Judgment :- (Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 29. 2001 made in O.A.No.3575 of 1993, on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and quash the same.) K. Chandru, J. Heard Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader for the petitioners in W.P.No.21993 of 2002 and perused the records. 2. The two writ petitions in view of their inter-connectivity were heard together. In WP.No.21993 of 2002, the petitioners are the State of Tamil Nadu, represented by the Secretary to the Education and others. In WP.No.33250 of 2002, the petitioner is Respondent No.1 in the first writ petition. In both the writ petitions, challenge is the same order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3575 of 1993 dated 29. 2001. 3. Before the Tribunal, the private respondent (D. Sathia Singh) filed the Original Application seeking for fixation of his scale of pay as that of the sergeant in the Departmental Technical Education in a scale higher than that of the sergeant in the Chief Secretariat or at least equal to that of the sergeant in the Chief Secretariat with effect from 6. 1988. 4. The Tribunal, by curious reasoning held that he is entitled to fixation of scale of pay at par with the sergeants available in the Departmental Technical Education, though the said private respondent was working in an Engineering College in Tiruvanamalai. However, the Tribunal rejected the request of the private respondent for fixing his scale of pay in terms of the sergeant in the Chief Secretariat. The reasoning given by the Tribunal was that comparing the private respondent to that of the sergeant post in Chief Secretariat was not proper and at the same time there may not be any difference in the pay scale in the educational institutions. 5. While the first respondent is serving in a college in Tiruvanamalai, comparison was made to that of the Directorate of Technical Education. Such comparison is impermissible unless all relevant details are placed before the Tribunal. 6. In any event, the present attempt of the first respondent seeking scale as that of the sergeant in the Chief Secretariat cannot be countenanced. While the first respondent is serving in a college in Tiruvanamalai, comparison was made to that of the Directorate of Technical Education. Such comparison is impermissible unless all relevant details are placed before the Tribunal. 6. In any event, the present attempt of the first respondent seeking scale as that of the sergeant in the Chief Secretariat cannot be countenanced. The Supreme Court in the recent decision reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279 (S.C. CHANDRA AND OTHERS v. STATE OF JHARKAND AND OTHERS), had rejected such a power for the court in directing to fix a particular scale of pay by exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution does not exist. Speaking for the Supreme Court, Mr. Katju, J observed as follows:- "35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realizing this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay)." 6. In the light of the same, the writ petition filed by the State in WP.No.21993 of 2002 stands allowed and WP.No.33250 of 2002 stands dismissed. No costs.