JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The petitioners were working on the post of Drawing Instructor in different disciplines of Engineering like civil, mechanical etc. having been appointed on 12.9.1963, 19.9.1967 and 1.7.1966 respectively have already retired in June, 1996, 2002 and 2006 respectively. At the time of appointment they were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 150-300 and posted at Gandhi Polytechnic, Muzaffarnagar. The appointment letters were issued by the Principal, Gandhi Polytechnic, Muzaffarnagar after having approval of the Managing Committee of Gandhi Polytechnic, Muzaffarnagar. At the time of joining of service by the petitioners, the Engineering Instructors and Engineering Drawing Instructors, both were getting the same pay scale. The qualifications for the same were Diploma in Engineering (three years course with one year experience) or Draftsman Course with two years duration plus two years Draftsman experience respectively. It is said that the pay scales of the Instructors were revised in 1992 pursuant to the Equivalence Committee (Samta Samiti) report of 1989 and the Engineering Instructors were placed in the scale of Rs. 1400-2400 and thereafter Rs. 1600-2900 vide Government Orders dated 2.6.1992 and 3.6.1992 respectively placing them at par with the Assistant Lecturer (Engineering) but the said scale was not made applicable to the Drawing Instructors and Workshop Instructors hence, they raised a demand for the same. It is alleged that recommendation was made to this effect by the Director, Technical Education, U.P. vide letter dated 8.1.1993. By order dated 18.02.1995 the Government communicated its decision for giving the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 to Drawing Instructors in Civil and Mechanical Engineering instead of 1400-2400. The Senior Drawing Instructors who were in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 and Senior Arts Instructors (Civil/Mechanical) who were in the scale of Rs. 1600-2660 were directed to be placed in a common cadre in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The Workshop Instructors were also provided the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 instead of 1400-2400. The Instructors and Junior Lecturers were allowed a personal promotion scale of Rs. 2200-4000 vide Government Order dated 27.1.1998 w.e.f. 14.7.1997, i.e., the date on which U.P. Technical Education Rules, 1996 were promulgated or thereafter but it was admissible only to the extent of 25% of posts and substantively appointed non-technical category Instructors and Junior Lecturers. 2. The petitioners who were working as Senior Drawing Instructors at that time were given the scale of Rs. 2. The petitioners who were working as Senior Drawing Instructors at that time were given the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 but the same was stopped on 10.08.2001. Before grant of the said scale the petitioners had already filed Writ Petition No. 40859 of 1994 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 as was paid to Engineering Instructors and it is during the pendency of the said writ petition the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 was given to the petitioners. The above writ petition was disposed of on 26.9.2005 directing the respondent No. 1, State of U.P. to consider and decide petitioners’ representation for higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on due date, i.e., the date on which the Engineering Instructors were provided the said scale. It is pursuant to this judgement of the Court, the respondents have passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of petitioners for the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 on the post of Arts Instructors. It is further said that earlier the Workshop Instructors claiming the higher scale of Rs. 850-1720 in accordance with the Government Order dated 3.6.1999 filed Writ Petition No. 9413 (SS) of 1989, (Surendra Prakash Tripati and another v. State of U.P. and others) before the Lucknow Bench of this Court which was allowed vide judgement dated 25.04.1991 and those petitioners were allowed scale of Rs. 850-1720. Relying on the above judgement another Writ Petition No. 1197 (SS) of 1992 (Shyam Prakash Saxena and others v. State of U.P. and others) was decided by Lucknow Bench on 20.2.1992 and pursuant to the above judgement the said petitioners were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 850-1720 and later on in the revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1992 but the petitioners in the present writ petition have been denied the same benefits. 3. The respondents have filed a counter-affidavit stating that pursuant to the decision taken by State Government for providing parity in the matter of pay scale to State Government employees with Central Government employees on the basis of post to post basis, the matter was considered by the Equivalence Committee (Samta Samiti) constituted in 1988. it was found that the Arts Instructors (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) getting the scale of Rs. 1400-2400 and claiming parity with the similar post in Delhi Administration getting the scale of Rs. it was found that the Arts Instructors (Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) getting the scale of Rs. 1400-2400 and claiming parity with the similar post in Delhi Administration getting the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 were not at par since the structure of post in Delhi Administration was different. Therefore, the Equivalence Committee recommended the scale of Rs. 1400-2600 which was accepted by the State Government and the decision was communicated to the authority concerned vide letter dated 18.02.1995. No justification was found for giving the scale applicable to Assistant Lecturers to the Drawing Instructors. The post of Assistant Lecturers and Drawing Instructors are not of the same cadre and the eligibility criteria as well as selection process was also different. It is said that the Engineering Instructors are different from the Drawing Instructors inasmuch as the Engineering Instructors are required to impart instructions in various subjects of concerned trade and the practical works are carried on in the related laboratories while Drawing Instructors render knowledge of the subjects related to drawing in the concerned trade only. The qualification for the two cadres is also different. The claim of the petitioners for parity with reference to the G.B. Pant Polytechnic, U.P. Lucknow was denied on the ground that it is being run by the Social Welfare Department of U.P. and is not regulated and controlled by Director, Technical Education, U.P. The service conditions of the said institution under the Social Welfare Department are totally different. 4. In the rejoinder affidavit while reiterating what has been stated in the writ petition the petitioners have said that in the past qualifications of Drawing Instructors and Engineering Instructors were same and they were carrying the same duties and works. It is said that the qualification and experience in both cases refers to 4 years period and cannot be said to be materially different. It is also said that the Workshop Instructors were earlier in the lower scale than the petitioner but now they have been given higher scale than the petitioners hence it is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 5. The only question up for consideration in this case is whether the claim of petitioners for parity in the matter of scale with Engineering Instructors who have now been given designation and the pay scale of Assistant Lecturer is justified or not. 6. 5. The only question up for consideration in this case is whether the claim of petitioners for parity in the matter of scale with Engineering Instructors who have now been given designation and the pay scale of Assistant Lecturer is justified or not. 6. Sri Mool Behari Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract principle but is a doctrine recognised having substance and is referable to Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution, therefore, the persons discharging same duty are entitled for similar treatment in the matter of pay scale. 7. The qualifications prescribed for two types of posts quoted in the impugned order, which has not been disputed by counsel for the petitioner, may be noticed as under : Drawing Instructor : Two years Draftsman course recognised in concerned trade and two years experience of working in a Drawing office which would include apprenticeship period also. Engineering Instructor (Now Assistant Lecturer) : Diploma in Engineering in the concerned branch with 65% marks and one years industrial experience/apprenticeship. Qualification in Delhi Administration : 1. Matriculation or equivalent (with mathematics and science) for Engineering trade only. 2. National Trade Certificate/National apprenticeship certificate/Certificate in the Trade Concerned from a recognised Institution. 3. Three years practical experience in the trade concerned. Desirable: CTI trained will be preferred OR Essential : 1. Diploma in Engineering/Technology. 2. One year practical experience in the trade concerned. OR One year CTI training in the trade concerned. 8. The above qualifications are not disputed by counsel for the petitioners but he submitted that there is no substantial difference in the qualification of Drawing Instructor and Engineering Instructors inasmuch as the certificate course which a Drawing Instructor is supposed to possess is of two years but he also requires to possess two years experience, therefore, total period comes to four years. Similarly in the case of Engineering Instructors though diploma is required but the period of diploma is three years and the experience is only one year which also comes to four years, therefore, no substantial difference exist in the two qualifications hence both have to be treated similar for the purposes of pay scale also. He does not dispute that difference in qualification justify difference in pay scale but according to him the same is not attracted in the case in hand. 9. He does not dispute that difference in qualification justify difference in pay scale but according to him the same is not attracted in the case in hand. 9. The question thus further narrowed down to whether the above qualification of two cadres can be said to be similar so as to attract the doctrine of equal pay for equal work making the petitioners eligible and entitle for the pay scale admissible to Engineering Instructors. 10. The principle of equal pay for equal work would be attracted in what cases is no more res integra having been settled by the Apex Court in a catena of decisions. 11. In Secretary, Finance Department and others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and others, AIR 1992 SC 1203 the Apex Court held that equation of posts and determination of pay-scales is the primary function of the executive 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. It does not mean 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 performance 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. Some of the factors which 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. 12. 12. The Court further says that a pay structure is evolved normally keeping in mind several factors, like, (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. The list is not exhaustive but illustrative. 13. Considering the difference in mode of recruitment and different service rules, in State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, AIR 1997 SC 693 , the Apex Court upheld different pay scale for work charge employees and those employed in regular establishment. 14. Similarly a three judge Bench of the Apex Court upheld such distinction among ad hoc appointees and regular appointees in State of Haryana v. Haryana Veternaty and A.H.T.S. Association and another, AIR 2000 SC 3020 which has been followed in State of Punjab and others v. Gurdeep Kumar Uppal and others, AIR 2001 SC 2691 , State of Punjab and others v. Ishar Singh and others, AIR 2002 SC 2422 and Punjab State Electricity Board and others v. Jagjiwan Ram and others, JT 2009(3) SC 400. 15. In Deb Narayan Shyam and others v. State of West Bengal and others, 2005(2) SCC 286 the Apex Court summarised as to when the doctrine of equal pay for equal work would apply in the light of the exposition of law laid down in catena of its earlier decisions and said : “Large number of decisions have been cited before us with regard to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ by both sides. We need not deal with the said decisions to overburden this judgment. Suffice it to say that the principle is settled that if the two categories of posts perform the same duties and function and carry the same qualification, then there should not be any distinction in pay scale between the two categories of posts similarly situated. But when they are different and perform different duties and qualifications for recruitment being different, then they cannot be said to be equated so as to qualify for equal pay for equal work.” 16. The above dictum has been followed in Union of India and another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar, AIR 2008 SC 435 . 17. But when they are different and perform different duties and qualifications for recruitment being different, then they cannot be said to be equated so as to qualify for equal pay for equal work.” 16. The above dictum has been followed in Union of India and another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar, AIR 2008 SC 435 . 17. In Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Gulshan Lal and others, JT 2009(9) SC 95 the Court observed that same or similar nature of work, by itself, does not entitle an employee to invoke the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Qualification, experience and other factors would be relevant for the said purpose. 18. In State of Haryana and others v. Charanjit Singh and others, AIR 2006 SC 161 the Court said that 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 and 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 a person has not gone through the process of recruitment 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 justify a difference in pay scales. The earlier nomenclature designating a person as a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he was doing the same work as another carpenter or craftsmen 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 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 mere volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. 19. This has been followed in Union of India and others v. Dineshan K.K., AIR 2008 SC 1026 , Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation and others v. G.S. Uppal and others, AIR 2008 SC 2152 and Food Corporation of India and others v. Ashish Kumar Ganguli and others, 2009(8) SCALE 218 . Recently in State of Punjab and another v. Surjit Singh and others, 2009(11) SCALE 149 after referring to its earlier judgements, the Apex Court has summarised the dictum in the following manner : “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. Realising 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).” 20. It further says that grant of benefit of doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” depends upon a large number of factors including equal work, equal value, source and manner of appointment, equal identity of group and wholesale or complete identity. The Apex Court in Surjit Singh (supra) also stressed upon that the principle has undergone a sea change and the matter should be examined strictly on the basis of the pleadings and proof available before the Court to find out whether the distinction between two based on any relevant factor or not. The onus to prove lie on the person who alleges discrimination and claims enforcement of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. 21. The onus to prove lie on the person who alleges discrimination and claims enforcement of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. 21. In State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, 2009(11) SCALE 619 the Court said that it is well settled that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Similarity in designation or nature or equation of work is not determinative for equality in the matter of pay scales. The Court has to consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, nature of work, the value thereof, responsibility, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scale only when there is a whole sale identity between the two posts. 22. Looking to the facts and pleadings of the matter in hand to find out as to whether the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is attracted or not this Court find that the basic qualification provided for recruitment to the post of Arts Instructor is two years certificate course plus two years experience. While in the case of Engineering Instructors it is diploma in engineering in the concerned trade and that too with a further condition that one must have secured marks not less than 65%. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that diploma in engineering is admittedly a higher qualification than the certificate course. Apparently, therefore, it cannot be said that the qualifications of Arts Instructors and Engineering Instructors are same. The respondents found that considering the qualifications and the duties etc. discharged by the Engineering Instructors they were at par with the Assistant Lecturers and, therefore, a decision was taken on 31.12.1987 to change the designation of Engineering Instructors as Assistant Lecturers and in that view of the matter they were extended the pay scale application to Assistant Lecturer later on. However that is not the case with respect to the petitioners. The difference in qualification is a relevant consideration to uphold difference in the pay scale. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the petitioners form a wholesale similar group with the Engineering Instructors. I am not inclined to accept the contention that the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale at par with the Engineering Instructors. The difference in qualification is a relevant consideration to uphold difference in the pay scale. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the petitioners form a wholesale similar group with the Engineering Instructors. I am not inclined to accept the contention that the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale at par with the Engineering Instructors. The order passed by the respondents ex facie cannot be faulted either on facts or on law and warrants no interference. The writ petition is devoid of merit. Dismissed. No order as to costs. ————