JUDGMENT 1. - Rajasthan Subordinate Service Association through its President, Jaipur Bench, Sri Rajendra Kumar Sharma has filed this writ petition with the prayer that Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989 in so far they deny pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to Statistical Assistants working with-respondents may be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and respondents be directed to give them the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 which is being paid to Statistical Assistants working with Central Government and commission of pay scales No. 10 and 11 brought about by Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) (First Amendment) Rules, 1992 (for short 'the Rules of 1992') so as to bring Statistical Inspectors at par with Statistical Assistants may also be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has further been prayed that orders 18.5.1992 and 5.6.1992 rejecting the representations of petitioner on the subject may be quashed and set iside. 2. The petitioner in writ petition has stated that their service conditions are governed by Rajasthan Statistical Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short "the Rules of 1971 "). There are two categories of posts namely; senior posts and junior posts, Junior posts comprise of (1) Statistical/Field Inspector and (ii) Investigators and Computers; whereas senior posts comprise of (i) Statistical Assistant and (ii) Statistical Supervisor. Lowest post in the State service included in the Rajasthan Economics and Statistical Service Rules, 1958 is that of Statistical Officer. Recruitment to the post of Statistical Assistant and Statistical Supervisor is 50% by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. 3. It is stated that prior to promulgation of Rules of 1971, posts of Statistical Assistant and Statistical Inspector were in existence with pay scale of Rs. 150-250 and 150-180 respectively, which was revised from time to time as follows : Year Post. Pay Scale 1955 Stat. Asstt. 150-350 Inspector 120-250 1961 Stat. Asstt. 170-400 Inspector 130-320 1969 Stat. Asst. 180-325 Inspector 150-330 1976 Stat. Astt. 470-830 Inspector 440-770 1983 Stat. Astt. 640-1180 Inspector 610-1090 1987 Stat. Asstt. 1200-2420 Inspector 1140-2250 1989 Stat. Asstt. 1400-2600 Inspector 1400-2300 With the help of above chart, it has been argued that post of Statistical Assistant has always been carrying pay scale than that of Statistical Inspector right since 1960. Asst. 180-325 Inspector 150-330 1976 Stat. Astt. 470-830 Inspector 440-770 1983 Stat. Astt. 640-1180 Inspector 610-1090 1987 Stat. Asstt. 1200-2420 Inspector 1140-2250 1989 Stat. Asstt. 1400-2600 Inspector 1400-2300 With the help of above chart, it has been argued that post of Statistical Assistant has always been carrying pay scale than that of Statistical Inspector right since 1960. When Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1987 (for short "the Rules of 1987") were brought in force w.e.f. 1.9.1986, pay scales of various posts in Rajasthan Statistical Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 were revised in the case of Computer in scale No.9 which carried Rs. 825-1800, for Statistical Inspector scale No.9 which carried Rs. 925-1800, for Statistical Inspector scale No.10 which carried Rs. 1120-2050 and for Statistical Assistant Scale No. 12 which carried Rs. 1160-2360. Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules (Fourth Amendment), 1988 made effective from 1.4.1988 provided for the following pay scales : Computer Rs. 1120-2050 Scale No. 10 Statistical Inspector Rs. 1140-2250 Scale No. 11 Statistical Assistant Rs. 1200-2420 Scale No. 13 4. It was, however, argued that for the first time in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1989 (for short "the Rules of 1989") brought in force from 1.9.1988 the minimum pay scale of the post of Statistical Inspector and Statistical Assistant was rendered equal since the basic pay of Scale Nos. 10, 11 and 12 commenced from Rs. 1400/-. 5. The petitioner association also raised grievance that the post of Statistical Assistant fixed in Scale of Rs. 1400-2600 has not been granted parity with pay scale given to their counterparts with the Central Government where such scales of pay was 1640-2900. On demand made by various employees Unions claiming parity with the Central Governmerit Employees on different posts, Government of Rajasthan constituted an equivalence committee. The Rules of 1992 were promulgated on the basis of report submitted by the Committee and were made effective from 1.9.1988 itself. There was no mention of the post of Statistical Assistant in these revised rules. The Committee either did not consider their demand or rejected the same. By Clause (iii) of Rules of 1992 although the pay scale Nos. 10 and 11 in section laid down in Schedule-I to the rules of 1989 were deleted. There was no mention of the post of Statistical Assistant in these revised rules. The Committee either did not consider their demand or rejected the same. By Clause (iii) of Rules of 1992 although the pay scale Nos. 10 and 11 in section laid down in Schedule-I to the rules of 1989 were deleted. The effect of deletion of pay scales No. 10 and 11 was that all those who were enjoying pay scales No. 10 and 11 were now fixed in pay scale No. 12 and brought Statistical Inspectors, who are in the junior wing of the subordinate service of economics and Statistics department at par with the Statistical Assistants who were in senior wing and was in fact a promotional post for the former. The petitioner has further submitted that this anomaly further crept in the Government Circular dated 25.1.1992 which introduced the system of grant of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. The persons working on the lowest post of Computer, having completed 9 years of service would now be entitled to the same pay scales which is available to statistical Inspector as well as Statistical Assistant, thus in effect bringing junior most and the senior most post at par in terms of their pay scale. Representations submitted by petitioner association were rejected by respondents vide order dated 18.5.92 and 5.6.92. It was further submitted that many of the highest posts in the subordinate services -have been fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, for example the post of Ranger Gr. I in the Forest Department, Inspector, Commercial Taxes Gr. I, Agricultural Extension Officer Gr. I, Vaidhya Gr. II, Cooperative Inspectors Gr.-1, Naib Tehsildars, Insurance Supervisor, Compounders Gr.-1 in the Medical & Health Department, Head Draftman and Foreman Gr.-I in Departments like Mines and Geology, Irrigation as well as PHED and only the post of Statistical Assistant which is also under the Rules of 1971 the highest post in subordinate service has been fixed only in pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600. 6. The respondents have contested writ petition and filed detailed reply thereto. In the reply, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not given correct position of revision of pay scales of the posts of Statistical Assistant and Statistical Inspector from time to time. 7. The correct post according to them however is as under : Stat. 1400-2600. 6. The respondents have contested writ petition and filed detailed reply thereto. In the reply, it has been submitted that the petitioner has not given correct position of revision of pay scales of the posts of Statistical Assistant and Statistical Inspector from time to time. 7. The correct post according to them however is as under : Stat. Assistant Stat. Inspectors 1.3.56 150-350 1.3.56 120-250 1.9.61 170-385 1.9.61 130-250 1.4.66 170-400 1.4.66 130-320 1.9.68 180-425 1.9.68 150-330 1.9.76 470-830 1.9.76 440-770 1.9.81 640-1180 1.9.81 610-1090 1.9.86 1160-2360 1.4.88 1120-2050 1.4.88 1200-2420 1.4.88 1140-2250 1.9.88 1400-2600 1.9.88 1400-2600 8. It has been submitted that the pay scales of various posts in the Rajasthan Statistical Subordinate Service as amended from time to time are as under : Computer 925-1800(9) from 1.9.86, 1120-2050(10) from 1.4.88 Statistical 1120-2050(10) from 1.9.86 Inspector 1140-2250(11) from1.4.88 Statistical 1160-2360(12) from 1.9.86 Assistant 1200-2420(13) from 1.4.88. 9. It has been submitted that subsequent to the Rules of 1989, the pay scale Rules were again amended by the Rules of 1992 with and promulgated vide Finance Department Notification No. F.20(89)FD (Gr. 2)/89 dated 1.2.1992, pay scale No. 10(1400-2300) and pay scale No. 11(1400-2360) were deleted w.e.f. 1.9.1988 both these pay scales were substituted by a new pay scale of 1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.9.88. 10. It has been submitted that the State Government decided to allow pay scales to the State employees identifical to those of the comparable posts under the Central Government from 1.9.1988. In accordance with this decision an Equivalence committee of very senior and experienced officers was appointed to suggest Revised Pay Scales for all such posts keeping in view the existing parity among the pay scales of various posts. The Equivalence Committee in accordance with its terms of reference submitted its report and the State Government prescribed pay scales as recommended by the Committee under the Rules of 1989 which came into force from 1.9.1988. The said Equivalence Committee recommended pay scales of the posts of Computer, Statistical Inspector and Statistical Assistant as 1200-2050, 1400-2300 and 1400-2600 respectively and under the Rules, 1989 these very pay scales were prescribed for aforementioned posts as pay scales No. 9, 10 and 12 respectively. Representations were received from some associations contending that the pay scale is not in conformity with the decision of the Government. Representations were received from some associations contending that the pay scale is not in conformity with the decision of the Government. Considering such representations, the State Government appointed another Committee to look into the representations and suggested revised pay scale in terms of decision. wherever felt necessary. The Committee however did not deem it appropriate to recommend revision of pay scale of the post of Statistical Assistant of Economic and Statistics Department. Subsequently, Government with a view to reducing the number of pay scales, abolished pay scale 1400-2300 (10) and 1400-2360 (11) by the Rules of 1992 w.e.f. 1.9.1988 and instead prescribed a common pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 thus came to be prescribed for the post of Statistical Inspector from 1.9.1988. 11. It has been submitted that in Central Services, the pay scale of the post of Statistical Assistant in various departments in 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300. Further in the Economic and Statistics Department of Central Government itself the pay scale of Statistical Assistant which was originally 210-10-290-15-320-EB-15-425 was revised in 1973 to 425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700 and thereafter again revised from 1.1.86 to 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300. Yet, Statistical Assistants in the service of respondents have been given higher pay scale.i.e. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-60-2600 than the Statistical Assistants working with Central Government. 12. On the questions of parity of pay with the highest services in various other subordinate services, it is submitted that fixation of pay scale of the particular post depends on various circumstances such as nature and duties, responsibilities, work load etc. of the post and there can be iron cast formula for fixation of pay scale of various posts in various departments. In some cases the higher and lower post can carry same pay scale. The petitioner cannot take any advantage of difference in various pay scales. There is therefore no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in fixation of different pay scale for different posts in different departments. 13. I have heard arguments advanced by Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Samit Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 14. There is therefore no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in fixation of different pay scale for different posts in different departments. 13. I have heard arguments advanced by Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Samit Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 14. In order to buttress his arguments enumerated above, Shri Kamlakar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors., (1982)1 SCC 618 pertaining to lower scale of pay given to drivers in Delhi Police Force than those in Delhi Administration and Central Government which was held to be unreasonable classification and not in consonance with the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. He has also cited another judgment of the Apex Court in Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter and Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., (1989)2 SCC 299 on the question of parity in pay, where certain trades in Military Engineering Services such as Carpenter, mason, painter, upholsterer, plumber, pipe-fitter, swayer and sign writer under-skilled grade on the basis of the recommendations of the Expert Committee were granted benefit of upgradation of pay whereas certain other trades were left out from being granted the benefit of up- gradation. Another judgment cited by Shri Kamlakar Sharma is that of Dr. M.S. Ilyas & Ors. v. Indian Council of Agricultural Research & Ors., (1993)1 SCC 182 wherein the Apex Court while dealing with a case where juniors were getting higher scale while seniors were being paid lower scale held such seniors entitled to get higher pay scale as well. Shri Kamlakar Sharma also cited the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Union of India & Ors. v. Debashis Kar & Ors. (1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 528). In this case their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that draughtsmen Gr: II in CPWD entitled to parity in pay with their counterparts in Ordinance Factories while upholding judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of similarly in the qualification for their appointment and consistent parity in their pay in the past. (3) SCC 528). In this case their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that draughtsmen Gr: II in CPWD entitled to parity in pay with their counterparts in Ordinance Factories while upholding judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of similarly in the qualification for their appointment and consistent parity in their pay in the past. Shri Kamlakar Sharma has lastly relied upon the single bench decision of this court passed in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1251/93 Narpat Singh and Others v. The State of Rajasthan and Anr., decided on 7.5.2001) which was filed by Mistris who were working in irrigation Department who claimed parity with their counterparts working under Work Charged Rules which was allowed by the Court. 15. On the other hand, Sri Samit Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents on the question of validity of Government Notification dated 1.2.1992 whereby pay scales No. 10 and (1400-2300 and 1400-2360 respectively) were deleted w.e.f. 1.9.1988 submitted that Government took a policy decision to prescribe a common pay scale in place of three different scales. While minimum of the scale prescribed for pay scales Nos. 10, 11 and 12 was same i.e. Rs. 1400 but there was only a slight different between these posts in regard to their maximum. Instead of having number of scales, Government decided to introduce one scale for all of them by reducing the lumber of pay scales. Moreover, the Government servants in the meantime were also granted three selections grade on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service and for these reasons also maximum of the pay scales lost their significant. 16. It was argued that in fact by abolition of pay scales No. 10 and 11, the concerned Government servants were placed in a better position and at the same time, this did not have any adverse effect on the Statistical Assistants. It was therefore denied that there was any violation of Artices 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Shri Samit Bishnoi has relied upon a recent single bench decision of this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1526/1984 "All Rajasthan State Assistant Agriculture Research Officers' Association and Anr., v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 24.5.2005 and has also sought to rely upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in the said judgment. Shri Samit Bishnoi has relied upon a recent single bench decision of this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 1526/1984 "All Rajasthan State Assistant Agriculture Research Officers' Association and Anr., v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on 24.5.2005 and has also sought to rely upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to in the said judgment. He also relied upon another single bench decision of this Court in S.B.C. Writ Petition No. 5181/92 "Inspector Weight and Measure Union and Anr., v. State of Rajasthan", decided on 15.2.2006 and has argued that the petitioner cannot claim any relief as a right inasmuch as the question as to which pay scale has to be given to which posts should be left to the discretion of the State Government. Government while taking a view on the question. may take into consideration recommendations/advise rendered to it by bodies like pay commission and equivalence committee etc. In the present case, it has so done. His argument is that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue a mandamus, commanding the Government to grant a particular pay scale to a particular service. He therefore, argued' that the writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 17. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel and perused the record. 18. On careful examination of the explanation given by the respondents to support their action, it cannot be said that the deletion of the scales No. 10 and 11 was in any manner was arbitrary or discriminatory to the Statistical Assistants working with the respondents. Merely because the posts of Statistical Assistant and Statistical Inspector were paid in different pay scales in the past, the action of the respondents in deleting scales No. 10 and 11 and making holders of such posts entitled to be paid in scale No. 12 by itself cannot be held to be per se illegal. This would have no adverse effect on the entitlement of Statistical Assistants to receive their salary in pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 inasmuch as they having gained selection grade on the post of Statistical Assistant much earlier than Statistical Inspector and down below, Computers, would always be drawing more amount as emoluments than them. This would have no adverse effect on the entitlement of Statistical Assistants to receive their salary in pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 inasmuch as they having gained selection grade on the post of Statistical Assistant much earlier than Statistical Inspector and down below, Computers, would always be drawing more amount as emoluments than them. The respondent Government as a matter of policy decided to reduce number of pay scales and place all such posts in a common scale of pay where minimum of the pay scale was same, there being only slight variation in their maximum. Such a policy decision cannot held to be not based on any reason and logic. It would be evident that minimum of all the three scale commenced from Rs. 1400 but there was only a negligible difference even in their maximum namely Rs. 2300, 2360 and 2600 respectively. This itself was also rendered meaningless in view of scheme of grant of selection grade to the employees introduced by the Government employees who were facing stagnation and were not able to get a single promotion in a service span of nine years on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. Once when any Government servant working on the post of Computer or Statistical Assistant would gain the next selection scale, he would in any case receive more than the maximum of the scale of Ids. 1400-2600. No fault can therefore be found with the action of the respondents in seeking to delete scale Nos. 10 and 11. 19. On the question of parity of pay claimed by the petitioners with various other highest posts in different subordinate services in pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, it may be stated that no Government servant for that matter can insist upon being paid in a particular pay scale. It is best left to the discretion of the Government to decide as to which posts should be paid in what pay scale. In doing so, the Government would also have discretion to decide as to what pay scale should be paid to the highest post to a given subordinate service in a particular department. If various highest post in certain subordinate services have always been getting higher pay scale than the post of Statistical Assistant, then this itself cannot be taken to have caused by discrimination to holders of the posts of Statistical Assistant. 20. If various highest post in certain subordinate services have always been getting higher pay scale than the post of Statistical Assistant, then this itself cannot be taken to have caused by discrimination to holders of the posts of Statistical Assistant. 20. It is the prerogative of the Government to decide as to which posts should be given, what pay scale and which posts should be categorized as Gazetted or non-gazetted/subordinate post. In doing so, the Government has to keep in view various factors including those of nature, duties and responsibilities of the post, educational qualification prescribed for recruitment, method of recruitment, avenues of promotions, effect it would have no lower and higher posts in the self same department and analogous posts in other departments. Reference in this connection may be made to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Secretary, Finance Department and others v. West Bengal Service Association & Ors., (1993 Supp. (1) SCC 153 wherein it was observed as under: "12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been place by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the execution and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, Courts must, however, realise 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 performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities 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 responsibvity 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 to be achieved by resorting to broad banding 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 ensure that such rationalisation 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 recruit, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications-required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (vii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's 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. 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. It is presumably for this reasons that the judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrar to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, 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 post and court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice." (emphasis supplied) 21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the subsequent case of State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn., 2002(6) SCC 72 ) while following its aforesaid earlier decision made following observations on complex nature of those very issues in para 10 of the judgment which is extracted hereunder : "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 in keeping 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 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 the complex nature of issue 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 try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. In the context of the complex nature of issue 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 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 and 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. As noted earlier, in the present case the High Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature duties and responsibilities of the two sections of employees, 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 employees which govern the administration of the cadre." 22. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors., (1989)1 SCC 121 categorically Rules that "the equation of posts or 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." 23. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that factors justifying differentiation in the scale of pay depend upon evaluation of duties and responsibilities, besides quantity and quality. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration." 23. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that factors justifying differentiation in the scale of pay depend upon evaluation of duties and responsibilities, besides quantity and quality. It held that Courts were not suited to evaluate and compare this on the basis of affidavits and pleadings. 24. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Union of India and Anr. v. P.V. Hariharan and Anr., (1997) 3 SCC 568 while examining similar question, observed as under : "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." 25. While considering this very argument in the context of doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.B.I. v. H.R. Ganesh Babu, ( 2002(4) SCC 556 observed as under : "......Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a matter of degree and there is an element of value judgment 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. 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." 26. Third limb of the arguments of the petitioner is that holders of the posts of Statistical Assistants would be given pay scale of Rs. Third limb of the arguments of the petitioner is that holders of the posts of Statistical Assistants would be given pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 which is being paid to their counterparts in Central Government also does not deserve acceptance for two reasons. Firstly, because the parity cannot be claimed in the matter of scale of pay with' employees of another employer. Such parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis of similarity or resemblance between nomenclature of two posts. No material or data have been placed on record by the petitioner as to what is the nature and duties discharged by Statistical Assistants working with the Government of India, what is the qualification prescribed for their recruitment, what are avenues of promotions available to them. In order to claim parity of pay on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' one is required to plead and prove all these factors. The petitioner has completely failed to establish any of these factors. Moreover the paramount factor remains that Statistical Assistants working with the Central Government are so working with another employer and not with the State Government and therefore there can be not question of any discrimination, particularly when each of them constitutes a different by itself. Moreover, the respondents in their counter affidavits have categorically pleaded that in Central Government services also pay scale of the posts of Statistical Assistant in various departments is 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 and in order to substantiate this, they have placed on record the relevant portion of the Central Civil Revised Pay Rules, 1973 and 1986. 27. In para. 9 of the reply, they have stated that the post of Statistical Assistant was originally fixed in the scale of Rs. 210-10-290-15-320-EB-15-425 which was revised in 1973 to Rs. 425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700 and was further revised to Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 w.e.f. 1.1.86. This position has been controverter by the petitioner in their rejoinder wherein they have stated that posts of Statistical Assistant was scale of Rs. 550-920 and from this scale, it was revised to Rs. 1640-2900 and in support of their pleading, they have placed on record copy of the notification dated 13.9.86 published in the Gazette of India extraordinary of the same date. This notification has merely given earlier scale of pay and new pay scale it has been revised to but does not indicate the nomenclature of the posts. 1640-2900 and in support of their pleading, they have placed on record copy of the notification dated 13.9.86 published in the Gazette of India extraordinary of the same date. This notification has merely given earlier scale of pay and new pay scale it has been revised to but does not indicate the nomenclature of the posts. In order to make up this deficiency, the petitioner has placed on record copy of the Schedule to the Statistical Organisation Rules 1968 wherein the posts of Statistical (Selection Grade) was shown to carry pay scale of Rs. 550-900. In the first place, it is not clear whether the posts of Statistical Assistant and is not a post of promotion from that of Statistical Assistant. Secondly, this being a factual dispute cannot be adjudicated upon in the absence of sufficient pleadings, documentation and proof on this aspect. 28. Be that as it may, the mere fact that the sufficient material and date have not been placed on record to establish what is being contended and the fact that parity cannot be claimed on the ground of discrimination of pay vis-a-vis the employees working with another employer this argument of the petitioner also merit rejection. 29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear there own costs.Petition dismissed. *******