1. Heard Mr. N. Surendrajit Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners as well as Mr. R. S. Reisang, learned G.A. appearing for the respondents. 2. These 10(ten) writ petitions involve same questions of fact and law and as such they are taken up for joint hearing and passing common judgment and order 3. The educational qualifications of the writ petitioners are Post Graduate/ M.A.B.T/B.A.B.T/B.Sc.B.Ed and as such they are eligible for appointment to the post of lecturers of the Higher Secondary Schools. The Government of Manipur in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution was pleased to make the rules “ the Education (S) Department, Manipur (Lecturers of Higher Secondary Schools) Recruitment Rules, 1997 (for short “RR”), a copy of which being notice dated 28.8.1997, is annexed as Annexure- A/7 to the additional affidavit of the writ petitioners. According to the said RR dated 28.8.1997, the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Lecturer, Higher Secondary Schools are Post-graduate Degree with at least 50% marks in the subject concerned the Post-Graduate Degree examination from a recognized University, and the method of recruitment to the said post of Lecturer, Higher Secondary Schools are 66 2/3 % by direct recruitment and 331/3 % by promotion. The graduate teachers holding Master Degree with at least 50% mark in the subject concerned from a recognized University having five years' regular service in the grade are eligible for promotion to the post of Lecturer, Higher Secondary Schools. The writ petitioners were initially appointed as Theory Instructor in the then Basic Training College (for short B.T.C.), Imphal. The said institution is a college imparting educational training and method of teaching to the matriculate and undergraduate Govt. teachers who are the employees under the Govt. of Manipur. While they were rendering their services in the said College, i.e. B.T.C., in the aforesaid capacity, a new scheme was framed by the Union Ministry (Human Resource Development), Department of Education, New Delhi in the year 1989. The Government of Manipur also adopted the said scheme of the Union of India. of Manipur. While they were rendering their services in the said College, i.e. B.T.C., in the aforesaid capacity, a new scheme was framed by the Union Ministry (Human Resource Development), Department of Education, New Delhi in the year 1989. The Government of Manipur also adopted the said scheme of the Union of India. The scheme in the larger interest of the people of Manipur an independent department for imparting training to the inservice and pre-service persons has been established in the name and style of “State Council of Educational Research and Training”( in short “SCERT”), Manipur vide notification No. 7/25/81-S/SE, Imphal, the 8th February, 1989 and a copy of which is available at Annexure-A/2 to the writ petition. For the purpose of fully implementing the said scheme, i.e. SCERT, Manipur, the then B.T.C. had been amalgamated with the SCERT and upgraded and renamed as District Institute of Education and Training (in short “DIET), Imphal. The writ petitioners who are serving as lecturer in the B.T.C. had been transferred and allowed to work as lecturer in the said DIET. 4. The further case of the petitioners are that in consideration of their sincere and efficient service as lecturer in DIET, the had been allowed to function at the higher posts of Vice-Principal and later on Principal of DIET of different districts. The further, case of the petitioners is that the educational qualification for holding the post of lecturer of DIET of the Govt. of Manipur is Master Degree (M.A./M.Sc./M.Com.etc.) with B.Ed/B.T./M.Ed. and the DIET is an institution for imparting training to the school teachers and as such the same is an institute equivalent to Degree Colleges. But in the case of the Higher Secondary Schools of the Govt. of Manipur, as per the said RR 1997, the educational qualification of the candidates for direct recruitment to the said post of lecturer is only Master Degree with 50% marks and such being the situation, the case of the petitioners is that the lecturer of DIET, Govt. of Manipur is more qualified than the lecturer of the Higher Secondary Schools, Govt. of Manipur inasmuch as the lecturer of the DIET, Govt. of Manipur should have at least B.Ed/B.T./M.Ed. over and above the Post- Graduate Degree with 50% mark. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education also issued the guidelines for operationalising the DIETs: Project Implementation. of Manipur inasmuch as the lecturer of the DIET, Govt. of Manipur should have at least B.Ed/B.T./M.Ed. over and above the Post- Graduate Degree with 50% mark. The Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development, Department of Education also issued the guidelines for operationalising the DIETs: Project Implementation. In para-6.2.4.2, it is clearly mentioned that various key posts in the DIETs are recommended to be created at the following levels and in corresponding pay scales. 5. From the said instructions of the Govt. of India, it appears that the lecturers of the DIET is equivalent to the post of lecturers of the Higher Secondary Schools. But the case in hand, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitioners are having more educational qualification than those of the lecturers of the Higher Secondary Schools. The lecturers of the Higher Secondary Schools are teaching students of Class-XII at the maximum. Therefore, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the lecturers of the DIET are teaching even employed teachers at the degree level. Therefore, the pay scale of the lecturers of the DIET of the Govt. of Manipur should not be less than that of the lecturers of the Higher Secondary Schools. In this regard the learned counsel for the petitioners cited following cases: (1)Randhir Singh - Vrs Unionn of India and others,, reported in (1982) 1SCC 618, (2) State of Haryana and another - Vrs _ Ram Chander and another reported in (1997) 5 SCC 253 ; (3) Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University - Vrs - T. Sumalatha (Smt) and others, reported in (2003) 10 SCC 405 ; (4) Bhagwan Sahai Carpenter and others - Vrs - Union of India and another, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1215 ; and (5) Babulal, Convenor and another - v rs - New Delhi Municipal Committee and another, reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 633; and (6) Niaz Mohammed and others - Vrs - State oif Haryana and others, reported in (1988) 3 SCC 354 in order to impress this court. 6. In Randhir Singh (Supra), the Delhi administration had prescribed different pay scales for the drivers working in the Police Force and the drivers working in the Delhi administration even if they are discharging same functions and duties. 6. In Randhir Singh (Supra), the Delhi administration had prescribed different pay scales for the drivers working in the Police Force and the drivers working in the Delhi administration even if they are discharging same functions and duties. In that case, the Apex Court held that “ The Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognizes the principle of ' equal remuneration for work of equal value' as constituting one of the means of a achieving the improvement of conditions “involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the pace and harmony of the world are imperiled”. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle '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.” 7. In the State of Haryana and another (supra), the Govt. of Karnataka provides higher pay scales of the teachers working in the technical institutions teaching Class-XI and XII standards but lower pay scales had been provided to the lecturers teaching 11th and 12 standard students in the Haryana Government Vocational Education Institute. In that case, the Apex Court held that whether a teacher teaches Hindi and English languages to 11th and 12th standard students in a technical institute or in a higher secondary school makes no difference in the nature of duties and functions performed by these two sets of teachers. The ratio laid down in the said case is that the teachers performing the same duties and functions in the different institutions of the same government should enjoy the same pay scale even if name of the institutes are different. 8. In Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Supra), the University prescribed lesser pay scale to the Investigators working in the Nodal Centre which is an agency of the State Government than the pay scale of the counterparts working in the University itself. 8. In Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (Supra), the University prescribed lesser pay scale to the Investigators working in the Nodal Centre which is an agency of the State Government than the pay scale of the counterparts working in the University itself. In that case also the Apex Court held that “ we consider it just and expedient to direct respondent 7 or 8, as the case may be, to take an expeditious decision to increase the consolidated salary that is being paid to respondents 1 to 4 to a reasonable level commensurate with the work done by them and keeping in view the minimum salary that is being paid to the personnel doing a more or less similar job. In that case also the ratio laid down is that by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The Investigators who are working in that scheme, i.e. the Nodal Centre, should also enjoy the same pay scale of their counterparts who are the regular employees in the University. 9. In Babulal, Convenor and another (Supra), the Delhi Municipal Committee had provided different pay scales for the workers “Storm Water Drains Beldars and Storm Water Drains Mates” working in different sections under the New Delhi Municipal Committee (for short 'NDMC'). The Apex Court considering the similar nature of the works being carried out by the said Workers of the different sections under the same employer, i.e. NDMC held that they should be allowed to enjoy the same pay scale and denying of similar pay scale to the petitioners means the workers in one of the section is arbitrary, discriminatory and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. 10. In Niaz Mohammed and others (Supra), the Supreme Court held that the Instructors under Adult and Non-formal Education Scheme of Education Department of State of Haryana shall be entitled to pay scale at par with Squad Teachers under Social Education Scheme of Education Department of State of Haryana by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. 10. In Niaz Mohammed and others (Supra), the Supreme Court held that the Instructors under Adult and Non-formal Education Scheme of Education Department of State of Haryana shall be entitled to pay scale at par with Squad Teachers under Social Education Scheme of Education Department of State of Haryana by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. Paras-7 and 10 of the SCC in Niaz Mohammed and others are quoted hereunder: “7.The respondents' contention that the adult education scheme is temporary, as the posts are sanctioned on year to year basis and as such the instructors are not entitled to claim equality with the squad teachers as the scheme under which they work is of a permanent nature is misconceived. This contention was rejected by this Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass while considering the case of supervisors. There is no doubt that instructors and squad teachers are employees of the same employer doing work of similar nature in the same department therefore, the appointment on a temporary basis or on regular basis does not affect the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Article 39(d) contained in Part IV of the Constitution ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Though Article 39 is included in the chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, but it is fundamental in nature. The purpose of the article is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the people doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been implemented by this Court in Randhir Singh - Vrs - Union of India, Dhirendra Chamoli - vrs- State of U.P. and Surinder Singh - Vrs- Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD. In view of these authorities it is too late in the day to disregard the doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the ground of the employment being temporary and the other being permanent in nature. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee.” “10. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the instructors are entitled to the same pay scale as sanctioned to squad teachers. A temporary or casual employee performing the same duties and functions is entitled to the same pay as paid to a permanent employee.” “10. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the instructors are entitled to the same pay scale as sanctioned to squad teachers. We, accordingly, direct that the petitioners' salary shall be fixed in the same pay scale as that of squad teachers. The pay of each of the petitioners shall be fixed having regard to the length of service with effect from the date of his initial appointment by ignoring the break in service on account of six months fresh appointments. The petitioners will be entitled to increments in the pay scale in accordance with law notwithstanding the break in service that might have taken place. We further direct that those directions shall be implemented in the case of Bhagwan Dass. The petitioners' claim for regularizing their services in the Department cannot be accepted the as admittedly the project of Adult and Non-formal Education is temporary which is likely to last till 1990. We accordingly allow the writ petitions partly with costs which we quantify at Rs. 5000” 11. In the present case, it appears that the writ petitioners, who are the lecturers in DIET having the same educational qualifications, even more, with to the lecturers of the Higher Secondary Schools and doing the similar works, shall be entitled to get the pay scale equivalent to that of the lecturers of the Higher Secondary Schools. It is well settled principle of law that equation of post/ pay scale is within the domain of the executive and not under the judiciary, that is not to say, the court has no jurisdiction and aggrieved employee have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or by inaction, but the court, however, realizing that the difficulty in carrying the job for equation of posts, the matter is referred to the expert body having the assistance of staff of requisite expertise. Such being, the settled position of law, this court is of the opinion that the State Government should take an appropriate decision in the light of the above observations of fact and decision of the Apex Court mentioned above, if necessary by referring to a committee, for affording a pay scale to the petitioners not less than to that of the lecturers of the Higher Secondary Schools within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this judgment and order. 12. With the above observations and directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.