Judgment : K. CHANDRU, J. This writ appeal is filed by the Association of the Sanitary Supervisors working in various Municipalities in the State of Tamil Nadu and they are seeking to challenge the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 4.7.2006 in W.P.No.10715 of 2000. 2. The grievance projected by the appellant Association was that the persons holding the posts of Sanitary Supervisor and Bill Collector working in various Corporations in the State were drawing the same scale of pay up to Third Pay Commission and there is no difference in the educational qualification for the said posts. However, the job of Sanitary Supervisor is more onerous carrying higher responsibilities than the post of Bill Collector. It is also stated that the persons working as Sanitary Supervisors will have to stagnate in the same post for 20 to 25 years. However, when the IV, V and VI Pay Commissions were implemented, the Bill Collectors were given higher pay whereas the Sanitary Supervisors were fixed in the lower scale. Aggrieved by the said action of the Government, who is the first respondent herein, which implemented the recommendations of the Pay commission, the appellant Association filed writ petition being W.P.No. 6059 of 1998 and the same was disposed of on 21.8.1998. Further, the Tribunal also gave a direction in O.A. No. 6316 of 1993 and in O.A.No. 812 of 1998 to the respondent State as per which the grievance of the petitioner Association was placed before the Official Committee constituted during the year 1998 for the revision of pay scales and the said Committee rejected the request of the petitioner Association and the Government has accepted the recommendations made by the Committee and, therefore, the request of the petitioner Association to revise the scale of pay was not found favourable by the State. This order was challenged in the writ petition being W.P.No. 10715 of 2000. 3. The learned single Judge, by his order dated 4.7.2006, rejected the request of the petitioner Association following the judgment of this Court made in respect of Electricity Board reported in The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary and Another v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Association The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary and Another v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Association The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary and Another v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Association The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary and Another v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Association The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, rep. by its Secretary and Another v. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Association , 2005 (1) MLJ 507 . We are in entire agreement with the order passed by the learned single Judge and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 4. However, with reference to the legal issue, it is necessary to refer to certain decisions of the Supreme Court in this regard. 4.1 1. The Supreme Court in its judgment reported in Union of India and Others v. Makhan Chandra Roy Union of India and Others v. Makhan Chandra Roy Union of India and Others v. Makhan Chandra Roy , AIR 1997 SC 2391 in paragraph 2 held as follows : “The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. 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 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.” 4.2 The Supreme Court, after following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of U. P. v. J. P. Chaurasia , AIR 1989 SC 19: 1989-I-LLJ-309: 1989 SCC 121 held as follows “…. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.” 4.2 The Supreme Court, after following the decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of U. P. v. J. P. Chaurasia , AIR 1989 SC 19: 1989-I-LLJ-309: 1989 SCC 121 held as follows “…. In our view that exercise was totally unauthorised as it amounted to taking a policy-decision which was within the domain of the authorities themselves who are the authors of the Revised Pay-scales. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that on merits the respondent had no case on the ground of equal pay for equal work, the O.A. ought to have been dismissed. .” 4.3 In fact, in the (supra), the Supreme Court has passed severe strictures on the Administrative Tribunal for being too lenient with the claim of the appellant and for not applying the correct position of law, in the following words : “2…… According to the respondent he was entitled to a still higher pay-scale and as that was not granted to him, be moved the Tribunal by Original Application. The Tribunal after hearing the contesting parties tookthe view that the respondent was not entitled to any higher pay-scale only on the ground of equal pay for equal work. That a higher pay-scale given to Laboratory Assistant both in the Ministry of Defence and Railways could not automatically be given to the respondent as he was a mere Matriculate having only 5 weeks‘ training in the Central Laboratory of Indore, while those Laboratory Assistants in the aforesaid Ministries of Defence and Railways were having better educational qualifications. On the aforesaid finding reached by the Tribunal on facts, the O.A. should have been dismissed. Instead, the Tribunal perhaps thinking that because the petitioner had moved the Tribunal, he should not go empty handed and must be given some relief from somewhere, took the view that because the Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife who were also earlier getting two scales of pay of Rs.260-350/- and Rs. 260-400/- were given a revised pay-scale of Rs.975-1540/- under the same Pay Rules, the respondent should also be granted the said pay scale of Rs.975-1540/- instead of Rs.950-1500/-. 260-400/- were given a revised pay-scale of Rs.975-1540/- under the same Pay Rules, the respondent should also be granted the said pay scale of Rs.975-1540/- instead of Rs.950-1500/-. In our view the aforesaid reasoning, adopted by the Tribunal is totally misconceived and cannot be sustained….” 4.4 Further, the Supreme Court vide its decision reported in Shiba Kumar Dutta and Others v. Union of India and Others Shiba Kumar Dutta and Others v. Union of India and Others Shiba Kumar Dutta and Others v. Union of India and Others , (1997) 3 SCC 545 in paragraph 3, held as follows : “3. … The Third Pay Commission had gone into that aspect of the matter and fixed the scales of pay. Thereafter, admittedly, Expert Classification Committee and Anomalies Removal Committee had also gone into the matter and made distinction between them. Subsequently, nomenclature of all of them were removed and fused into one category, namely, Fitter. Nomenclature and fitment is one of executive policy of the Government. Unless the action is arbitrary or there is invidious discrimination between persons similarly situated, doing same type of work, as it pointed out, it would be difficult for the Courts to go into the question of equation of posts or fitment into a particular scale of pay. They must be left to be decided by the Expert Committees and Government. The Courts cannot go into them and evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for each category.” 4.5 Further, in the judgment reported in State of U. P. and Others v. U. P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association State of U. P. and Others v. U. P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association State of U. P. and Others v. U. P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association , AIR 2003 SC 2305 : (2003) 6 SCC 250 the Supreme Court, in paragraph 11, held as follows : “11. There can be no denial of the legal position that decision of expert bodies like the Pay Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise requiring going into various aspects of the posts held in various service and nature of the duties of the employees……….” 5. In thelight of the binding precedents of the Apex Court, this writ appeal is not maintainable and the same shall stand dismissed. In thelight of the binding precedents of the Apex Court, this writ appeal is not maintainable and the same shall stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.