JUDGMENT : Debi Prosad Dey, J. : 1. The petitioners being doctors of Zilla Parishad of North 24 Pargana have filed this writ petition praying for issuance of direction upon the state respondents to treat the petitioners at par with the employees of Health Services of the Government of West Bengal in matters of pay, pensionary benefits and other pecuniary benefits on the basis of the proposition of law evolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the employees doing similar set of work and status should get “equal pay for equal work”. 2. At the outset three petitioners, appointed by the North 24 Pargana Zilla Parishad have filed this writ application but subsequently some other petitioners have been added by the order of the Court vide Court’s order dated 1st December, 2015(CAN 11153/2015). The specific case of the petitioners is that the petitioners have been enjoying the pay scale like the Government employees but other statutory service benefits have been denied to them though even non-Government or Government sponsored organisation employees namely school teachers and employees of Calcutta Municipal Corporation have been enjoying the equal service benefits at par with the Government employees. Pursuant to the recommendation of 5th pay commission of 2009 the revision of pay and allowances of government employees came into effect on and from 1st January, 2006 and all pecuniary benefits in terms of the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission have been extended to the Government employees including the Medical Officers of the State Government. The present petitioners are not getting any benefit in terms of such recommendation of 5th pay commission though on the earlier occasion they were getting the financial benefits in terms of recommendation of earlier pay commission. There is absolutely no parity in payment of gratuity and other retrial benefits in between the present petitioners and the doctors of Health Services working under the Government of West Bengal. The petitioners have thus filed this writ petition praying for issuance of necessary direction to the state respondent to extend similar scale of pay to the petitioners at par with the Medical Officers under West Bengal Health Services as per Ropa Rules 2009 and to remove the disparity in payment of gratuity and other retiral benefits on the basis of the proposition of law that the petitioners being placed under similar situation/similar condition of service should get equal pay for equal work. 3. 3. The respondent no.4 and 5 have contested the writ petition by filing affidavit in opposition wherein and whereby the respondents have denied the contention of the petitioners on the ground that the recruitment of medical officers of West Bengal Health Services and recruitment of Medical Officers of Zilla Parishad are not similar. The medical officers of the West Bengal health services are recruited by the Governor of West Bengal on the recommendation of State Public Service Commission. The Medical Officers of West Bengal Health Services are treated as State cadre Officer, guided by the West Bengal Service Rules and they are liable to be transferred to anywhere in West Bengal. The Medical Officers of Zilla Parishad have been recruited by the Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad on the approval of the department of Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of West Bengal on a complete different terms and conditions and they are liable to discharge their duties within a specific district under the direct supervision and control of the concerned Zilla Parishad. Secondly, the salaries of the medical officers of West Bengal Health Services are paid from the “consolidated fund” of the State and salaries of the medical officers of Zilla Parishad are paid from the “grant – in- aid” provided by the Government of West Bengal. The nature of work and the conditions of work of the employees of Zilla Parishad and the officers of state cadre of West Bengal are absolutely different and as such the petitioners cannot pray for any parity in their salary and retiral benefits. The salaries and retiral benefits of doctors of Zilla Parishad are guided by the terms and conditions of their services under the concerned Zilla Parishad and they cannot be treated at par with the doctors of health services working as state cadre officer under Government of West Bengal. The gratuity of the medical officers of Zilla Parishad has been fixed in terms of the rules and regulation of concerned Zilla Parishad. Admittedly, the finance department, Government of West Bengal had issued an order bearing memo no. 961-F-P dated 7th February, 2011 revising certain scales of pay but no matching order to that effect had been issued by the department of Panchayat and Rural Department, Government of West Bengal so that the benefit of Ropa Rules 2009 can be extended to the employees of the aforesaid department. 961-F-P dated 7th February, 2011 revising certain scales of pay but no matching order to that effect had been issued by the department of Panchayat and Rural Department, Government of West Bengal so that the benefit of Ropa Rules 2009 can be extended to the employees of the aforesaid department. Respondent no.4 however has issued a letter to the Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayat and Rural Department, Government of West Bengal on 13th August, 2012 and requested for issuance of necessary order so that similar benefits as contemplated under Ropa Rules 2009 may be extended to the petitioners. The further case of the contesting respondents is that the petitioner no.2 has retired on superannuation in the meantime and the petitioners have no jural relationship amongst themselves so as to file a common writ petition and accordingly the instant writ petition is not maintainable. 4. Learned Advocate for the petitioners contended that the nature of work of the medical officers of North 24 Pargana Zilla Parishad and the nature of work of the state cadre medical officers are same and similar and in view of the settled principle of law that the employees having similar nature of duties should get equal pay for equal work the instant writ application ought to be allowed by giving necessary direction to the state respondents to extend the benefits of Ropa Rules 2009 to the petitioners as well as to extend all sorts of retiral benefits to the petitioners at par with the state cadre officers. 5. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further contended that the petitioners and the medical officers under West Bengal Health Services have had similar qualification, nature of work, volume of work and responsibility and placed similarly in respect of their nature of work as well as responsibility. Yet the petitioners have been deprived of similar service benefits. 6. On earlier occasions the recommendations of second, third and fourth pay commission were accordingly extended to the pay structure of the petitioners but the recommendations under firth pay commission enumerated in Ropa Rules 2009 have not been extended to the petitioners. 7. Relying on the proposition of law “equal pay for equal work”, Learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred the following decisions reported in AIR 2000 SC 451 (Ajay Jadhav Vs. Government of Goa & Ors.), 2013(1) CHN (Cal) 281 (Debal Das Vs. 7. Relying on the proposition of law “equal pay for equal work”, Learned Advocate for the petitioners has referred the following decisions reported in AIR 2000 SC 451 (Ajay Jadhav Vs. Government of Goa & Ors.), 2013(1) CHN (Cal) 281 (Debal Das Vs. State of West Bengal), 2004(2) CLJ Cal 493(Partha Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors), 2008(4) CHN Cal 232 (Dibyendu Bhattacharya Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. And Ors.). 8. Learned Advocate for the petitioners further contended that the employees of Zilla Parishad are to be considered as the employees of State in view of the decision reported in 100 CWN 752 (Birbhum Zilla Parishad and Ors. Vs. Nitya Hari Chatterjee and Ors.). 9. In the aforesaid decision the Division Bench of this High Court has accepted that the local authority is state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. As a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, in the matter of filling up the vacancy, the local authority was bound to comply with the mandatory requirements of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as well as recruitment rules, if any. 10. The Division Bench of this High Court has interpreted the status of local authority in matters of recruitment of its employee and such proposition of law has not been disputed in the writ under reference. Relying on the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” the Apex Court has considered the case of some teachers having similar qualification and similar terms and conditions of service and thereafter observed that such teachers should get equal pay with their counter parts. A Single Bench of this High Court Debal Das Vs. State of West Bengal (2013(1) CHN Cal 281 has considered the case of drivers of Kancharapara Municipality and directed that the drivers of Kancharapara Municipality should be allowed to get scale-vi of pay scale at par with the drivers of Government of West Bengal. 11. In 2004 (2) CLJ Cal 493 (Partha Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors) The appellant was appointed speech therapist audiologist in s-6 grade in medical and health service under SAIL at Durgapur Steel Plant. The appellant came to know that the said post of other units is categorized as executive grade. 11. In 2004 (2) CLJ Cal 493 (Partha Chatterjee Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors) The appellant was appointed speech therapist audiologist in s-6 grade in medical and health service under SAIL at Durgapur Steel Plant. The appellant came to know that the said post of other units is categorized as executive grade. He thereafter filed a representation claiming executive grade and his representation was ultimately allowed by this Court taking into consideration the following factors. (I) Duties and responsibilities of both the post. (II) Nature and duties of the post. (III) Responsibilities and powers to be exercised by holders of such post. (IV) Qualification, eligibility criteria for recruitment to the said post. 12. Learned Advocate for the state contended that the duties and responsibilities of the petitioners are not similar with the duties and responsibilities of the doctors of health services. Secondly, the nature and status of both the posts are also not similar. Though the qualification and eligibility criteria for recruitment to the respective post may be similar yet the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis for looking after the charitable dispensaries under the control of North 24 Pargana Zilla Parishad. The doctors of West Bengal Health Services have been appointed for looking after the health service of entire West Bengal and in any view of the matter it cannot be said that the responsibilities and powers exercised by these two sets of doctors are similar in nature. It is further contended that there is no dispute with regard to the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” as enshrined in Article 39(D) of the Constitution of India and the said doctrine has also been accepted in very many decisions by the Apex Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.’s case 1982(1) SCC 618 , Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. case 1986 (1) SCC 637 , Surindar Singh and Anr. Vs. Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D. case 1986 (1) SCC 639 , Jaipal & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana case 1988 (3) SCC 354 . 13. Learned Advocate for the state further contended that the duties of a pay commission are really onerous. The Apex Court has also been pleased to hold that the High Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of pay commission and thereby determine the pay scale of the petitioners. Vs. State of Haryana case 1988 (3) SCC 354 . 13. Learned Advocate for the state further contended that the duties of a pay commission are really onerous. The Apex Court has also been pleased to hold that the High Court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of pay commission and thereby determine the pay scale of the petitioners. The Court should not normally interfere with the opinion of pay commission. The pay commission generally works on the basis of terms of reference and since the department of Panchayat and Rural Development did not refer the service condition of petitioners to the pay commission in the terms of reference, the benefit of pay commission cannot be extended to the present petitioner. 14. In support of his contention learned Advocate for the state has relied on the following decisions:- 1. AIR 1989 SC 19 (State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. J. P. Chaurasia & Ors.) 2. 2015(3) SCC 653 (T.V.L.N. Mallickarjuna Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors.) 15. It is therefore apparent from the discussions made herein above that the petitioners were recruited to the post of medical officer under North 24 Pargana Zilla Parishad for attending charitable dispensaries under the control of North 24 Pargana Zilla Parishad. The duties and responsibilities of the petitioners cannot be equated with the duties and responsibilities of the doctors working under the health services of the Government of West Bengal. 16. In any view of the matter, it cannot be said that the duties and responsibilities of the petitioners are equal and same with the duties and responsibilities of the doctors of health service under Government of West Bengal. There is a marked difference in the nature and status of the post of a doctor of charitable dispensaries under the control of North 24 Pargana Zilla Parishad with the doctor of a Government Hospital, required to work through out West Bengal. The responsibilities and powers exercised by the petitioners are in no way similar to the responsibilities and powers to be exercised by the doctors of the health services under Government of West Bengal. However, qualification and eligibility criteria of the petitioners may be same with the doctors of health services under the Government of West Bengal. 17. The responsibilities and powers exercised by the petitioners are in no way similar to the responsibilities and powers to be exercised by the doctors of the health services under Government of West Bengal. However, qualification and eligibility criteria of the petitioners may be same with the doctors of health services under the Government of West Bengal. 17. While considering the question of application of principle of “equal pay for equal work” the state is at liberty to classify employees on the basis of qualification, duties and responsibilities of the post concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the state would be justified in prescribing different pay scales but if the classification does not stand the test for reasonable nexus and the classification has been done on unreasonable basis, it would be violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be among the equals and unequal cannot claim equality. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1989 SC 19 (State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. J. P. Chaurasia & Ors.) has been pleased to observe as follows: “The answer to the question whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different. That cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executives of the Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept it. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been pleased to hold in the decision reported in 2015(3) SCC 653 (T.V.L.N. Mallickarjuna Rao Vs. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.” 20. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has also been pleased to hold in the decision reported in 2015(3) SCC 653 (T.V.L.N. Mallickarjuna Rao Vs. Union of India & Ors.) that the determination of pay structure, fixation of pay scale comes within exclusive domain of executive and tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of executive in prescribing certain pay structure unless it is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Difference in pay scale based on educational qualification, nature of job, responsibilities, accountability, experience and manner of recruitment does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution. 21. At the risk of repetition I have no hesitation to hold that the manner of recruitment, the status, duties and responsibilities of the petitioners are not same and equal with the doctors of health services of the Government of West Bengal. Petitioners were recruited under the rules and regulations of the concerned Zilla Parishad. Therefore, the fixation of pay scales of the petitioners in terms of the Rules and Regulations of concerned Zilla Parishad cannot be said to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners cannot be placed at par with the doctors of health services of the Government of West Bengal. 22. Secondly, all the petitioners have filed this writ petition praying for equal pay and the retiral benefits at par with the doctors of the health services under Government of West Bengal. In fact there is no jural relationship between the petitioners inter-se yet they have raised a common cause in respect of their service condition and on that score the writ petition cannot be rejected solely on such technical ground that the petitioners have had no jural relationship amongst themselves. The state respondents also did not raise any objection when other petitioners were added by the Court by its order dated 1st December, 2015 and thereby virtually the objection to that effect has been given a go by. The only relief that can be given to the petitioners in this writ petition is that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners so that the benefit of Ropa Rules 2009 may be extended to the petitioners. The only relief that can be given to the petitioners in this writ petition is that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners so that the benefit of Ropa Rules 2009 may be extended to the petitioners. It is apparent from annexure R-1 that the authorities of North 24 Pargana Zilla Parishad has already written to the Principle Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development, Government of West Bengal for giving benefit to the petitioners in terms of Ropa Rules 2009 on the strength of the notification of Finance Department being no. 961 F/P dated 07.02.2011. The petitioners are also entitled to get the benefit of Ropa Rules 2009 at par with all other employees to the Government of West Bengal but the Principal Secretary, Panchayat and Rural Development Department did not adhere to such letter of the authority of North 24 Pargana Zilla Parishad being memo No. 1698.N.Z.P dated 13.08.2012. 23. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case and considering the case of the petitioners I do find it convenient to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the following direction. 24. The principle Secretary respondent no.1 department of Panchayat and Rural Department Government of West Bengal is therefore directed to dispose of the letter bearing no. 1698.N.Z.P dated 13.08.2012 so that the benefits of the fifth pay commission as enumerated in Ropa Rules 2009 may be extended to the petitioners after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as early as possible but not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and order and shall communicate his decision to the petitioners in black and white within a week therefrom. 25. The writ application is thus disposed of. 26. No order as to costs. 27. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible