JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Kripa Shankar Nanda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned counsel for the respondent State and Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent RIMS. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 18.12.2015 whereby the claim of the pay scale of Laboratory Technician instead of Mediaman has been rejected so far the petitioner is concerned. The further prayer is made for direction to pay the pay scale of Laboratory Technician in view of the fact that the work of Mediaman and Laboratory Technician are of same and both the posts have been amalgamated by the Government vide Resolution dated 30.11.1972. 3. The petitioner was appointed on the post of Mediaman on 24.01.2000 in the Department of Microbiology of RIMS, Ranchi on compassionate ground as his father late Darwari Sahni died in harness. 4. The appointment of the petitioner was recommended by the District Establishment Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the service of the petitioner has been confirmed by the order dated 12.07.2010. The petitioner is working in the Department of Microbiology at RIMS, Ranchi as Mediaman and receiving the salary of Mediaman from the Department. In the year 1972 the State Government had come up with a resolution vide Resolution dated 30.11.1972 and revised the pay scale of government employees including the employees of RIMS and in the said resolution, the pay scale of Mediaman and Laboratory Technicians were made similar. The State of Bihar also came with a resolution dated 30.01.1990 whereby the pay scale of Mediaman and Laboratory Technician was amalgamated. 5. Mr. Nanda, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also entitled for the pay scale of Laboratory Technician/Lab. Assistant in view of the fact that the similar pay scale the petitioner was getting. He refers to resolution dated 30.11.1972. He submits that the Laboratory Technicians were appointed on the pay scale of Rs.105-155/- which was enhanced to Rs.220-315/-. He submits that Mediaman's pay scale was Rs.100-130/- which was enhanced to Rs.220-315/- and by way of referring this, he submits that in view of the earlier fixation of salary of Mediaman as Rs.220-315/-, it is clear that the Laboratory Technician pay scale was provided to the Mediaman. He submits that Mediaman's pay scale was Rs.100-130/- which was enhanced to Rs.220-315/- and by way of referring this, he submits that in view of the earlier fixation of salary of Mediaman as Rs.220-315/-, it is clear that the Laboratory Technician pay scale was provided to the Mediaman. He submits that the petitioner is not claiming any promotion and only he is claiming parity of scale. He further submits that the case of one Bharat Singh who was also a Mediaman has approached Hon'ble Patna High Court in CWJC No.7258/1997 which was allowed. 6. Per contra, Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent RIMS by way of referring the same resolution submits that Mediaman scale was Rs.100-130/- Laboratory Technicians were appointed on the scale of Rs.120-225/-. He submits that initially scale itself is lower of the Mediaman in comparison to the Laboratory Technician. He submits that the petitioner has earlier moved before this Court in W.P.(S) No.2490 of 2013 which was disposed of directing the respondent no.2- Director in Chief, Health Services to consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and now the Director in Chief, Health Services pursuant to that has passed the reasoned order and there is no illegality in the impugned order. He submits that the posts of Mediaman, Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory Technician have always been separate and that is why there is different pay scales, nature of work and corresponding responsibilities. The two posts of Laboratory Assistant and Laboratory Technician were merged and unified as a single post of Laboratory Technician but the different post of Mediaman was not merged with that of Laboratory Technician. He submits that the petitioner is not entitled for the same pay scale as of Lab. Assistant and Lab. Technician. He further submits that the High Court in such disputed question of fact with regard to fixation of pay scale may not interfere as it is settled law in view of plethora of judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He refers to the case of “Punjab SEB v. Thana Singh, (2019) 4 SCC 113 ”, paragraph nos.10 and 11, which are quoted hereinbelow: “10. It is fairly well settled that equation of pay scales must be left to the Government and on the decision of the experts and the Court should not interfere with it. He refers to the case of “Punjab SEB v. Thana Singh, (2019) 4 SCC 113 ”, paragraph nos.10 and 11, which are quoted hereinbelow: “10. It is fairly well settled that equation of pay scales must be left to the Government and on the decision of the experts and the Court should not interfere with it. Observing that equation of pay scales of posts must be left to the Government and the experts, in SAIL v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 133, para 26) “26. In Union of India v. S.L. Dutta, Union of India v. N.Y. Apte, State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma, this Court held that the determination that two posts are equal or not, is a job of the Expert Committee and the court should not interfere with it unless the decision of the Committee is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary or made on extraneous considerations. More so, it is an executive function to fix the service conditions, etc. and lies within the exclusive domain of the rule-making authority. (See also T. Venkateswarulu v. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams.)” 11. In S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, observing that the grant of pay scales is a purely executive function and the court should not interfere with the same, this Court held as under: (SCC pp. 292-94, paras 33 & 35) “33. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the court should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive function vide Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen. 35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay).” 7. By way of referring this judgment, Dr. By way of referring this judgment, Dr. Singh, the learned counsel submits that in such disputed question of fact and selection process are in the parameter of the expert committee to fix the scale. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be rejected. He further relied in the case of “Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal” (2019) 3 SCC 547 , paragraph no.14, which is quoted hereinbelow: “14. Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commission, etc. The aggrieved employees claiming parity must establish that they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated. In Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma, this Court held as under: (SCC p. 363, para 7) “7. The next question that arises for consideration is, as to what extent the High Court would be justified in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the findings of an expert body like the Equation Committee. In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation of posts or equation of pay, the same should be left to the Executive Government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and such expert body would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts and when such determination by a commission or committee is made, the court should normally accept it and should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.” 8. By way of relying on this judgment, Dr. Singh, the learned counsel submits that the task or the job of evaluation is required to be left upon the expert bodies for such fixation. He further refers to the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Kamal and Another v. State of Jharkhand and Others, 2019 (4) JBCJ 553(HC). By way of relying on this judgment, he submits that in view of this judgment, this Court may not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is within the domain of the high power committee and the learned Single Judge has also held to that effect in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Kamal” case (supra). By way of relying on this judgment, he submits that in view of this judgment, this Court may not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it is within the domain of the high power committee and the learned Single Judge has also held to that effect in the case of Dr. Anil Kumar Kamal” case (supra). He further submits that vide notification dated 05.10.1991, the Government has come out with the regulation that the person appointed on the post on the compassionate basis will not be entitled for a change of cadre or post. 9. Ms. Amrita Banerjee, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent State accepts the argument of Dr. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent RIMS mutatis mutandis. She submits that in the earlier round of litigation also this Court has only directed to consider the case of the petitioner and which has been considered and the impugned order has been passed. She submits that so far as CWJC No.7258 of 1997 is concerned in the case of “Bharat Singh” case that was with regard to one person and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the competent authority while passing the reasoned order. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties the Court has gone through the materials available on record. On perusal of the documents on which the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent RIMS have relied, it transpires that initial pay scale of Mediaman was fixed at Rs.100-130/- and of Assistant Laboratory Technician was fixed at Rs.120-225/- which was revised at Rs.220-350/- . There is no doubt that the Mediaman was initially provided the pay scale of Rs.100-130/- but such document speaks that the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- was provided to the Mediaman, but this fact is being disputed on the ground that the posts were only merged and Mediaman post was not merged and that is why the petitioner is not entitled for the pay scale. The judgment relied by Dr. Singh, the learned counsel in the cases of “Punjab SEB v. Thana Singh“ and “Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal” (supra) are restraining this Court to pass any positive order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgment relied by Dr. Singh, the learned counsel in the cases of “Punjab SEB v. Thana Singh“ and “Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal” (supra) are restraining this Court to pass any positive order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no doubt that the matter of pay fixation is required to be fixed by the expert body and in view of well settled proposition of law, without interfering with the impugned order, the petitioner is set at liberty to approach the respondents with representation annexing all the relevant documents and the respondents are directed to consider this aspect of the matter that the Mediaman was also provided the pay scale of Rs.220-315/- in view of the resolution dated 30.11.1972 and accordingly this requires to be re-examined by the committee for rectifying the pay anomaly. On receipt of such representation, the concerned Department shall examine this matter in the light the discussions made hereinabove and will place it before the committee. The respondent State may constitute a committee to examine this aspect of the matter and will pass the order subsequently after receiving the report from such committee within a period of 12 weeks. 11. The writ petition [W.P.(S) No.693 of 2016] stands disposed of.