ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to S.C.-27 for the State. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is for payment of same pay scale to the persons appointed under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 as well as the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 as payable to regular elementary school teachers appointed under the State Government. 3. The petitioner claims to be a registered Society being an association of elementary school teachers appointed under the aforesaid Rules. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under the principle of ‘Equal Pay For Equal Work’ the persons appointed under the aforesaid Rules are also entitled to the same pay scale which is being given to teachers appointed under the State Government. For the said proposition learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 879 and in the case of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India reported in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 541. 5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the writ petition and submits that persons appointed under the aforesaid Rules had taken up the employment willingly and after being aware of the service conditions including the pay and thus, after being appointed, cannot claim as a matter of right the same pay scale which is admissible to the teachers appointed under the State Government. He submits that essentially the service conditions including payment of salary and fixation of pay is dependent upon the agreement between the employer and the employee and it is purely a matter of contract and the Court ought not to interfere and direct the State to pay the scale as desired by the writ petitioner. He further submits that the financial condition of the State is not such that it can withstand the burden of the extra liability which would incur if the prayer of the petitioner is accepted. He submits that even the mode of recruitment is very different inasmuch as employment under the said Rules is very liberal being based only on academic qualification without any age bar whereas appointment under the State Government is by a rigorous process which includes written examination and there is age restriction also. He submits that even the mode of recruitment is very different inasmuch as employment under the said Rules is very liberal being based only on academic qualification without any age bar whereas appointment under the State Government is by a rigorous process which includes written examination and there is age restriction also. Besides this, the recruitment of elementary teachers henceforth is to be made only under the said Rules and not directly under the State Government. 6. Though this Court is in agreement with the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that normally equal wages should be paid for the same work being done but in the present case it is not a matter simpliciter of ‘Equal Pay For Equal Work’. Here is a case where the State as a matter of policy came up with a scheme of mass employment at grass root level at the Panchayats to ensure that sufficient teachers are available at the local level so that children who have no ready access to education also have such opportunity. In the aforesaid background, as far as the State exchequer is concerned, the policy/scheme was in accordance with the burden it could bear for such recruitment under which the members of the petitioner’s society have been appointed. That being the case, it is entirely at the discretion of the State Government to decide the service conditions including pay scale for persons appointed under the aforesaid Rules. The Court would not substitute its own views or force the State to make payment from the public exchequer as it is the State which is also accountable for such expenditure and has to justify such payment. If the State Government has framed a policy/scheme for evolving a way of balancing between the requirement of teachers and the financial liability together with devolution of power to the Panchayats, the Court would not interfere and disturb the equilibrium. 7. In the decisions referred to by learned counsel for the petitioner the foundational facts of the said cases were different inasmuch as in the case of Randhir Singh (supra) the employment was under the State Government only in different departments and thus parity was sought whereas in the case of P.K. Ramachandra Iyer (supra) the revised pay scale was being paid to some and denied to others and this was held to be discriminatory. In the present case the employment itself has been made under different statutory Rules and the petitioners are appointed at the local panchayat level by the Panchayats. Only the payment made is from government fund. Thus, the said decisions will not have binding precedence in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed.