JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 and designate him as Assistant Librarian. He has also sought a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 2nd November, 1999, Annexure-’20 to the writ petition, whereby the State Government, the respondent No. 1 has rejected the aforesaid claim of the petitioner. 2. The facts in brief are as under. The State Government vide order dated 30th November, 1979 pursuant to the Scheme of Higher Education and Research Development, for the purpose of Sampurananand Sanskrit University (hereinafter referred to as ‘University’), created the following posts : Sl. Name of Post No. Pay Scale Qualification No. of Post 1. Lamination Machine 1 175.3.250 Experience relating to post and Operator recruitment by selection. 2. Technical Assistant 1 325-10-575 (i) B.Sc./B.A. in Library Science. (ii) One or two years Diploma in Language in French, Asian etc. Or Post-graduate Diploma in Language Science. (iii) Two years experience in Language Library 3. Professional Assistant 1 350-15-700 (i) Shashtri or B.A. or equivalent. (ii) Degree in Library Science. (iii) Three years experience in Library Work. 4. Deputy Library 1 500-25-1000 (i) Degree or equivalent, Superintendent (ii) Post-graduate degree in Library Science, (iii) Four years experience in Library Work. (iv) High level knowledge in Hindi and English, (v) Knowledge in handwriting and Pandulipi. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Technical Assistant. It appears that he claimed to be promoted/designated to the post of Professional Assistant and the University also made recommendation for giving him the pay-scale at par with Professional Assistant, but the said decision not having been accepted by the Government, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no substantial distinction between the qualification and the duties required to be performed by the Technical Assistant in science library and Professional Assistant and both perform similar duties, yet the petitioner is being paid lesser salary than the Professional Assistant. It is wholly illegal, discriminatory and violative of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. He sought to place before us the recommendation of various authorities of the University in order to show that in all respect he is at par with those who were appointed and working as Professional Assistant. 5. It is wholly illegal, discriminatory and violative of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. He sought to place before us the recommendation of various authorities of the University in order to show that in all respect he is at par with those who were appointed and working as Professional Assistant. 5. However, we do not find any force in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner. From Annexure-1 to the writ petition itself, which is the Government Order creating post of Technical Assistant in Language Science Laboratory and the Professional Assistant, it is evident that qualifications of the two posts are totally different. The difference in pay scale on the basis of qualification is a well recognised criteria. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine but would be attracted only when in all respect the posts are identical or work is equal. The assessment of work, performance and comparison of posts whether the two are similarly placed or not, is normally within the purview of expert bodies, like Pay Commission, Pay Rationalisation Committee etc. and is not a matter of judicial review, unless the decision of the authority shown to be perverse or based on non est facts or is otherwise arbitrary. 6. The circumstances and factor, which may justify difference in pay scales has been subject matter of litigation frequently before the Apex Court, and in the last more than two and half decades, number of cases have been decided, broadly covering the entire aspect of the matter, therefore it would be appropriate to have a birdeye view of some of the said decisions. 7. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others, (1982) 1 SCC 618 , the Apex Court considering the principle of equal pay for equal work held as under : “It is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d) of the Constitution, the Apex Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.”... (Paras 7 & 8) 8. In R.D. Gupta and others v. Lt. (Paras 7 & 8) 8. In R.D. Gupta and others v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration and others, (1987) 4 SCC 505 , the Apex Court applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, in para 20 of the judgment, considered the correctness of defence justifying non application of the said principle and held : “the ministerial staff in the NDMC constitute a unified cadre. The recruitment policy for the selection of the ministerial staff is a common one and the recruitment is also done by a common agency. They are governed by a common seniority list. The ministerial posts in the three wings of the BDNC viz. the general wing, he electricity wing and the waterworks wing are interchangeable posts and the postings are made from the common pool according to administrative convenience and exigencies of service and not on the basis of any distinct policy or special qualifications. Therefore it would be futile to say that merely because a member of the ministerial staff had been given a posting in the electricity wing, either due to force of circumstances or due to voluntary preferment, he stands on a better or higher footing or in a more advantageous position than his counterparts in the general wing. It is not the case of the respondents that the ministerial staff in the electricity wing perform more onerous or more exacting duties than the ministerial staff in the general wing. It therefore follows that all sections of the ministerial staff should be treated alike and all of them ‘held entitled to the same scales of pay for the work of equal nature done by them. “.(Para 20) (emphasis added) 9. In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers and others v. Union of India and others, (1988) 3 SCC 91 , it was held that- “there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility justifying different pay scale. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that 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. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that 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. It was further observed that the same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact some less, it varies from nature and culture of employment”...(Paras 7 & 11) (emphasis added) 10. In Jaipal and others v. State of Haryana and others, (1988) 3 SCC 354 , the Apex Court held as under : “The doctrine of equal work equal pay would apply on the premise of similar work, but it does not mean, that there should be complete identity in all respects. If the two classes of persons do same work under the same employer, with similar responsibility, under similar working conditions the doctrine of ‘equal work equal pay would apply and it would not be open to the State to discriminate one class with the other in paying salary. The State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work.”.....(Para 6) (emphasis added) 11. In State of U.P. and others v. J.P. Chaurasia and others, (1989) 1 SCC 121 , the Apex Court while considering the justification of two pay scales of the Bench Secretaries of the High Court observed as under- “Entitlement to the pay scale similar would not 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 reviving 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. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by reviving 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.”.(Para-18). (emphasis added) 12. In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union v. Union of India and others, JT 1991 (1) SC 60, it was observed that : “the question of parity in pay scale cannot be determined by applying mathematical formula. It depends upon several factors namely nature of work, performance of duties, qualifications, the quality of work performed by them. It is also permissible to have classification in services based on hierarchy of posts, pay scale, value of work and responsibility and experience. The classification must, however, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.”.... (Para-7) (Emphasis added) 13. In Secretary, Finance Department and others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, JT 1992 (2) SC 27, the Apex Court observed as under : “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. 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. It was further observed that normally 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, (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, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer’s capacity to pay, etc.”.....(Para 12) (emphasis added) 14. In Jaghnath v. Union of India and another, AIR 1992 SC 126 , the Apex Court following the earlier judgment observed that : “classification of officers into two grades with different scales of pay based either on academic qualification or experience or length of service is sustainable. Apart from that, higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is very common in career service. There is selection grade for District Judges. There is senior time scale in Indian Administrative Service. There is suppertime scale in other like services. The entitlement to these higher pay scales depends upon seniority-cum-merit or merit -cum-seniority. The differentiation so made in the same cadre will not amount to discrimination. The classification based on experience is a reasonable classification. It has a rational nexus with the object thereof. To hold otherwise, it would be detrimental to the interest of the service itself.”... (Para-7) 15. In State of Madhya Pradesh and another v. Pramod Bhartiya and others, (1993) 1 SCC 539 , the Apex Court held as under : “It would be evident from this definition that the stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar conditions. Further, as pointed out by Mukharji, J. (as he then was) in Federation of All India Customs and Excise Stenographers’ the quality of work may vary from post to post. It may vary from institution to institution. We cannot ignore or overlook this reality. It is not a matter of assumption but one of proof. The respondents (original petitioners) have failed to establish that their duties, responsibilities and functions are similar to those of the nontechnical lecturers in Technical Colleges. It may vary from institution to institution. We cannot ignore or overlook this reality. It is not a matter of assumption but one of proof. The respondents (original petitioners) have failed to establish that their duties, responsibilities and functions are similar to those of the nontechnical lecturers in Technical Colleges. They have also failed to establish that the distinction between their scale of pay and that of non technical lecturers working in Technical Schools is either irrational and that it has no basis, or that it is vitiated by mala fides, either in law or in fact (see the approach adopted in Federation case). It must be remembered that since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article 14, the burden is upon the petitioners to establish their right to equal pay, or the plea of discrimination, as the case may be. This burden the original petitioners (respondents herein) have failed to discharge." (.Para-13) 16. In Shyam Babu Verma and others v. Union of India and others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 , the Apex Court observed that : “the principle of equal pay for equal work should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Inequality of the men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of equal pay for equal work to them. Unless it is established that there is no reasonable basis to treat them separately in matters of payment of wages or salary, the Court should not interfere holding different pay scale as discriminatory”.... (Para-9) 17. In Sher Singh and others v. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 SCC 515 , in para 5, the Apex Court rejected the claim of the library staff of Delhi University and its constituent colleges regarding parity in pay with the teaching staff on the ground that the nature of duties, work load, experience and responsibilities of the two sets of employees in question are totally different from each other. 18. In Union of India and others v. Delhi Judicial Service Assn. 18. In Union of India and others v. Delhi Judicial Service Assn. and another, JT 1995 (2) SC 578, the Apex Court reversing the judgment of the High Court allowing the same scale of pay to all the officers of Higher Judicial Services, held as under : “We think that the High Court was not right in giving selection grade scale of pay to all the officers on the principle of equal pay for equal work. If that be so the Dist. Munsif (Junior Civil Judge, Junior subordinate Judge) etc, lowest officer in judicial hierarchy is entitled to the pay of the Senior most super-time scale district Judge as all of them are discharging judicial duty. The marginal difference principle also is equally inappropriate. Similarly of posts or scale of pay in different services are not relevant. The nature of the duty, nature of the responsibility and degree of accountability etc. are relevant and germane considerations. Grant of selection grade, suppertime scale etc. would be akin to a promotion. The result of the impugned direction would wipe out the distinction between the Time Scale and Selection Grade Officers. The learned Counsel for the Union of India, pursuant to our order, has placed before us the service conditions prevailing in the Higher Judicial Services in other States in the country. Except Gujarat which had wiped out the distinction after the judgment in all India Judges Association’s case, all other States maintained the distinction between the Grade 1 and Grade II Higher Judicial Offices or Time Scale and Selection Grade or Suppertime Scales etc. In fact this distinction is absolutely necessary to inculcate hard work, to maintain character, to improve efficiency, to encourage honesty and integrity among the officers and accountability. Such distinctions would not only be necessary in the Higher Judicial Service but also, indeed in all services under the State and at every stage.”... (Para-5). 19. In Sita Devi and others v. State of Haryana and others, JT 1996 (7) SC 438, the Apex Court upheld different pay scale on the basis of qualification relying on the earlier judgments of the Apex Court in State of Mysore and another v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 ; State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, AIR 1974 SC 1 and P. Murugesan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1993 (2) SCC 340 . 20. 20. In State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh and others, AIR 1997 SC 1788 , the Apex Court justified different pay scale on various factors observing as under : “It is, therefore, clear that the quality of work performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have to be evaluated. There may be differences in educational or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which may justify differences in pay scales on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that good performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job. This Court has repeatedly observed that evaluation of such jobs for the purposes of pay scale must be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any mala fides, its evaluation should be accepted.”...(Para-8) 21. In Garhwal Jal Sansthan Karmachari Union and another v. State of U.P. and others, (1997) SCC 24, the Apex Court in para 8 of the judgment rejected the claim of pay parity between the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan on the ground of qualitative difference in the duties, function and responsibilities in the two organizations.... (Para-8) 22. In Union of India and others v. Pradip Kumar Dey, (2000) 8 SCC 580 , the question of parity of pay scale of Naik, Radio Operator in CRPF and the employees working as Radio Operator in Directorate of Coordination Police Wireless came up for consideration on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Apex Court negated the validity of parity observing that the different pay scale prescribed taking into account hierarchy in service and other relevant factors cannot be interfered as it would disturb the entire chain of hierarchy.... (Para-14) 23. (Para-14) 23. In State of Orissa and others v. Balaram Sahu and others, (2003) 1 SCC 250 , the Apex Court observed in para 11 as under : “Though “equal pay for equal work” is considered to be a concomitant of Article 14 as much as “equal pay for unequal work” will also be a negation of that right, equal pay would depend upon not only the nature or the volume of work, but also on the qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility as well and though the functions may be the same, but the responsibilities do make a real and substantial difference.”... (Para 11) 24. In State of Haryana and another v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72 , it was held in para 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 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 decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justifiable or that the Courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the Government. That is not to say that the matter is not justifiable 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." (Para 10) 25. In State Bank of India and another v. M.R. Ganesh Babu and others, (2002) 4 SCC 556 , the Apex Court observed in para 16 : “The principle of equal pay for equal work has been considered and applied in many reported decisions of this Court. The principle has been adequately explained and crystallized and sufficiently reiterated in a catena of decisions of this Court. It is well settled that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that 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 value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The principle is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. Differentiation in pay scales of persons holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. 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 bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court.”.. .(Para-16) 26. 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 bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court.”.. .(Para-16) 26. In State of Haryana v. Chiranjit Singh, 2005 (8) Scale 482 , in para 17 the Apex Court observed as under : “Having considered the authorities and the submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Tarun K. Roy lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications are different, then also the doctrine may have no application. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to such persons who are evaluated by competent authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ Court can lightly interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required to raise a dispute in this regard.” (Para 17) (emphasis added) 27. The aforesaid analysis of some of the numerous case law of the last more than two decades makes it clear that it is always permissible to provide different pay scales on numerous factors including the objective of creating hierarchy, experience, qualification or other relevant factors. 28. Considering in the light of the above exposition of law, it is evident that the post of Technical Assistant Language Science Laboratory and Professional Assistant are not only different in the matter of qualifications, but their duties and responsibilities are also totally different. From the various documents placed on record, it appears that authorities of University did not find that the post of Technical Assistant is at par with the Professional Assistant and on the contrary it appears that there was no post of Professional Assistant available in the Library of the concerned department where the petitioner was working as Technical Assistant and therefore he was also required to perform some other work and for this reason the University recommended higher pay scale to the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner was working as Technical Assistant in the Library of a department though the Professional Assistants are working in the General Library of the University. The two are incomparable for application of the principle of equal pay for equal work. Learned Counsel for the petitioner could not place any statutory or other provision entitling him to claim salary of the higher post, though he is getting salary of the post for which he has been appointed. In the circumstance, we do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ————