Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners' representation ( Annexure-8) preferred on account of liberty granted by this Court in C.W.J.C. 2716 of 2000(R) (Annexure-1) has been rejected by the impugned order dated 8.8.2001 by the respondent- Principal, Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur, where under the claim of the petitioners for equivalence of scale to that of Mechanic Grade -'A' w.e.f. 1.4.1986 has been denied. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed as an Engine Driver and the petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Boiler Attendant in the scale of 200-300 on 18.7.1972. 3. It appears that the petitioners came before the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C No. 2716 of 2000(R) with the grievance that petitioners should be placed in the scale of 1400-2600 at par with the senior stenographer w.e.f. the year 1986 as the senior stenographer had been at the pay scale of 168-320 earlier lower than the petitioners in the year 1972. The Patna High Court in its judgment dated 29.8.2000 was not impressed with the petitioners' argument and on the request of the petitioners , the writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to them to approach the Principal, Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur with their representation for consideration of their grievances which was directed to be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. 4. In the representation preferred, thereafter, petitioners claimed for equivalence of scale at par with those employees i.e. mechanics in Grade 'A'. The respondent- Principal, R.I.T, Jamshedpur rejected the representation of the petitioners by a reasoned order inter-alia holding that the persons like the petitioners, as per the revision, had been in the scale of pay of 340-490 w.e.f. January, 1971 and those in the mechanic Grade-'A' were in the scale of 355-455 w.e.f. the same date. However, those persons who were in Mechanic Grade -'B' post were also placed at the same pay scale of 340-490 at par with these petitioners w.e.f. January, 1971. The representation of these petitioners in respect of equivalence of pay were earlier considered but the enhanced scale to that of Mechanic Grade-'A' was not granted instead the persons in the category of the Engine Driver, who had suffered loss of pay were granted the benefit of pay protection to avoid hardship. The representation of these petitioners in respect of equivalence of pay were earlier considered but the enhanced scale to that of Mechanic Grade-'A' was not granted instead the persons in the category of the Engine Driver, who had suffered loss of pay were granted the benefit of pay protection to avoid hardship. In fact, subsequent to that, the representation of the petitioners were again considered and by resolution of 1983 the Board of Governor observed that no further revision of pay scale of Engine Driver and Boiler Attendant is possible as the said claim had earlier been rejected twice. While rejecting the petitioners' representation, the respondent- Principal, R.I.T, Jamshedpur also recorded that these petitioners were allowed to get revised scales of pay as per the Mechanic Grade 'B' right from the date of appointment with their pay protection as a special case. Accordingly, all the consequential benefits including time bound promotions , first after 10 years of service in the year 1982 and second after 25 years in the year 1997 are at par with the Mechanic Grade 'B'. In these circumstances, by the impugned reasoned order the claim of the petitioners for grant of equivalence of scale to that of Senior Stenographer / Mechanic Grade 'A' was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that persons appointed in Mechanic Grade A were placed in the scale of 168-280 before the revision of 1971 while petitioners were placed at higher scale of pay at 200-300. However, thereafter it was raised to 355-555 for Mechanic Grade 'A' compared to that of the Grade of the petitioners having scale of 340-490. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that only reason on the part of the respondents to justify the aforesaid difference in the scale of pay of the petitioners to that of Mechanic Grade 'A' is that as per the resolution passed by the Board in April, 1967 in its 19th meeting the post of Engine Driver and Boiler Attendant had been created in the scale of 200-300. 6. However, it is also true that after the revision of 1971 all along there has been a difference in the scale of pay of the petitioners than that of Mechanic Grade A incumbents as per such pay revision undertaken from time to time. 6. However, it is also true that after the revision of 1971 all along there has been a difference in the scale of pay of the petitioners than that of Mechanic Grade A incumbents as per such pay revision undertaken from time to time. Even in the year 1986 the petitioners have been treated at par with Mechanic Grade 'B' personnel, so far as the claim of equivalent scale of pay is concerned. In the year 1986 the Mechanic Grade 'A' was granted the scale of 1400-2600 and those in the petitioners' grade were granted 1400-2300. Admittedly, petitioners came with a grievances before the Patna High Court in the year 2000 claiming parity with the claim of Senior Stenographer, which, however was not accepted by the Court and pursuant to the liberty granted by the Patna High Court, they filed representation claiming equivalence of scale to that of Mechanic Grade 'A'. Counsel for the Petitioners have relied upon the the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of K.T. Verrappa & others Vrs. State of Karnataka & others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 406 in order to submit that in cases of demonstrable arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the exercise of fixation of pay even an administrative decision can be interfered with by the Writ Court in exercise of powers of judicial review, though it ordinarily relates to the domain and functions of the executive. Counsel for the petitioner has further relied upon another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P & others Vrs. U.P. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association reported in (2003)3 SCC 328 to submit that if the grievances of the petitioners are found genuine and are also entitled to the consequential benefits, the same should be given from the date of filing of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that objection of the respondent that the claim is time barred or stale is also not true as in the year 2000, they had approached the Patna High Court for the said cause of action and were allowed to represent for its redressal before the respondents who have rejected the same by the impugned orders. 7. 7. Counsel for the respondent submits that in the background of events narrated herein above, a comparison of scale of pay of the petitioners to that of Mechanic Grade 'A' and 'B', indicates that all along the scale of the petitioners and Mechanic Grade B were same and different from scale of Mechanic Grade 'A' right from the appointment of the petitioners. Their grievances were considered and were rejected by the Board of Governors. 8. A perusal of the impugned order and the response of the respondents also indicate that even in the year 2000 while making representation petitioners have failed to justify their claim for grant of equivalence of scale on the settled norms which were relevant for consideration of fixation of pay scale by any committee of financial experts. As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme persons claiming parity of pay scale are required to show that their nature of job, qualification and functions are similar in nature to the referred posts. In the present case petitioners have failed to make out any case, so far as parity in nature and function of job with those of Mechanic Grade 'A' personnel are concerned. Petitioner has relied upon recommendation of the committee constituted by the respondent- R.I.T in the year 1999 which submitted the report in the year 2001 to submit that it has been recommended by the said committee that the petitioners falling in the grade of Engine Driver and that of Boiler Attendant should be granted scale of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. January, 1996 when the pay revision was being effected. A perusal of the resolution which is annexed to the reply of the petitioner, however, indicates that the committee did not express any opinion relating to the equivalence in nature and function of job of these two category of employees are concerned. The reason for making such recommendation was that since most of the employees had still 8 to 10 years of service to retire, the committee opined that the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300 granted to the petitioners and others and Rs. 1400-2600 granted to Mechanic Grade 'A' being very nearer to each other be taken together for the purpose of revision and scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 may be allowed to them instead of Rs. 4000-7000 after proper administrative approval. 9. 1400-2300 granted to the petitioners and others and Rs. 1400-2600 granted to Mechanic Grade 'A' being very nearer to each other be taken together for the purpose of revision and scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 may be allowed to them instead of Rs. 4000-7000 after proper administrative approval. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents further referred to the decision of the Board of Governor, annexed to the said reply which concerns the petitioners and submitted that such recommendation was however not accepted by the Board. This of course as already observed fall within the domain of the Governing Body of the Institute and the recommendation simplicitor cannot create right for the petitioners. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. For the reasons recorded herein above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the petitioners have failed to make out a case of similarity of nature of duties and function for claiming equivalence of pay scale to that of Mechanic Grade 'A' personnel. The chronology of events narrated herein above indicate that the scale of Engine Driver and Boiler Attendant have been different from that of Mechanic Grade 'A' personnel right from the date of appointment of these petitioners who have been treated at par in the matter of pay scale with that of the Mechanic Grade 'B' and have been granted time bound promotions from time to time on regular intervals as per the Rules and Standing Orders. Their claim of parity with Senior Stenographer/ Mechanic Grade 'A' had also been considered and rejected earlier, which however was not challenged earlier. This fact has been taken into account in the reasoned and speaking order passed by the respondent- Principal, R.I.T. Petitioners reliance on the recommendation of the Board of 2001, which has been brought on record by way of reply also does not observe anything regarding the parity of equivalence of nature of job/ duties and other criteria for grant of equivalence of scale to the petitioner to that of Mechanic Grade 'A'. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal & Another Vrs. 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of West Bengal & Another Vrs. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and others reported in (2010) 5 SCC 225 have categorically held that determination of pay parity is an executive function to be carried out by expert bodies and the burden to prove the disparity in pay is on employee claiming parity. The Court would interfere only where Government decision is patently irrational, unjust or prejudicial. It is further held that a persons claiming parity in pay revision would have to establish that they were entitled to such parity and merely because earlier they were in the same pays scale with the other posts, continuance of same cannot be claimed by them as they have to establish that their duties and function are similar in nature to that of the other posts. 12. In the totality of facts and circumstances, the petitioners have failed to make out a case of interference in the impugned order. The decision relied upon by the petitioner are also of no help to them as in the instant case petitioners have miserably failed to show that these employees were having the same nature of duties and function etc. to that of Mechanic Grade 'A' personnel for claiming parity with their pay scale. The onus of establishing arbitrariness and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India lies upon those who alleges it. In this case the petitioners, having failed to do so. 13. In the facts circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is accordingly, dismissed.