JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral)-Petitioner is seeking revision of pay of Rs.400-600 with effect from 1.1.1978. 2. The claim is based on the pay scale of the Lift Operators fixed by the Government of Punjab with respect to Lift Operators appointed by them. The petitioner represented to the respondent-Corporation for the revision of the pay scale claiming parity with the employees of the State of Punjab which stood rejected by the respondent vide orders dated 19.12.1996 (Annexure A-1) and 26.5.1980 (Annexure A-6). 3. The petitioner was initially appointed as Lift Operator in the lift set up in Shimla by the HP PWD department. His appointment was in the pay scale of Rs.70- Rs.95/- on 5.10.1996. 4. The establishment of the Lift was transferred to H.P.Tourism Development Corporation – respondent on 30.5.1977 and the services of the applicant and other Lift Operators also stood transferred to the said Organisation. Petitioner made representation seeking parity of pay scale on the analogy of pay paid to the similarly situated employees of the State of Punjab. 5. However, with the passage of time, the pay scale was, however, revised but not in accordance with the pay scale fixed by the State of Punjab with respect to its employees. The actual revision came with effect from 1.1.1983 when the post of Lift Operators was clubbed with the post of guide cum Clerks. Petitioner’s subsequent representation for fixation of pay scale on the ground of parity was rejected. Subsequently, post of Lift Operator was separated from the cadre of Guide cum Clerk and the petitioner as such is now holding the post of Lift Operator. 6. The respondent has clarified that petitioner is not a Matriculate and hence is not entitled for encadrement and placed in the cadre of Clerks and thus eligible for grant of pay scale of Rs.400-Rs.600/-. As per Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1985 cadre of Lift Operators is a separate cadre and duties and responsibility of Lift Operators and Clerks being totally different, the two cannot be clubbed together. The respondent considered the petitioner’s representation and decided the same in accordance with law. The matter was examined at various levels, in consultation with the Finance Department, but, however, due to the petitioner’s ineligibility no benefit as claimed could be accorded. 7. There can be different pay scales based on different educational qualification also. The respondent considered the petitioner’s representation and decided the same in accordance with law. The matter was examined at various levels, in consultation with the Finance Department, but, however, due to the petitioner’s ineligibility no benefit as claimed could be accorded. 7. There can be different pay scales based on different educational qualification also. In the present case, the petitioner is under-matriculate and hence not entitled for benefits of the post of Clerk. 8. It is a settled position of law that the burden to show that the petitioner is entitled to same pay scale or that there is discrimination is heavy on the claimant. The claimant has to support his claim with necessary averments and materials placed on record [Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and another (2003) 5 SCC 188, Mahendra L.Jain and others vs. Indore Development Authority and others, (2005) 1 SCC 639]. 9. In the present case nothing has been shown to the said effect. 10. The Apex Court in K.Vasudevan Nair and others vs. Union of India and others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 134 and State of W.B. and others vs. Deb Kumar Mukherjee and others, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 640, has held that employees working in two different departments of the State may not be entitled to the same pay scale. 11. In the present case, the petitioner is seeking parity in the pay scale payable to the employees of a different State. Each State has separate Recruitment and Promotion Rules requiring different occupational requirements. No material has been placed on record to show similarity between the employees of two. That apart, the fixation of pay scale is the prerogative of the management, which is based on several factors and considerations. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitioner’s case, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.