JUDGMENT : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the trade union of the employees of electricity company for claiming the benefit of grant of grade pay of Technical Helper in the Scale No.3 i.e. Rs.2,400/-. The petitioner union has further challenged the orders passed by the State Government declining the proposal of the electricity company to grant the grade pay of Technical Helper, who possessed the qualification of ITI. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tanveer Ahmed has submitted that the controversy raised in the present writ petition is covered by the decision of the coordinate Bench passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1880/2003 [Ashok Kumar Mali Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur] decided on 05.09.2014 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12667/2011 [Sanjay Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.] & connected S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14237/2009 [Lakhan Singh & Ors. Vs. JVVNL & Ors.] decided by a common order dt.09.10.2017. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12667/2011 [Sanjay Kumar Soni & Anr. Vs. Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr.] & connected S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14237/2009 [Lakhan Singh & Ors. Vs. JVVNL & Ors.] dt.09.10.2017 was assailed by the electricity company by filing D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.138/2018 & D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.2028/2017 and the Division Bench vide its order dt.26.02.2018 has dismissed the special appeal. The Division Bench has further noted while dismissing the special appeals that the view expressed by the Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1880/2003 [Ashok Kumar Mali Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur] decided on 05.09.2014 was followed by the authorities and they have decided not to file appeal against the said order and the order passed in Ashok Kumar Mali's case has been implemented by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. vide order dt.10.10.2014. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tanveer Ahmed submits that the coordinate Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1880/2003 [Ashok Kumar Mali Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur] decided on 05.09.2014 has further relied on the judgment passed in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur (RRVPNL) & Ors. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad Verma & Anr. Tanveer Ahmed submits that the coordinate Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1880/2003 [Ashok Kumar Mali Vs. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur] decided on 05.09.2014 has further relied on the judgment passed in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur (RRVPNL) & Ors. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad Verma & Anr. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8074/2014] at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and the learned Single Judge in the said judgment has further noted that the order passed in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur (RRVPNL) & Ors. Vs. Bhagwati Prasad Verma & Anr. was challenged in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.3/2012 and the Division Bench dismissed the special appeal & confirmed the award as well as the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has further taken note of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Jhunjha Ram & Anr. [D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.4546/2012]. The learned Single Judge has also noted that the SLP filed in the Apex Court in the year 1988 preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench dt.14.07.1988 was dismissed by the Apex Court and while disposing of the SLP vide order dt.23.10.1989, the Apex Court observed as under:- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that it would be appropriate to treat the petitioners at par with those who during the pendency of the W.Ps. in the High Court were allowed Scale No.3 with same qualification as the Petitioners possess. We accordingly direct that in each of these cases, the petitioner shall be given Scale No.3 and that Scale should be admitted from 1.11.1989. The same benefits should be available to others who are not before the Court if they have the same qualifications. The SLP are disposed of." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tanveer Ahmed submitted that this court on 05.02.2018 has deferred the hearing of the present writ petition as Mr. The same benefits should be available to others who are not before the Court if they have the same qualifications. The SLP are disposed of." 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Tanveer Ahmed submitted that this court on 05.02.2018 has deferred the hearing of the present writ petition as Mr. J.M. Saxena, Additional Advocate General had submitted that the Division Bench of this Court was seized of the matter to examine the order passed by the learned Single Judge in the case of Sanjay Kumar Soni & Lakhan Singh and since now appeals preferred by the employer, have been dismissed, counsel for the petitioner submits that the members of the petitioner union are required to be given the same benefit. 6. Mr. Tanveer Ahmed submits that the issue of grant of grade pay of Rs.2,400/- on the post of Technical Helper is no more res integra and once the Apex Court has approved the entitlement of the persons who are holding the requisite qualifications for the post of Technical Helper, they are required to be considered to be given the Scale No.3. 7. Per contra, Mr. Akshat Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Additional Advocate General submits that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief as recommendation made by the electricity companies has not been approved by the Finance Department and they have rejected the claim of the persons claiming the grade pay of Rs.2,400/-. Mr. Akshat Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Additional Advocate General has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in S.C. Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors, (2007) 8 SCC 279 to contend that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to the expert body. 8. Mr. Babu Lal Saini, Dy. Govt. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Energy Department submitted that though proposal was sent by them to the Finance Department but the Finance Department has refused to grant this benefit to the persons who are working on the post of Technical Helper with the demand of grade pay of Rs.2,400/-. Mr. Saini has submitted that since promotional post carries the grade pay of Rs.2,400/- and as such the members of the petitioner union cannot be granted the same benefit. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties. 10. Mr. Saini has submitted that since promotional post carries the grade pay of Rs.2,400/- and as such the members of the petitioner union cannot be granted the same benefit. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties. 10. This court finds that three Division Benches of this court have already taken a view that the persons who are working on the post of Technical Helper and possessing the requisite qualification of ITI are entitled for the grade pay of Rs.2,400/- in the Scale No.3. This court further finds that the Apex Court as back as on 23.10.1989 directed the employer to grant the same benefit even to those persons who had not come to the court, if they had the same qualifications. This court finds that the Division Bench recently in the case of Sanjay Kumar Soni & Anr. and Lakhan Singh & Ors. has dismissed the appeals [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.138/2018 & 2028/2017] of the employer and has further noted that the employer has decided to implement the judgment passed in the case of Ashok Kumar Mali and as such it did not file appeal against the said order. 11. This court finds that the members of the petitioner union are also entitled for the grade pay of Rs.2,400/- on the post of Technical Helper in Scale No.3. 12. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the Finance Department has declined the proposal of the Energy Department is concerned, this court finds that once entitlement of such persons working on the post of Technical Helper has been upheld upto the Apex Court, it is too late in the day to contend that these persons are not entitled for the similar benefit. This court further finds that the respondents cannot adopt the policy of pick & choose in implementing the orders in respect of some employees by granting them the benefit and on the other hand they intend to deny the entitlement of the similarly situated persons. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents does not deal with the controversy which is raised in the instant petition. There is no doubt that complex matter of posts & salary is the domain of an expert body and courts should not undertake the same exercise and it is for the executive to discharge the same function. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents does not deal with the controversy which is raised in the instant petition. There is no doubt that complex matter of posts & salary is the domain of an expert body and courts should not undertake the same exercise and it is for the executive to discharge the same function. The entitlement of the employees working on the post of Technical Helper has been made on the basis of the recommendations of the Committee which was set up by the employer i.e. electricity companies and once the expert Committee has gone into the details and requirement of job, it cannot be said that the court is going to substitute its own finding in place of the decision of expert Committee. It is only the implementation of the decision of the Committee and further the rights which have been crystalized upto the Apex Court, which the members of the petitioner union are claiming in the present matter. 13. Accordingly, the instant writ petition deserves to the allowed and is hereby allowed and direction is given to the respondents to grant benefit of grade pay of Rs.2,400/- in the Scale No.3 to the persons who are working on the post of Technical Helper and arrears of salary be also granted to them. The said exercise may be carried out within a period of six weeks from the receipt of copy of this order. 14. Consequently, the instant writ petition stands allowed.