JUDGMENT & ORDER : The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law, inter alia, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mathematical application in every case. It has been held that Article 14 of the Constitution permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristic of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, it has been held that, since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material on the basis whereof the claim is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled. Thus has been observed by the apex court culling out the core principle of “equal pay for equal work” in catena of decisions, namely State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 321 , State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh & Ors., reported in 1996 (11) SCC 77 , Orissa University of AGr-Iculture & Technology & Anr. Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty, reported in 2003 (5) SCC 188 , Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 347 in Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 586 . 2. Thus, it is imperative on the petitioners to show that they are entitled to the reliefs as prayed in this writ petition, which has been filed for directing the respondents to grant the benefits to the members of the petitioner No.1 at par with the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tripura in conformity with the judgments and orders dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009 delivered by the apex court in I.A. Nos.71A, 135-138, 142 and 226, arising out of W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 [All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.] following the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.04.2009, thereupon directing the respondents to grant the arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioner No.1 and its members w.e.f. 01.04.2003 as provisioned to the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tripura. Further direction has been sought for granting the benefit to the petitioner No.1 and its members in terms of the communication dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition). 3. There is no dispute that, by the Notification under No.F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P-III) dated 02.01.2012 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition), it had been provided as under : NOTIFICATION Sub : Implementation of the Judgment dated 15-07-2008 and dated 07-1-2009 of Hon’ble Supreme Court following recommendation of Shetty Commission. The Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 02-08-2011 has decided to implement the Judgment dated 15-07-2008 and 07-10-2009 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA 71-A, 135-138, 142 & 226 in connection with WP(C) No.1022/1989 (All India Judges Association Vs. The Union of India & others) following various recommendations of Shetty Commission in respect of Subordinate Judiciary staff subject to modification that posts creation/up gradation shall be with prospective effect and other benefits shall be given with effect from 1st October, 2010 in view of financial constraints. By order of the Governor Sd/- illegible (U.K. Chakma) Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura 4. The District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, had issued the Order under No.F.10(152)(B)-DJ/W/2007/427-47 dated 18.01.2012 (Annexure-P/2 to the writ petition) in the following terms : ORDER Subject : Release of one advance increment In pursuance of notification issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Tripura vide No.F.3(2)/ Fin(PC)/93(P-III) dated 2nd January, 2012 regarding implementation of Judgment dated 15-07-2008 and 07-10-2009 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court following recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission in respect of subordinate Judiciary, the following categories of employees serving under the judgeship of West Tripura District are hereby allowed to draw one advance increment at the rate admissible to them under normal rules on the sum of the pay in the pay band and grade pay applicable as on 1-10-2010 as shown below : Sl. No. Categories of employees Date of effect Remarks 1. Accounts Officer/All Private Secretaries/ Personal Assistants 01-10-2010 Except fixed pay employees 2. Group-B employees 01-10-2010 Except fixed pay employees 3. Group-C employees 01-10-2010 Except fixed pay employees 4. No. Categories of employees Date of effect Remarks 1. Accounts Officer/All Private Secretaries/ Personal Assistants 01-10-2010 Except fixed pay employees 2. Group-B employees 01-10-2010 Except fixed pay employees 3. Group-C employees 01-10-2010 Except fixed pay employees 4. Group-D employees 01-10-2010 Except fixed pay employees The new entrants of all the above categories having regular scale of pay is also allowed one advance increment from the date of their joining in service on or after 01-10-2010. An undertaking is to be obtained from each of the incumbent concerned to the effect that in the event of excess drawal, if any, the amount should be refunded. (B. Majumder) District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala 5. By the Memorandum under No.F.2(4)-LAW/ESTT.2/2012 dated 10.02.2014 (Annexure-P/3 to the writ petition), upgradation of different categories of posts of the staff of the subordinate judiciary for implementation of the judgments and orders dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009 delivered by the apex court in I.A. Nos.71A, 135-138, 142 and 226, arising out of W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 [All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.] has been provided in terms of the recommendation made by the Justice Shetty Commission. The following has been communicated in the form of the said memorandum dated 10.02.2014 : MEMORANDUM Subject : Up-gradation of different categories of posts of the staff of subordinate judiciary for implementation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA 71A, 135-138, 142 & 226 arising out of W.P.(C) No.1022/1989 (All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India & others) following the recommendation of Shetty Commission. With reference to the letters No.F.26(1)-HC/2005-12/13283-284 dated 7th December, 2012 and No.F.26(1)-HC/2013/15406-407 dated 21st October, 2013 of the High Court of Tripura under the seal & signature of the Joint Registrar, High Court of Tripura, Agartala on the subject cited above, the undersigned is directed to convey sanction of the Governor, Tripura to the proposal for up-gradation of 144 (one hundred forty four) nos. of different categories of posts (as per Annexure A) for the Judgeship of West, South and North Tripura Judicial District towards implementation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA 71A, 135-138, 142 & 226 arising out of W.P.(C) No.1022/1989 (All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India & others) following the recommendation of Shetty Commission. 2. of different categories of posts (as per Annexure A) for the Judgeship of West, South and North Tripura Judicial District towards implementation of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA 71A, 135-138, 142 & 226 arising out of W.P.(C) No.1022/1989 (All India Judges Association Vs. Union of India & others) following the recommendation of Shetty Commission. 2. The expenditure involved on this account shall be borne under Major Head-2014-Administration of Justice, 2014-00-105-Civil and Session Courts, 2014-00-106-Small Cause Courts, 2014-00-108-Criminal Courts (West, South and North Tripura District), 1Salaries during the financial year 2013-14 (Non-Plan). 3. This is issued with the concurrence of the Finance Department (General), Government of Tripura vide U.O. No.1558/FIN(G)/14 dated 10.01.2014 and also concurrence of the G.A.(AR) Department, Government of Tripura vide U.O. No.31-GA(AR)/14 dated 05.02.2014. 4. This will take with immediate effect. Sd/- illegible (Sopan Chaudhuri) Deputy Secretary, Law Government of Tripura For purpose of further elucidation, AnnexureA to the said memorandum dated 10.02.2014 are also reproduced hereunder : Name of existing posts Name of posts after Up-gradation Existing Pay Scale Pay Scale after Up-gradation Number of posts up-gradation Accounts Officer District & Sessions Judge’s Court, West Tripura, Agartala Chief Administrative-cum-Accounts Officer, (District & Sessions Judge’s Court, West Tripura, Agartala) Rs.7450-13,000/- (PB-3, Rs.9570/- 30000/- & GP- 3500/-) Rs.7800-15100/- (PB-4, Rs.13575-37000/- & GP -3700/-) 1 No. Sr. Sheristadar District & Sessions Judge's Court, West Tripura, Agartala, South Tripura, Udaipur and North Tripura, Kailashahar Sr. Sheristadar District & Sessions Judge's Court, West, South and North Tripura) Rs.6500-12300/- PB-3, Rs.9570-30000/- & GP-3100/-) Rs.7450-13,000/- PB-3, Rs.9570-30000/- & GP-3500/-) 3 Nos. Sheristadar (H/C Grade) (Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Astt. Sessions Judge, West, South and North Tripura) Sr. Sheristadar (Civil Judge (Sr. Division) & Astt. Sessions Judge, West, South and North Tripura) Rs.5000-10300/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2400/-) Rs.7450-13,000/- (PB-3, Rs.9570-30000/- & GP-3500/-) 3 Nos. Head Clerk (B/C) (District & Sessions Judge's Court/Addl. District & Sessions Judge's Court, West, South and North Tripura) Bench Clerk (O.S. Grade) (District & Sessions Judge's Court/Addl. District & Sessions Judge's Court, West, South and North Tripura) Rs.5000-10300/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2400/- Rs.6500-12300/- (PB-3, Rs.9570-30000/- & GP-3100/- 14 Nos. Bench Clerk (UDC Grade) Civil Judge (Sr. Divin.) & Asstt. Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Addl. CJM, West, South and North Tripura Bench Clerk (Head Clerk Grade) Civil Judge (Sr. Divin.) & Asstt. Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Addl. District & Sessions Judge's Court, West, South and North Tripura) Rs.5000-10300/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2400/- Rs.6500-12300/- (PB-3, Rs.9570-30000/- & GP-3100/- 14 Nos. Bench Clerk (UDC Grade) Civil Judge (Sr. Divin.) & Asstt. Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Addl. CJM, West, South and North Tripura Bench Clerk (Head Clerk Grade) Civil Judge (Sr. Divin.) & Asstt. Sessions Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Addl. CJM, West, South and North Tripura Rs.4200-8650/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2100/-) Rs.5000-10300/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2400/-) 9 Nos. Bench Clerk (LDC Grade) For 08 Nos. Grade-III courts at Agartala. Bench Clerk (UDC Grade) For 08 Nos. Grade-III courts at Agartala. Rs.3300-7100/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-1800/-) Rs.4200-8650/- (PB-2-, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2100/-) 8 Nos. Bench Clerk (LDC Grade) For 02 Nos. Grade-III courts at Bishalgarh. Bench Clerk (UDC Grade) For 02 Nos. Grade-III courts at Bishalgarh. Rs.3300-7100/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-1800/-) Rs.4200-8650/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2100/-) 2 Nos. Bench Clerk (LDC Grade) For 03 Nos. Grade-III courts at Khowai. Bench Clerk (UDC Grade) For 03 Nos. Grade-III courts at Khowai. Rs.3300-7100/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-1800/-) Rs.4200-8650/- (PB-2-, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2100/-) 3 Nos. Bench Clerk (LDC Grade) For 03 Nos. Grade-III courts at Sonamura. Bench Clerk (UDC Grade) For 03 Nos. Grade-III courts at Sonamura. Rs.3300-7100/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-1800/-) Rs.4200-8650/- (PB-2-, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2100/-) 3 Nos. Bench Clerk (LDC Grade) (01 each for the courts of SDJM, Dharmanagar, Kamalpur, Kanchanpur including Longtarai Valley, Ambassa & Gandacherra and Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dharmanagar, Kamalpur, Kanchanpur including Longtarai Valley, Ambassa & Gandacherra and JM 1 st class, Kailashahar and Dharmanagar under the judgeship of North Tripura Judicial District) Bench Clerk (UDC Grade) (01 each for the courts of SDJM, Dharmanagar, Kamalpur, Kanchanpur including Longtarai Valley, Ambassa & Gandacherra and Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Dharmanagar, Kamalpur, Kanchanpur including Longtarai Valley, Ambassa & Gandacherra and JM 1 st class, Kailashahar and Dharmanagar under the judgeship of North Tripura Judicial District) Rs.3300-7100/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-1800/- Rs.4200-8650/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2100/- 16 Nos. Bench clerk (LDC Grade) (01 each for the court of SDJM of Belonia, Sabroom, Amarpur & Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Udaipur, Belonia, Sabroom, Amarpur and JM 1 st Class, Udaipur, South Tripura Judicial District) Bench clerk (UDC Grade) (01 each for the court of SDJM of Belonia, Sabroom, Amarpur & Civil Judge (Jr. Bench clerk (LDC Grade) (01 each for the court of SDJM of Belonia, Sabroom, Amarpur & Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Udaipur, Belonia, Sabroom, Amarpur and JM 1 st Class, Udaipur, South Tripura Judicial District) Bench clerk (UDC Grade) (01 each for the court of SDJM of Belonia, Sabroom, Amarpur & Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Udaipur, Belonia, Sabroom, Amarpur and JM 1 st Class, Udaipur, South Tripura Judicial District) Rs.3300-7100/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-1800/- Rs.4200-8650/- (PB-2, Rs.5310-24000/- & GP-2100/-) 9 Nos. Process Server For West, South and North Tripura Judicial District) Process Server (For West, South and North Tripura Judicial District) Rs.2750-4925/- PB-1, Rs.4530-13000/- & GP-1400/- Rs.2900-5660/-PB-1, Rs.4530-13000/- & GP-1500/- 73 Nos. Total = 144 No 6. Thereafter, by the Notification under No.F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P-III) dated 23.05.2014 (AnnexureP/4 to the writ petition), the Government of Tripura in the Finance Department, had reviewed the earlier decision regarding implementation of the judgments and orders dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009 delivered by the apex court in I.A. Nos.71A, 135-138, 142 and 226, arising out of W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 [All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.] and decided to give the benefits w.e.f. 01.04.2003, instead of 01.10.2010. 7. Further, by the Order under No.F.10(152)(B)-DJ/W/200714/5320-38 dated 29.05.2014 (Annexure-P/5 to the writ petition), a separate group of employees has been given the benefit of the notification issued by the Department of Finance, Government of Tripura under No.F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P-III) dated 23.05.2014 (AnnexureP/4 to the writ petition), on review of the earlier notification under No.F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P-III) dated 02.01.2012 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) in respect of implementation of the judgments and orders dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009 delivered by the apex court in I.A. Nos.71A, 135-138, 142 and 226, arising out of W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 [All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.]. In terms thereof, the employees who were in service on and after 01.04.2003 and also who retired after 01.04.2003 under the Judgeship of the West Tripura District belonging to the following categories [shown in the table] were allowed to draw one advance increment at the rate admissible to them as per rules on the existing pay scale as on 01.04.2003 and to get the pay fixed up w.e.f. 01.04.2003. The said order dated 29.05.2014 was issued by the District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Sl. No. Categories of employees Date of effect Remarks 1 2 3 4 1. The said order dated 29.05.2014 was issued by the District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. Sl. No. Categories of employees Date of effect Remarks 1 2 3 4 1. Accounts Officer/All Private Secretaries/Personal Assistants 01/04/03 Except fixed pay employees 2. Group-B employees 01/04/03 - 3. Group-C employees 01/04/03 Except fixed pay employees 4. Group-D employees 01/04/03 Except fixed pay employees 8. The petitioner No.1 is the Association of the High Court Employees, whereas the petitioners No.2 and 3 respectively are the Record Keeper and Senior Administrative Assistant in the High Court of Tripura. The petitioners, in respect of their claim, have stated, that the post of the Junior Administrative Assistant, which has been re-designated from the erstwhile post of Lower Division Assistant and L.D. Clerk/L.D.C.(Copyist)/L.D.C.(Typist-Copyist) requires minimum qualification of Madhyamik passed/H.S. passed or equivalent with minimum typewriting speed of 30(thirty) words per minute, as is evident from the Advertisement under No.F.4(1)(c)-DJ/S/2011/7726 dated 27.11.2013 (Annexure-P/6 to the writ petition). For the post of Junior Administrative Assistant in the High court, the essential qualification as would be evident from the advertisement under reference No.F.4(22)HC/2014/10069 dated 02.07.2014 (Annexure-P/7 to the writ petition) is as under : “The candidate must be a citizen of India as defined in Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution of India and must be a Graduate from any recognized University and have Certificate Course in Computer word processing or equivalent with Typing Speed of 40 words per minute on a Computer.” A comparative table has been framed by the petitioners, in respect of requisite qualification and the scale of pay, which is as under : Name of the Post Requisite Qualification Scale of Pay Junior Administrative Assistant in the High court of Tripura, Agartala Graduate from any recognized University and have Certificate course in Computer word. Pay Band 2 of Rs. 5310-24000/- with Grade pay of Rs.1800 L.D. Clerk/L.D.C. (Copyist)/L.D.C. (Typist-Copyist) in the District & Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur Madhyamik passed/H.S. Passed or equivalent and should have a minimum Type writing speed of 30 words per minute. Pay Band-II of Rs. 5310-24000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800. 9. Pay Band 2 of Rs. 5310-24000/- with Grade pay of Rs.1800 L.D. Clerk/L.D.C. (Copyist)/L.D.C. (Typist-Copyist) in the District & Sessions Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur Madhyamik passed/H.S. Passed or equivalent and should have a minimum Type writing speed of 30 words per minute. Pay Band-II of Rs. 5310-24000/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 1800. 9. It has been categorically asserted that the persons entering into the equivalent posts of the High Court are with better qualifications and efficiencies and as such there cannot be any justifiable logic, denying them the benefit of higher pay scale in due consideration of their worth vis-a-vis the responsibility in comparison to their counterpart in the Subordinate Judiciary. The financial benefits as extended pursuant to the Notification issued by the Department of Finance, Govt. of Tripura, vide No.F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P-III) dated 23.05.2014 (AnnexureP/4 to the writ petition) and the earlier Notification vide No.F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P-III) dated 02.01.2012 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition) in implementation of the judgments and orders dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009 delivered by the apex court in I.A. Nos.71A, 135-138, 142 and 226, arising out of W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 [All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.] following the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission. Since refused, the petitioners submitted a representation to the Registrar General, High Court of Tripura, the respondent No.3 herein, on 03.09.2014 (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition), seeking up-gradation of the pay structure of the employees of the High Court of Tripura having reference to their earlier representation dated 23.04.2014 and 07.08.2014. In the said representation, the petitioner No.1 had asserted that the employees of the High Court of Tripura should be granted the similar benefits as has been extended to the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary in terms of the recommendation made by the Justice Shetty Commission and the judgments and orders dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009 by the apex court, as referred above. They have further submitted that, in terms of their qualifications and responsibilities, they are at least entitled to the financial benefits to the extent of the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary of Tripura. Finally, the petitioners have urged to upgrade or at least to equate the pay structure of the employees of the High Court of Tripura vis-a-vis the pay structure of the Central Government employees. Finally, the petitioners have urged to upgrade or at least to equate the pay structure of the employees of the High Court of Tripura vis-a-vis the pay structure of the Central Government employees. In their representation the petitioners have fervently urged for : “If not possible, at least Pay Scale of the employees of the High Court of Tripura may be upgraded providing one increment with effect from 01.06.2006”. 10. The said representation has been dealt with by the High Court of Tripura and from the communication under No.F.22(3)HC/2014/17605-07 dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition), addressed to the LR & Secretary, Law Department, Govt. of Tripura, it is gathered that the High Court had decided as under : “It is apparent that till 1st September, 2014 when the Tripura District Courts Ministerial Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2014 were enforced, the minimum educational qualification in the subordinate Courts for appointment of Lower Division Clerk (LADC) was only Madhyamik (10th standard) whereas in the High Court, the minimum educational qualification is graduation for the last many years. The State Government has also implemented the report of the Shetty Commission whereby all Judicial employees working in the subordinate Courts have been granted one advance increment. I am of the view that the demand of the employees of the High Court belonging to the Class-III non-gazetted staff of the grade of Head Clerk, UDC, Bench Assistant, LDC, other non-gazetted Class-III staff, Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant, Programmer & Sr. Computer Assistant of the High Court Service including Personal Assistant of Stenographer cadre and all the Group-B & Group-C non-gazetted staff of the grade of System Officer & System Assistant of the High Court of Tripura e-Courts Service for grant of one advance increment in their respective pay scales is justified. As far as the claim of the employees of the High Court for grant of one further increment on the ground that they are graduate is concerned, it may be pointed out that it is only in the High Court Service that the minimum educational qualification is graduation. Till the Tripura District Courts Ministerial Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2014 were enforced on 1st September, 2014, the minimum educational qualification for these posts in the subordinate Judiciary was only Madhyamik (10th standard). In the State Government also, minimum educational qualification for these posts is Madhyamik (10th standard). Till the Tripura District Courts Ministerial Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2014 were enforced on 1st September, 2014, the minimum educational qualification for these posts in the subordinate Judiciary was only Madhyamik (10th standard). In the State Government also, minimum educational qualification for these posts is Madhyamik (10th standard). As such, in my opinion, all the Class-III non-gazetted staff of the grade of Head Clerk, UDC, Bench Assistant, LDC, Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant, Programmer & Sr. Computer Assistant of the High Court Service including Personal Assistant of Stenographer cadre and all the Group-B & Group-C non-gazetted Staff of the grade of System Officer and System Assistant of the High Court of Tripura e-Courts Service should also get such one further advance increment because they are much higher qualified than their compatriots working in the subordinate Courts or in the State Government.” [Emphasis added] 11. The High Court of Tripura, therefore through the Registrar General, requested to place the recommendation before the Governor of Tripura for his approval in granting 1(one) advance increment to the Staff of the Grade of other Non-gazetted Class-III Staff of the High Court service and also granting 2(two) advance increments to all the Class-III Non-gazetted Staff of the Grade of Head Clerk, UDC, Bench Assistant, LDC, Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant, Programmer, Senior Computer Assistant & Personal Assistant of the High Court Service and Group-B & Group-C Non Gazetted Staff of the grade of System Officer and System Assistant of the High Court e-Courts Service having minimum qualification of Graduation. 12. Since the said communication dated 17.09.2014 did not find favour for the Governor of Tripura, the petitioners by means of this writ petition has approached this court contending that in view of Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India and the proviso appended there-below, the approval of the Government as sought is ordinarily granted as a matter of course. The legislative function has been delegated to the Chief Justice of the High Court by Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. Under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India, the power of the Chief Justice is extended in the matters including salary and allowances, leave and pension of the officers and servants of the High Court. The legislative function has been delegated to the Chief Justice of the High Court by Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India. Under Article 229(2) of the Constitution of India, the power of the Chief Justice is extended in the matters including salary and allowances, leave and pension of the officers and servants of the High Court. It is according to the petitioners, the State is under the bounden duty and obligation, to act with utmost promptitude, and thereupon, accept the said recommendation of the High Court inasmuch as there is no law, within the meaning of Article 229 of the Constitution of India framed by the State legislators in this behalf. 13. In reply to the averments made in the writ petition, the respondent No.3 even though has not denied the factual aspects as unfolded by the petitioners, but has stated that a writ petition in this nature is not maintainable against the respondent No.3. Further, it has been stated that, having no response in respect of the communication dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition), a reminder was issued by the High Court under No.F.22(3)-HC/95-12/2092-94 dated 04.02.2015 (Annexure-P/10 to the writ petition). 14. The respondents No.2, 4 and 5, have filed a joint counter-affidavit and they have contended there that the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary and the employees of the High Court of Tripura enjoys totally different service conditions and hence cannot be equated with each other. As instance, they have stated as under : “All the employees of the subordinate judiciary are subject to transfer throughout the State of Tripura, while the employees of the High Court of Tripura enter and exit, in and from, the same premises and they are not subject to transfer.” The respondents No.2, 4 and 5, have further asserted that, Justice Shetty Commission’s recommendation relates to the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary and the employees of the High Court are not covered by the said recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission. Unless the benefit is extended to the employees of the High Court, the petitioners do not have any legal standing to approach this court for the reliefs as sought and as such it should be turned down. They have further asserted that since the High Court Employees Association has not taken any resolution, the petitioner No.1 has no authority to file the writ petition. They have further asserted that since the High Court Employees Association has not taken any resolution, the petitioner No.1 has no authority to file the writ petition. However, they have not denied that the petitioner No.1 filed the representation to the Registrar General, High Court of Tripura and in response thereto the High Court of Tripura has requested the Governor of Tripura to give approval as stated in the communication dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition). The respondents have not revealed anything more in their counter-affidavit. 15. From the comparative table as reproduced, it would be apparent that there is no difference between the pay scale of the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary and the employees of the High Court of Tripura. But one advance increment which has been released in favour of the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary w.e.f. 01.04.2003 was never released in favour of the petitioner No.1 and its members. 16. The apex court, while accepting the Justice Shetty Commission’s recommendation in respect of the judicial staff, in their order dated 07.10.2009 delivered in Interlocutory Application No.71A etc. in Writ Petition (C) No.1022 of 1989 [All India Judges Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.], has observed as under: “The Shetty Commission Report was submitted in March, 2003, pursuant to the orders dated 17.12.1997 and 7.1.1998 passed by this Court wherein it was emphasized that the improvement in service conditions of the judicial staff is necessary for the administration of justice and rule of law.” On that premises, the recommendations were accepted w.e.f. 01.04.2003. It has been clearly stated in the said order that that there shall be benefit of one advance increment on the existing pay scale instead of initial pay scale. 17. It is not in dispute that the judicial staff working in the Subordinate Judiciary had already received the benefits of Justice Shetty Commission’s recommendation, even though there is some Gr-Ievance as to the scale of pay in a section of judicial staff. From the revised Notification under No.F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P-III) dated 10.09.2015, it would be apparent that the pay scale/structure of different categories of posts/upgraded posts as on 01.04.2003 as recommended by the Shetty Commission alongwith the revised pay scale/structure of the posts w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in respect of the staff of the Subordinate Judiciary has been given in a tabular form in the said notification. The said notification as a whole is therefore extracted hereunder : GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE SECRETARIAT, TRIPURA *** No.F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P-III) Agartala, 10 September 2015 NOTIFICATION Subject : Implementation of the recommendations of the Shetty Commission in respect of the staff of the Subordinate Judiciary as per judgment and order dated 16-03-2015 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in I.A. Nos. 297 & 71A in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989. In view of the direction of Hon’ble High Court dated 26.03.2015 in WP(C) No.30 of 2015 to examine various aspects of Shetty Commission’s Report and the clarification provided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court having due regard to the order dated 16-03-2015 in I.A. Nos. 297 & 71A in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1022 of 1989 and in continuation of this Department’s earlier Notification of even number dated 23-05-2014 issued in this regard, after careful examination of the matter, the Governor is pleased to order that the benefits shall be provided to the staff of the subordinate judiciary under the modified revised pay structure w.e.f. 01.01.2006 under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2015 over the benefits already allowed w.e.f. 01.04.2003 as per recommendations of the Shetty Commission. The pay scale/structure of different categories of posts/upgraded posts as on 01.04.2003 as recommended by the Shetty Commission alongwith the revised pay scale/structure of the posts w.e.f. 01.01.2006 in respect of the staff of the Subordinate Judiciary is given in a tabular format as below : Name of the posts Existing pay scale as on 31.03.2004 (in Rs.) Pay scale/ modified pay scale w.e.f. 01.04.2003 to 31.12.2006 as per recommendations of the Shetty Commission (in Rs.) Revised pay structure as on 01.01.2006 under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Twelfth Amendment Rules, 2015 Pay Band Pay Band Scale (in Rs.) Grade Pay (in Rs.) Private Secretary Gr-I 12000-18400 12000-18400 PB-4 15600-39100 7600 Private Secretary Gr-II 10650-15850 10650-15850 PB-4 15600-39100 6800 Private Secretary Gr-III 10000-15100 10000-15100 PB-4 15600-39100 6600 Private Secretary Gr-IV 7450-13000 7450-13000 PB-3 10230-34800 4800 Personal Assistant-I 6500-12300 6500-12300 PB-3 10230-34800 4600 Personal Assistant-II 4200-8650 4200-8650 PB-2 5700-24000 2800 Accounts Officer 7450-13000 7800-15100 PB-4 15600-39100 5400 Sr. Sheristadar 6500-12300 7450-13000 PB-3 10230-34800 4800 Sheristadar (Head Clerk Grade) Sr. Div. Court 5000-10300 7450-13000 PB-3 10230-34800 4800 Office Superintendent 6500-12300 6500-12300 PB-3 10230-34800 4600 Bench Clerk (Head Clerk Grade) 5000-10300 6500-12300 PB-3 10230-34800 4600 Sheristedar (Head Clerk Grade) Jr. Sheristadar 6500-12300 7450-13000 PB-3 10230-34800 4800 Sheristadar (Head Clerk Grade) Sr. Div. Court 5000-10300 7450-13000 PB-3 10230-34800 4800 Office Superintendent 6500-12300 6500-12300 PB-3 10230-34800 4600 Bench Clerk (Head Clerk Grade) 5000-10300 6500-12300 PB-3 10230-34800 4600 Sheristedar (Head Clerk Grade) Jr. Div. Court 5000-10300 5000-10300 PB-2 5700-24000 4200 Head Clerk 5000-10300 5000-10300 PB-2 5700-24000 4200 Upper Division Clerk 4200-8650 4200-8650 PB-2 5700-24000 2800 Bench Clerk (LDC Grade) 3300-7100 4200-8650 PB-2 5700-24000 2800 Lower Division Clerk 3300-7100 3300-7100 PB-2 5700-24000 2200 Driver 3300-7100 3300-7100 PB-2 5700-24000 2200 Balliff ------ 3300-7100 PB-2 5700-24000 2200 Record Arranger 3050-5910 3050-5910 PB-2 5700-24000 2000 Duplicating Operator 3050-5910 3050-5910 PB-2 5700-24000 2000 Process Server 2750-4925 2750-4925 PB-1 4840-13000 1900 Duftry 2750-4925 2750-4925 PB-1 4840-13000 1800 Group-D (Peon/Orderly/Night Guard/Dry-cum-Wet Sweeper) 2600-3545 2600-3545 PB-1 4840-13000 1400 2. An employee of Subordinate Judiciary in service as on 31.03.2003 holding a particular post mentioned in Column 1 of the table below Para 1 with the corresponding scale of pay as in Column 2 shall be provided with one advance increment in that scale of pay on 01.04.2003 and thereafter, his/her pay shall be fixed in the appropriate stage of the relevant pay scale/modify pay scale mentioned in Column 3 thereof on 01.04.2003 and regulated up to 31.12.2005 under the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. 3. Further, his/her pay shall be re-fixed in the modified revised pay structure under the corresponding Pay Band, Pay Band Scale and Grade Pay specified in Column 4, 5 and 6 respectively of the table on 01-01-2006 or on the date of option already exercised for coming over to the revised pay structure as per provision of the Tripura State Civil Services (Revised Pay) (Twelfth Amendment) Rules, 2015 vide Notification No.F.6(1)-FIN(PC)/2012(P-1) dated 31-03-2015 and re-regulated thereon under the rules ibid. 4. Allowances such as Medical Allowance, Special Allowance, Travelling Allowance and Special Pay shall also be admissible to the staff of the Subordinate Judiciary at rates and conditions applicable to the State Government employees in the equivalent ranks. By the order of the Governor, Sd/-illegible (R. DEBBARMA) Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura 18. 4. Allowances such as Medical Allowance, Special Allowance, Travelling Allowance and Special Pay shall also be admissible to the staff of the Subordinate Judiciary at rates and conditions applicable to the State Government employees in the equivalent ranks. By the order of the Governor, Sd/-illegible (R. DEBBARMA) Joint Secretary to the Government of Tripura 18. From the above notification dated 10.09.2015, it is apparent that the judicial staff carrying the pay scale of Rs.4840-13000/- [PB-1] with grade pay of Rs.1400/- to the judicial staff carrying the pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- [PB-4] with grade pay of Rs.7600/-, has been given the benefits of the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.04.2003. It is the admitted position that such benefit has not been extended to the employees of the High Court, who are discharging identical duties and responsibilities, even though they are having the qualifications at the entry, much higher than the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary and the responsibility attached is more than equivalent, and no less by any measure, rather higher so far the sensitivity attached to their responsibilities is concerned. 19. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioner No.1 is recognized by the High Court of Tripura as the only Association of the employees of the High Court of Tripura and the High Court of Tripura, acting on their representation, requested the State to implement the recommendation of the High Court. As such, the respondents cannot question the legal standing of the petitioner No.1 to file this writ petition. 20. It would be apparent from the reply of the respondent No.3 that no such objection has been raised by the respondent No.3 as to the legal standing to file the writ petition against the other respondents. However, in view of the recommendation, the respondent No.3 raised opposition that there is no cause against the High Court of Tripura to file the writ petition. From paragraph 6, it is evident that : “The said representation of the High Court Employees’ Association was placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for His Lordship’s kind consideration and orders and the recommendation of His Lordship was communicated to the State Government in Law Department vide letter dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure P/9 of the petition) of the High Court.” 21. Mr. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has thereafter submitted that no intelligible classification can be made between the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary and the employees of the High Court and as such the similar benefit in terms of equal pay for equal work shall be mandated by this court. According to him, the illustration as projected in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents No.2, 4 and 5, is nothing short of a trivia. It is unheard of that transferability ever considered as the component for determining the pay scale or other financial benefits. There may be special allowance for transferring an officer in the difficult areas. But no such transfer allowance is in the realm either as a part of the component of the pay scale or in the form of the special allowance. To bolster his submission, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that the denial of the recommendation of the Chief Justice is not according to the convention. In this context, he has relied a decision of the apex court in Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.B. Vohra & Ors., reported in (2004) 2 SCC 150 . In that report, the apex court has approvingly quoted para 25 of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. Ramesh Chand Paliwal, reported in (1998) 3 SCC 72 , which reads as under: "We again reiterate the hope and feel that once the Chief Justice, in the interest of High Court administration, has taken a progressive step specially to ameliorate the service conditions of the officers and staff working under him, the State Government would hardly raise any objection to the sanction of creation of posts or fixation of salary payable for that post or the recommendation for revision of scale of pay if the scale of pay of the equivalent post in the Government has been revised." 22. Having referred to Ms. Adeline Rodrigues & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2013 (6) MhLj 14 , Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that the following direction was issued on the State of Maharashtra : "(ii) Respondent Nos. Having referred to Ms. Adeline Rodrigues & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in 2013 (6) MhLj 14 , Mr. Deb, learned counsel has submitted that the following direction was issued on the State of Maharashtra : "(ii) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are directed to comply with the directions given by the Hon’ble Chief Justice that the pay-scales and service conditions of the Officers on the Original Side of the High Court, Bombay should be fixed on par with the Mofussil Judiciary and Officers working on the Appellate Side, as recommended by the First National Judicial Pay Commission (Shetty Commission) and we further direct that the Government of Maharashtra should grant/sanction the necessary funds to meet the contingent requirements.” Mr. Deb, learned counsel, has pointed out that the said decision of the Bombay High Court in Ms. Adeline Rodrigues & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., was challenged in the apex court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.33079/2013. Only paragraph 17(iii)(c) has been interfered with, but not the direction contained in paragraph 15(ii) of the said judgment as reproduced above. As such, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has contended that, the similar direction on the basis of equal pay for equal work can be passed in this case also. 23. In addition thereto, Mr. Deb, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in Union of India Vs. Dineshan K.K., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 586 , wherein it has been held that: “The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of this Court. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” was originally propounded as part of the directive principles of the State policy in Article 39(D) of the Constitution. In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court had observed that principle of equal pay for equal work is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal, capable of being attained through constitutional remedies and held that this principle had to be read under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This decision was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara & Vs. Union of India. This decision was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S. Nakara & Vs. Union of India. Thus, having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Articles 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” has assumed status of a fundamental right.” [Emphasis supplied] However, in Union of India Vs. Dineshan K.K., it has been observed that: “.......... equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the executive, the court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an agGr-Ieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the executive or the legislature, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex-facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene.” [Emphasis supplied] 24. The other decisions as referred by Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are not very relevant in the context of the case. 25. Mr. B.C. Das, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents No.2, 4 and 5, has submitted that Justice Shetty Commission’s recommendation are not for the employees of the High Court. On special consideration, Justice Shetty Commission recommended the upgraded pay scale and one advance increment. Even from the letter dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition) by the Registrar General, High Court of Tripura, it would be apparent that one advance increment to the grade of other non-gazetted Class-III staff of the High Court service was only recommended. On special consideration, Justice Shetty Commission recommended the upgraded pay scale and one advance increment. Even from the letter dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition) by the Registrar General, High Court of Tripura, it would be apparent that one advance increment to the grade of other non-gazetted Class-III staff of the High Court service was only recommended. Thus, even the Chief Justice did not consider the benefit to be extended to the employees of the High Court in terms of Justice Shetty Commission’s recommendation. Thus the contention raised by the petitioners that the Chief Justice’s recommendation has supported their claim, cannot be maintained. On the contrary, it is a rejection of their claim as reflected in the representation dated 03.09.2014 (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition), which reads as under : “Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, you are most humbly requested to take necessary steps to grant one advance increment with effect from 01.04.2003, in favour of the employees of the High Court of Tripura as per recommendation of the Shetty Commission and another one increment considering the educational qualification, dignity and responsibility of the work in the High Court Service and for this act of kindness, the Association would remain ever obliged.” 26. Mr. Das, learned Advocate General, however, did not raise the objection as to the legal standing of the petitioners while making his submission. He has submitted that whether such benefit would be granted or not, is entirely in the domain of the executive because the equivalence of pay vis-a-vis the pay structure with the classification of the post and cadre has to be made by the experts on considering the various factors. The court does not usually intervene in such matters. 27. Ms. P. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3, has submitted that the petitioners do not have any cause against the High Court of Tripura. However, Ms. Dhar, learned Standing Counsel has acceded that the equivalence of the posts as drawn up cannot be questioned inasmuch as the nature of duties as discharged by the employees of the High Court of Tripura holding diverse categories of posts/grades is equivalent to duties and responsibilities of the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary enjoying benefits in terms of Justice Shetty Commission’s Report. 28. 28. Having regard to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner No.1 is the recognized Association of employees of the High Court of Tripura and they have been representing the employees of the High Court of Tripura for protecting their interest and hence it cannot be held that the petitioner No.1 does not have anylocusstandi. That apart, the petitioners No.2 and 3 are the agGr-Ieved employees. Even, Mr. Das, learned Advocate General has not pressed the objection as to the legal standing in his submission. Thus, the said objection may be treated as waived. The other objection as raised by the respondent No.3 in view of the rejection of the claim by the Chief Justice cannot be sustained. Even this petition has questioned the recommendation of the Chief Justice, but not in so many words. Hence this court would decide the controversy on merit. 29. Before embarking on the controversy, this court is constrained to observe that the Chief Justice of the High Court did not recommend in terms of the representation dated 03.09.2014 (Annexure-P/8 to the writ petition), the recommendation is different from what has been claimed in the writ petition. Hence the objection raised by the respondent No.3 is rejected. 30. From the communication dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition), it appears that the respondent No.3 has clearly acceded as under : “As such, in my opinion, all the Class-III non-gazetted staff of the grade of Head Clerk, UDC, Bench Assistant, LDC, Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant, Programmer & Sr. Computer Assistant of the High Court Service including Personal Assistant of Stenographer cadre and all the Group-B & Group-C non-gazetted Staff of the grade of System Officer and System Assistant of the High Court of Tripura e-Courts Service should also get such one further advance increment because they are much higher qualified than their compatriots working in the subordinate Courts or in the State Government.” It has been clearly acceded in the said recommendation that the High Court employees are better equipped for their education and for their capacity to discharge duties and responsibilities which are no less than in comparison to the duties and responsibilities as discharged by the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary. Even, the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 on the face of a categorical statement made by the writ petitioners that they are discharging higher duties and responsibilities, much more than equal vis-a-vis the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary, the State has utterly failed to show how such statement can be stated to be improper and erroneous. There is no averment except a trivial statement that the service conditions are different, such as, the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary are exisible to transfer whereas the employees of the High Courts, are not. Such evasive replies can be treated as admission of those respondents. 31. Further, the communication made by the Registrar General, High Court of Tripura on 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition), has clearly revealed that there exists equivalence of duties and responsibilities between the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary vis-a-vis the employees of the High Court in respect of the certain posts. But others cannot be excluded from the array as the Judges of the Subordinate Judiciary has been extended the separate award in terms of the recommendation of Justice Shetty Commission. Even in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.3, as stated earlier, there is no denial to the averment of equivalence. Thus, this court is not required to embark on studies for equivalence of duties and responsibilities discharged by those categories of employees working in the Subordinate Judiciary and in the High Court Administration. 32. In Union of India Vs. Dineshan K.K., having confronted with the similar situation, the apex court has observed in para 26 as under : 26. In the present case, therefore, in the light of the admitted factual position, the question of examination of external comparisons, internal relativities and other factors, to be kept in view for job evaluation, considered to be a complex issue to be studied only by expert bodies, does not arise. As a necessary corollary, the issue as to whether there is a complete or wholesale identity between the said paramilitary forces, does not survive for consideration. [Emphasis supplied] In the case in hand, this court is not required to make such complex studies in view of the stand taken by the respondents. Thus, there cannot be inherent defects in comparing and evaluating the works done by the different categories of employees in those 2(two) organizations. 33. [Emphasis supplied] In the case in hand, this court is not required to make such complex studies in view of the stand taken by the respondents. Thus, there cannot be inherent defects in comparing and evaluating the works done by the different categories of employees in those 2(two) organizations. 33. This court is not oblivious that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on the qualities and characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In service matters, the qualification or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in the administration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration, for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. The process of recruitment may itself in certain cases makes a difference. If the educational qualifications are different then also the doctrine may not have its embrace. Even though persons may do the same work, their quality of work may differ. If the persons are selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale is granted to such persons who are evaluated by competent authority, cannot be challenged. A classification based on difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person as a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he was doing the same work as another carpenter in the regular service. A quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work as assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. The functions may be the same but the responsibilities do make a difference. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. The functions may be the same but the responsibilities do make a difference. Thus, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. 34. But, the respondents No. 2, 4 and 5 did not raise any objection to make the distinction or the basis on which it can be held that the equivalence cannot be drawn or it requires studies by the expert body. On the contrary, there is no such objection at all. As such, exercise as stated above, is not at all warranted in the context of this case. Hence, the objection as raised casually by the respondents No.2, 4 and 5, cannot survive. 35. Having held so, this court is of the considered opinion that the members of the petitioner No.1 or the Officers of the High Court of Tripura is entitled to get one advance increment as similar to the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary in the same manner and method as reflected in the revised Notification dated 10.09.2015, as extracted above. 36. As per Justice Shetty Commission’s recommendation, the said advance increment was granted w.e.f. 01.04.2003 on the upgraded pay scale for the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary. That increment has merged with the pay scale as extended to the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary w.e.f. 01.01.2006. No such upgraded pay scales either have been claimed by the petitioners or no such pay scales can be granted in their favour. The employees/officers of the High Court of Tripura is entitled to 1(one) advance increment, equal to the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary w.e.f. 01.04.2003 notionally till 31.12.2014, the preceding year of filing the writ petition. The respondents No.2, 4 and 5, as corollary to the above direction, are further directed to grant, sanction and release necessary fund to meet the contingent requirement within a period of 3(three) months from today to the High Court of Tripura for implementation of this direction. 37. The respondents No.2, 4 and 5, as corollary to the above direction, are further directed to grant, sanction and release necessary fund to meet the contingent requirement within a period of 3(three) months from today to the High Court of Tripura for implementation of this direction. 37. Before parting with the records, it is made clear that the above decision has been arrived at on the assumed premises that the respondents No.2, 4 and 5 are not inclined to extend the benefit of one advance increment in favour of the employees/officers of the High Court of Tripura. 38. In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. Records produced from the Law Department be returned under a sealed cover.