Judgment :- Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. The petitioners were appointed as Veterinary Compounders on regular basis in October, 1999 on an initial pay of Rs.2650/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2650-4000 and other allowances as admissible as per rules under the Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services of A & N Islands. Both of them were directly recruited in the said post which was Group-D non-gazetted, non-ministerial post. As per the recruitment rules, 75% of the vacancies in the said post are to be filled up by promotion from the cadre post of Veterinary Stockman and Laboratory Attendant having three years service in the cadre post and remaining 25% of the vacancies are to be filled up by direct recruitment. The educational qualification prescribed for the direct recruit, is higher than the educational qualification which is prescribed for the promotee under the Recruitment Rules. For the direct recruitment the candidates must have passed 12th standard. Candidates in the cadre post who passed Class-VIII standard are eligible for promotion to the post of Veterinary Compounder. The pay scale for the Veterinary Compounders was uniformly fixed all throughout, irrespective of the nature of their appointment i.e. either by direct or by promotion or by deputation transfer. Problem started when the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations were sought to be implemented in A & N Islands by the Administration of A & N Islands. As a matter of fact 5th Pay Commission Report recommended for grant of the pay scale of Rs.2650-4000 to the Veterinary Compounders who were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.800-1150. The 5th Central Pay Commission also recommended for revision of pay scale of those employees who were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.950- 1500 by giving them the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 provided they were matriculate and had also completed the requisite training course. As per the existing hierarchy position of Para Veterinary staff in A & N Islands, senior Veterinary Compounder holding Group-C post had been enjoying the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 before revision of their pay scale as per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission. Senior Veterinary Compounder which is earmarked as Group ‘C’ post is the next higher post to the Veterinary Compounder in the existing hierarchy position of Para Veterinary staff in these Islands. Senior Veterinary Compounder which is earmarked as Group ‘C’ post is the next higher post to the Veterinary Compounder in the existing hierarchy position of Para Veterinary staff in these Islands. The post of Senior Veterinary Compounder is also filled up partly by direct recruitment and partly by promotion from the cadre post of Veterinary Compounder. Thus even a less qualified employee who is in the cadre post of Veterinary Compounder, is equally eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Veterinary Compounder along with the Veterinary Compounder who are recruited directly having higher qualification than the promotees in the cadre post. Since the nomenclature of the various posts of Para Veterinary staff, their gradation and the pay scale prescribed therefor in A & N Islands do not tally with the nomenclature of various posts in Veterinary service in other parts of the country, its gradation and/or pay scale prescribed for such post, some confusion arose with regard to the implementation of the 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations in Port Blair. As a result, an anomaly committee was constituted by the A & N Administration which recommended the pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000 for the Veterinary Compounder or Stockman and the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 was recommended for the Senior Veterinary Compounders. Even two different pay scales for two different categories of employees in the post of Veterinary Compounder, were recommended by the Anomaly Committee. Pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 was recommended for those promotee Veterinary Compounders who had matric qualification and completed the requisite training course as per the 5th Pay Commission recommendation. A lesser scale of pay of Rs.2610- 3540 was recommended for those who were non-matric promotees in the said post. Subsequently uniform scale of pay was recommended for all the promotee Veterinary Compounders in relaxation of their educational qualification. But no recommendation was made for revision of the pay scale of those employees who were recruited directly in the said post, despite they had better qualification than the promotee in the said post, at the time of their initial appointment. The A & N Administration implemented the said scale of pay, as recommended by the Anomaly Committee granting the benefits thereof to the promotee Veterinary Compounder, who had requisite qualification as per 5th CPC recommendations, without obtaining approval of the said Anomaly Committee Section recommendation from the competent authority of Union of India. The A & N Administration implemented the said scale of pay, as recommended by the Anomaly Committee granting the benefits thereof to the promotee Veterinary Compounder, who had requisite qualification as per 5th CPC recommendations, without obtaining approval of the said Anomaly Committee Section recommendation from the competent authority of Union of India. Subsequently, on the objection given by the competent authority of Union of India, the grant of pay to the Veterinary Compounder in the said scale of Rs.4000-6000 was discontinued by the A & N Administration and in fact a recovery proceeding was also sought to be initiated to recover the excess payment which was made to the Veterinary Compounder in the said unapproved revised scale. However, such recovery proceeding had to be abandoned as per the order passed by this Hon’ble Court in an earlier writ petition filed by a group of employees under the said department of A & N Islands including some Veterinary Compounders. Thereafter, uniform scale of pay i.e. Rs.2610-3540 was granted to all the Veterinary Compounders under the said department by the A & N Administration by following the direction of the competent authority of Union of India. Admittedly, the petitioners completed the requisite in service training course as per the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission, in 2001. After completing the requisite training course as per the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission in 2001, the petitioners submitted their representations before the concerned authority for grant of pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to them. Such prayer of the petitioners was ultimately rejected by the Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying and Fisheries, Government of India and its decision was communicated to the Secretary(Agriculture), A & N Administration by the Under Secretary to the Government of India vide his letter dated 31st May, 2010. In pursuance of the said communication the administration of A & N Islands also passed an order being No.1050 dated 1st July, 2010, by refusing to grant the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to the petitioners as well as the other two Veterinary Compounders who were directly recruited in the said post having identical educational background with that of the petitioners. The reasons for which the petitioners’ prayer for grant of the pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000 was rejected by the competent authority of Union of India are as follows:- “1. The reasons for which the petitioners’ prayer for grant of the pay scale of Rs.4000- 6000 was rejected by the competent authority of Union of India are as follows:- “1. Granting the pay scale of Rs.4000-6000 to four Veterinary Compounders only will create dis-satisfaction amongst other veterinary compounders who will continue to remain in the scale of Rs.2650-4000. 2. Any such move will have the effect of distortion in the Veterinary Units as next promotional hierarchy is Senior Veterinary Compounder (Rs.3050-4590) and Veterinary Supervisor (Rs.4000-6000). There will be demand for up-gradation of scale for these posts also. 3. The 5th Central Pay Commission in all probabilities must have considered, while recommending pay scale for different category of para-veterinary staff, about qualification, training etc. and as such, it would tantamount to doubt the wisdom of the Pay Commission to relax the condition for the applicants only.” The said decision of Union of India was adopted by the Administration of A & N Islands and the petitioners were intimated accordingly by the official administration of these Islands. The petitioners felt dissatisfied with the said decision of the Union of India as well as of the follow up action of the A & N Administration. As such, they challenged the said decision of those authorities by filing an application being O.A.No.202/AN/2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit at Port Blair. The petitioners’ said application was ultimately dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit at Port Blair on 16th December, 2011 and the decision taken by the competent authority of the Government of India in this regard was approved by the Tribunal. The instant writ petition is directed against the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal at the instance of those two petitioners. While rejecting the petitioners’ said application, the Central Administrative Tribunal also held that the claim of the petitioners is barred by the principle of res judicata. We cannot agree with such findings of the learned Tribunal as the particular issue relating to the petitioners’ demand for higher scale of pay in recognition of their higher educational qualification which was raised in the said Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was never decided conclusively by any judicial forum earlier in which the petitioners were parties. We cannot agree with such findings of the learned Tribunal as the particular issue relating to the petitioners’ demand for higher scale of pay in recognition of their higher educational qualification which was raised in the said Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was never decided conclusively by any judicial forum earlier in which the petitioners were parties. We cannot be oblivious of the facts that the petitioners have better educational qualifications than that of the other promotee co-staff and as such they all through out claimed their separate identity so that they cannot be mixed up and/or treated at par with the other promotee whose educational qualification is less than the educational qualification of the petitioners. The learned Tribunal perhaps missed this part of the claim of the petitioners and applied the principles of res judicata by treating them at par with the other less qualified promotee co-staff working in the same post. Thus we hold that even assuming that claim for higher scale of pay of the other promotee co-staff was decided earlier and the said decision attended its finality still then the said decision cannot be binding upon the petitioners as they are neither similarly situated nor they were parties to the earlier proceedings which were initiated by the other group of employees in the said department. As such, in our considered view, the principle of res judicata cannot be applied to the petitioners to non-suit them on this particular issue in the facts of the instant case. Let us now consider the merit of the petitioners’ claim in the facts as stated above. It is no doubt true that the slogan of “equal pay for equal work” is very popular in the service jurisprudence and the said slogan is also accepted as a sound doctrine in the field of service jurisprudence by the court of law and if the said principle is applied in its face value in the instant case, then no doubt the petitioners’ claim for higher scale of pay cannot be accepted by discriminating them from the other co-staff who are working in the same grade under the same establishment and have been discharging identical duties. But this doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” has undergone sea change by virtue of recent judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. But this doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” has undergone sea change by virtue of recent judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is uniformly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in all the under mentioned decisions that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not automatically applicable to all employees of the same cadre merely because identicalness of work irrespective of educational qualification, source of recruitment and various other considerations. The relevant part of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of W.B. –Vs.- Tarun K. Roy and others reported in (2004) 1 Supreme Court Cases 347, on which Mr. Nag, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners put much emphasis is set out hereunder:- “Equal pay for equal work 14. Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India envisages the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The said doctrine, however, does not contemplate that only because the nature of the work is same, irrespective of an educational qualification or irrespective of their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations the said doctrine would be automatically applied. The holders of a higher educational qualification can be treated as a separate class. Such classification, it is trite, is reasonable. Employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualification can, thus, be treated differently.” In another decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa reported in (1974) 1 Supreme Court Cases 19, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that educational qualifications have been recognized by this Court as safe criterion for determining the validity of classification. The Hon’ble Supreme Court also reiterated the same view in the case of Sohan Singh Sodhi v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala reported in (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 528 by holding that parity in pay scale cannot be claimed when educational qualification is different. It was further held therein that fixation of different scales of pay for the employees on the basis of educational qualification per se is not discriminatory. As such, different pay scales, provided by the State Board for diploma-holders and non-diploma-holders were held as not discriminatory. It was further held therein that fixation of different scales of pay for the employees on the basis of educational qualification per se is not discriminatory. As such, different pay scales, provided by the State Board for diploma-holders and non-diploma-holders were held as not discriminatory. Thus, if the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court are taken into consideration and the principles laid down therein are applied in the instant case then this Court has no hesitation to hold that the claim of the petitioners cannot be rejected for the reasons as mentioned in the ground No.1 in the letter written by the competent authority of the Central Government on 31st May, 2010 appearing at page 380 of this writ petition, as creation of dissatisfaction amongst the less qualified employees who will continue to remain in scale of Rs.2650-4000, cannot be a ground for refusal to grant higher scale of pay to the more qualified employees working in the same cadre as they deserved to be treated differently from the other less qualified co-employee working in the same cadre. In fact, in an identical situation such demand of higher scale of pay of the employees having higher qualification, was recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions. For ascertaining the reasonableness of the ground of rejection as mentioned in ground No.1 of the said letter, we with all anxieties, have thoroughly examined the decision of the Central Government in this regard, but we have not found that the competent authority while taking the said decision applied their mind in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that the holders of a higher educational qualification can be treated as a separate class and such classification, in its trite, is reasonable and the employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualification can thus be treated differently. Of course, the ground of rejection as mentioned in ground No.2 therein does not appear to us as wholly unjustified as if the scale i.e. Rs.4000-6000 which the petitioners have claimed is granted, such grant will not only surpass the scale of Rs.3050-4590 which was given to the next promotional post in the hierarchy i.e. for the senior Veterinary Compounder but also will be equal to the scale of Rs.4000-6000 which was given to the next promotional post in the hierarchy i.e. for the Veterinary Supervisor. It goes without saying that if the petitioners are granted the scale of Rs.4000-6000 then no doubt there will be demand for upgradation of scale for those who are holding higher posts in the hierarchy, causing financial burden on the Central Government. As such, this ground of rejection cannot be discarded at the threshold. But this ground itself cannot stand as an impediment in granting higher scale to the employees having better educational background than the other co-employees by offering them a scale which may be fixed at a scale lesser than the scale given to the next higher post in hierarchy. The conclusion of the competent authority which was recorded in the ground No.3 in the impugned letter appearing at page 380, appears to us as perverse as such findings were arrived at by the competent authority merely on surmises and conjecture, as the said authority, while taking the impugned decision proceeded on the presumption that the 5th Central Pay Commission in all probabilities, while recommending pay scales for different categories of Para Veterinary staff, considered the qualification, training etc. of the direct recruits in the post of Veterinary Compounder. At least, from the materials placed before us, we do not find that the 5th CPC, while recommending pay scales for the employees like the petitioners, considered the qualification, training etc. of the direct recruits. In fact, such consideration is conspicuously absent on record. of the direct recruits in the post of Veterinary Compounder. At least, from the materials placed before us, we do not find that the 5th CPC, while recommending pay scales for the employees like the petitioners, considered the qualification, training etc. of the direct recruits. In fact, such consideration is conspicuously absent on record. However, keeping in view the principles as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various decision such as Union of India v. Kishan K. Sharma and others reported in (2004) 2 Supreme Court Cases 173 and Union of India and others v. Hiranmoy Sen and others reported in (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 630, this Court holds that this Court, sitting in the writ jurisdiction, cannot issue any direction upon the competent authority of the Central Government to pay any particular scale to a particular group of employees by encroaching upon the executive or legislative domain. This Court also cannot forget to mention here the other decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Chandra and others v. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 279 wherein it was held that fixation of pay scale is a delicate mechanism which requires various consideration including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment etc. It was further held there that since equation of posts and salary is a complex matter, and the said job is both difficult and time consuming task, such job should be left to an expert body which can take the appropriate decision after taking into consideration various factors including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment etc. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners who were recruited directly in the post of Veterinary Compounder having better qualification than the promotee co-staff in the said post, in our considered opinion, can be treated as a separate class even though they discharge identical work as that of the promotee co-staff in the same grade. As such, their claim for higher scale of pay than the scale of pay granted to the other less qualified promotee co-staff in the said grade, in our considered view, requires to be reconsidered by the competent authority of the Union of India afresh in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. As such, their claim for higher scale of pay than the scale of pay granted to the other less qualified promotee co-staff in the said grade, in our considered view, requires to be reconsidered by the competent authority of the Union of India afresh in the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy (supra) and in the case of Sohan Singh Sodhi v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala(supra) with this rider that in case available fund does not permit the Administration to grant the scale of pay which is claimed by the petitioners because of consequent upward revision of the pay scale of the next higher grades in the hierarchy causing further financial burden upon the State exchequer, the competent authority may consider for grant of any suitable scale to them which is higher than the scale of pay given to the less qualified promotee co-staff but does not exceed the scale which was given to the next higher grade in the hierarchy so that the higher educational qualification of the petitioner is properly respected and at the same time the possibility of agitation for upward revision of the pay scale of the employees in the next higher grades in the hierarchy can be avoided. It is further made clear that if at the time of taking the ultimate decision in this regard, the concerned authority finds that for any administrative reason a different scale of pay cannot be granted to the petitioners then the concerned authority may also consider as to whether some increments and/or other incentives and/or fixation of this initial pay at any subsequent stage of the said scale, can be granted to them for their higher educational qualification. Thus on overall consideration of the facts of the instant case, this Court holds that the order passed by the Tribunal on 16th December, 2011 which is impugned in this writ petition cannot be maintained. The impugned order thus stands set aside and in effect the impugned decision of the Central Govt. and the follow up action of the A & N Administration also stand quashed. The impugned order thus stands set aside and in effect the impugned decision of the Central Govt. and the follow up action of the A & N Administration also stand quashed. The competent authority of Union of India is thus directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of higher scale of pay to them, in the light of the discussions as made hereinabove and take the ultimate decision thereon by passing a reasoned order in support of its conclusion. Such exercise should be completed within 12 weeks from the date of communication of the order. The concerned authority is also directed to intimate its decision to the Administration of A & N Islands and the petitioners, within two weeks thereafter. The writ petition is thus allowed. Raghunath Bhattacharya, J. I agree.