Scale No. 7. Then, Laboratory Assistants in Electrical Inspectorate Department were given Scale No. 7. In Forest Department, Forester, Surveyors, Tracers, Amin, Projector Operator, Laboratory Assistant, Field-man, were given scale No. 7. 20. Then a look at the Pay Scale Rules of 1983 shows, that thereunder, apart from Teachers, in the Agricultural Engineering Department, the Jeep Driver, Tractor Driver, Anurekhak, so also Librarian were given the pay scale No. 7. Likewise, in Animal Husbandry Department, the Stock Assistant, Lab. Assistant Gr. III etc. were given Scale No. 7, then the Pump Driver, Driver, Fisheries Lab. Assistant were also given Scale No. 7, then in Archaeology Department Assistant Librarian, Lab. Assistant, and Supervisors of Forts and Buildings were given pay scale No. 7. Similarly in Archives Department (Puralekh Vibhag), Preservation Assistant (Parirakshan Sahayak) and Decipherists (Goor Akshar Vachak), were given pay scale no. 7. Then, Lab. Assistant, Bijliwala (Electrician) were given pay scale No. 7. In Ayurved Subordinate Service, Compounders/Nurse (Junior Scale), Lab. Assistant, Machine Man, Driver, Lab. Assistant, Exhibition Assistants were given pay scale No. 7, so also Electrician, Junior Mechanic were also given the Scale No. 7. 7. Then, Lab. Assistant, Bijliwala (Electrician) were given pay scale No. 7. In Ayurved Subordinate Service, Compounders/Nurse (Junior Scale), Lab. Assistant, Machine Man, Driver, Lab. Assistant, Exhibition Assistants were given pay scale No. 7, so also Electrician, Junior Mechanic were also given the Scale No. 7. Then, in Circuit House Subordinate Services, the House Keepers were given Scale No. 7. Then, in Colonisation Department Patwari, Assistant Office Kanungo, Librarian, Junior Draftsman were given Scale No. 7. Then, in Gazetteers Department, the Proof Corrector was given Scale No. 7, in Devasthan Department, Manager Gr. I possessing Secondary qualification, was given scale No. 7, then in Panchayati Raj Department, Balwari Adhyapak was given Scale No. 7, and in this sequence, in the Education Subordinate Service, District Librarian, Tehsil Block Librarian, High School/S.T.C. Librarian, and various other Librarian Gr. III, were given Scale No. 7. Then, Drawing Teacher Gr. III was given Scale No. 7. 21. In this background, if the pay scales, revised in 1989, are looked into, it is not shown, that all, or majority of these posts, were given Scale No. 9, rather it appears, that they are given Scale No. 6. All Librarian Gr. III have been given Scale No. 6. Thus, it is clear, that by and large, the employees of different cadres, who were given Scale No. 7, in the Pay Scale Rules of 1983, are given Scale No. 6, in the Pay Scale Rules of 1989, with some exceptions, including those of the five categories, mentioned by the petitioner in the Schedule, but then the fact does remain, that the Patwaris of the Revenue Department, who were discharging identical duties, have also been given Scale No. 6, in the Rules of 1989. In this background, it is significant to note, that the Equivalence Committee, constituted by the State Government, did consider the various pay scales, and their revision, and question was considered on all relevant parameters, and after such consideration, a conscious decision was taken, to recommend to give pay scale No. 7 to specified categories of employees, and scale No. 6 was recommended for other categories of employees, who were in existing pay scale No. 7. According to the respondents, the petitioner-Association was heard, the Equivalence Committee, and I am inclined to believe the version, that they could not make out appropriate case before the Committee, for their entitlement to be given Scale No. 9, instead of Scale No. 6. It may be noticed here, that the stand taken by the respondents, in this regard has not been controverted by the petitioner. There is yet another aspect of the matter, that if the contention of the petitioner were to be accepted, either the entire Rules of 1989 are required to be modified, in the manner, that all categories of employees, who were in Scale No. 7, under the rules of 1983, are required to be directed to be placed in scale No. 9, "en- block", or sitting as an appellate authority, over the Equivalence Committee, this Court should examine the justification for giving particular pay scale to each category of employees, who were in Pay Scale No. 7, under the Rules of 1983, and decide, as to which of the categories of the employees, under the erstwhile scale No. 7, should be given Scale No. 9, or should be given Scale No. 6. I am afraid, on the face of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, in P.D. Attri's case (1999 AIR SCW 4897) that this exercise is not within the scope of Article 226 jurisdiction of this Court. 22. So far the entitlement of T.A. and D.A. or Hard Duty Allowance is concerned, in my view, no sufficient ground has been made out, for the petitioner's entitlement to any of these allowances, by placing proper material before this Court, to show, as to which of the other categories of the employees, discharging identical nature of duties, or even moderate duty, are being paid various allowances, as claimed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter, this claim also cannot be sustained. 23. Thus, taken from any stand point, I do not find any force in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******