JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, J.-The petitioners by means of this writ petition have challenged the order of the learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal dated July 6, 1998 whereby the original application filed by them claiming parity of pay with the Secretariat employees has been rejected. 2. The undisputed facts are that all the petitioners at the relevant time were employed with the Himachal Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (HPSIDC) as Senior Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers. According to the petitioners, they are working as Senior Scale Stenographers and Senior Assistants in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.225-500 and the Senior Scale Stenographers were allowed Rs.40/- as special pay prior to January 1, 1978. The State of Himachal Pradesh revised the pay scales of Senior Scale Stenographers w.e.f. January 1, 1978 from Rs.225-500 plus Rs.40/- special pay to Rs.570-1080 plus special pay of Rs.40/- and the scale of Senior Assistants was revised from Rs.225-500 to Rs.570 -1080. According to the petitioners, a representation was made by them and finally the State vide Annexure A/1 again revised the pay scales w.e.f. January 1, 1978 to Rs.600-1120 in respect of Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers. 50 per cent of the employees falling in the cadre of Senior Scale Stenographers and Assistants were granted a selection grade of Rs.800-1400. Admittedly this scale was made applicable by the State of Himachal Pradesh in the H.P Secretariat. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the pre-revised scale was fixed by keeping in view the scales payable to the employees of the Secretariat and, therefore, after revision of the pay scales, they should have been granted the same pay scales. 4. From the material placed on record, it is apparent that after the petitioners made a representation to the HPSIDC, the Board of Directors of HPSIDC considered the same in its 86th meeting and recommended that a reference be made to the Finance Department to advise whether the Senior Scale Stenographers, Assistants and Drivers were to be given revised pay scale on Secretariat pattern or not. Accordingly a reference was made to the Finance Department in which it was mentioned that the Senior Scale Stenographers, Assistants and Drivers were getting pre-revised scale as applicable to the corresponding categories of posts in the Secretariat. Accordingly a reference was made to the Finance Department in which it was mentioned that the Senior Scale Stenographers, Assistants and Drivers were getting pre-revised scale as applicable to the corresponding categories of posts in the Secretariat. The matter was sent back to the HPSIDC by the Finance Department that the Board of Directors should reconsider the matter and make proper recommendations. 5. Thereafter, a memorandum was put up for the consideration of the Board giving therein the entire facts and in the memorandum it was pointed out that in the State of Himachal Pradesh, there are two different scales of pay one payable to the Secretariat employees and one payable to the Directorate employees. It was also pointed out that similarly situated employees in the other Corporations were being paid salary on the basis of the Directorate and in these Corporations the Senior Scale Stenographers and Assistants were getting salary in the scale of Rs.700-1200. The Board of Directors did not accept the plea of the employees and recommended that the scale of Rs.700-1200 be paid to the Senior Scale Stenographers and Senior Assistants w.e.f. January 1, 1983 vide notification dated 21.9.1983. It is also mentioned in this notification that the Senior Scale Stenographers will continue to get special pay of Rs.40/- per month in this pay scale. 6. The employees kept making representations against this on the ground that they should be granted the same pay scale which has been granted to the Senior Scale Stenographers/Assistants in the H.P Secretariat. Finally the Board rejected the prayer of the petitioners on 2nd September, 1989 which led to the filing of the Original Application. The Original Application has been dismissed by the Tribunal. Hence the present writ petition. 7. The main ground raised on behalf of the petitioners is that since their pre-revised scale was fixed on the Secretariat pattern, after revision the same pay scale should have been allowed to them. In this behalf reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in case Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors. V. G.S. Uppal & Ors. 2008 (95) SCC 2152 wherein the Apex Court held that the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation was following the pay scales paid by the State of Haryana. In this behalf reliance has been placed on a decision of the Apex Court in case Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors. V. G.S. Uppal & Ors. 2008 (95) SCC 2152 wherein the Apex Court held that the Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation was following the pay scales paid by the State of Haryana. If rectification is made by the State Government, the benefit of such rectification should also be given to the employees of the Corporation also. In para 16 the Court observed as follows:- “There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of martial and relevant factors. [see K.T. Veerappa & Ors. V. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406)” 8. Thereafter, in para 23 the Apex Court held as follows:- “A careful examination shows that the issue was not really about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers on par with PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took place, the revised pay scales that were given to the Engineers of the State Government were also given to the Engineers of the Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining the parity. What was not extended to the Corporation employees, which is the subject-matter of the grievance, is the further revision by way of ‘removal of anomaly in pay scales’ given to AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the State Government with effect from 1.5.1989 vide Circular dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The real question would be whether what is given by way of anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of State Government, should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of Engineers of the Corporation. The real question would be whether what is given by way of anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of State Government, should automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of Engineers of the Corporation. When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a class of Government servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment to the pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the pay revision extended to the Government servants has already been extended to the employees of the Corporation also, it follows that any correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale given to the Government servants should also be made in the case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the pay scale which is the subject-matter of the correction. It should be borne in mind that the question whether Corporation Engineers were on par with PWD Engineers and should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when the pay scale revision granted to Government (PWD) Engineers was extended to the Corporation Engineers also with effect from 1.1.1986. That question did not again arise when the anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with reference to the Government Engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of Government Engineers was rectified, the rectification should apply to Corporation Engineers also to maintain the parity.” 9. In our considered view, this judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. There was no dispute in that case that the benefit of the scales adopted by the State Government was extended to all the employees of the Corporation. It appears that when some anomalies were pointed out, rectification was made in the scales of the Engineers and thereafter the Engineers employed in the Corporation claimed the benefit of such rectification. There was no dispute that the scales approved by the Government were applicable to the Corporation. The only dispute was that whether the employees of the Corporation would get the benefit of the rectification or not. 10. The present case stands on a different footing. In the case in hand, the Government has two different pay scales for Senior Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers. The only dispute was that whether the employees of the Corporation would get the benefit of the rectification or not. 10. The present case stands on a different footing. In the case in hand, the Government has two different pay scales for Senior Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers. In the Government itself Assistants and Senior Scale Stenographers employed in the Directorates are getting the scale of Rs.700-1200 whereas in the Secretariat the scale of pay of Rs.600-1120 for 50 per cent employees and the higher scale of Rs.800-1400 is given to the remaining 50 per cent. The Board of Directors in its wisdom after taking into consideration all relevant factors including the factor that all other Corporations are following the Directorate pattern has adopted the scale of Rs.700-1200 for two categories of employees in the Corporation. 11. The Apex Court in case State of Haryana and Another v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, 2002 Volume 6 SCC 72 clearly held that it is the Government which has to decide what is the scale of pay to be paid to its employees. The Court held as follows:- “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.” 12. In T. Venkateswarulu v. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and Others, 2009 (1) SCC 546 the Apex Court held as follows:- “It is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts do not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies as several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure. Being a complex matter, the court will interfere only if there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error has crept in such an exercise and court’s interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice being caused. (See Finance Deptt. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn.) In Devi Prasad v. Govt. Being a complex matter, the court will interfere only if there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error has crept in such an exercise and court’s interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice being caused. (See Finance Deptt. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn.) In Devi Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. a Government order was questioned on the ground of unreasonableness in the matter of giving weightage for promotion between two categories of servants inducted from different sources on the ground that the weightage rule was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Rejecting the challenge, this Court had said that ultimately it is a matter of Government policy to decide what weightage should be given as between two categories of government servants rendering somewhat similar kind of service. There may be that one group would suffer from hardship consequent to this rule and the weightage conferred thereby. But mere hardship without anything arbitrary in the rule does not call for judicial intervention, especially when it flows out of a policy which is not basically illegal.” 13. It is thus clear that the role of the Court is very limited and the Court can only interfere when there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that there is arbitrariness or a grave error has been committed by the State. In the present case, the Board of Directors considered all points and decided to adopt the Directorate pattern of pay scales. This decision was taken on consideration of all material including the material relied upon by the petitioners. It would be pertinent to mention here that the petitioners have never urged that their work is identical to the Senior Scale Stenographers and Assistants in the Secretariat. Their only case is that because in the pre-revised scale, their pay was fixed on the Secretariat pattern, this must be continued. We cannot accept such an argument. An employer cannot be debarred from reviewing its earlier decision. An employer may at one time decide to link the pay scales with a certain class of employees. However, on re-consideration of the matter, the employer has full right to review his earlier decision and to link the pay scales of the employees with some other class of employees. The mere change of decision does not make the decision arbitrary or erroneous. 14. However, on re-consideration of the matter, the employer has full right to review his earlier decision and to link the pay scales of the employees with some other class of employees. The mere change of decision does not make the decision arbitrary or erroneous. 14. As held by us above, the Board of Directors took all aspects into consideration and thereafter decided the matter. This Court cannot substitute its judgment for the decision of the Board of Directors which cannot be said to be arbitrary. 15. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs.