JUDGMENT : A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J. The State and its Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education are the petitioners herein, aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1644 of 2014. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this O.P.(KAT) are as follows: The O.A. was filed by a recognised Union of Laboratory Technical Assistants [LTA's] in the Government and aided Vocational Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala and two of its individual members seeking parity in pay scale with Trade Instructors Grade II in the Technical High Schools in the State. When Vocational Higher Secondary Schools were started in Kerala in 1983-84, skilled Assistants working in Technical High Schools were posted on deputation basis to the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools [VHSS's]. The skilled Assistants were treated at par with Laboratory Attenders. Over a period of time however, the designation of the posts changed and the skilled Assistant/Trade Instructor Grade II came to be recognised as the supporting staff of Technical High Schools, whereas Laboratory Attenders came to be re-designated as Laboratory Technical Assistants and recognised as supporting staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary Department. 2. The qualification requirement of the LTA's in the VHSS was always higher, for, they had to be possessed of the qualification of SSLC and Certificate in the concerned Vocational Higher Secondary course OR two years ITI certificate in the branch concerned. The Trade Instructor Grade II, on the other hand, had only to have the qualification of 7th standard and Trade Certificate in the trade concerned. The duties of the LTA's in the VHS Department and Trade Instructor Grade II in the Technical Department were more or less the same. Notwithstanding the above, while implementing the 7th Pay Commission recommendation with effect from 1997, the Trade Instructor Grade II was granted a higher pay scale of Rs.3350 - 5275 in the Pay Band S-5, while the LTA's were granted the pay scale of Rs.3050 - 5230 in Pay Band S-4. This is notwithstanding the fact that the pre-revised pay scale of both categories was Rs.1050-1660. 3. The disparity that was brought about in the Pay Revision led the LTA's in the VHS Department to prefer representations to the State Government which promised to look into the matter in the next Pay Revision. This is notwithstanding the fact that the pre-revised pay scale of both categories was Rs.1050-1660. 3. The disparity that was brought about in the Pay Revision led the LTA's in the VHS Department to prefer representations to the State Government which promised to look into the matter in the next Pay Revision. In the 8th Pay Revision that was effected from 2004, the Government took note of the grievance of the LTA's in the VHS Department, and recommended the higher scale for LTA's. Paragraph 5.16.5.4. of the 8th Pay Revision order [Annexure A6] is relevant, and reads as follows: Higher scale for Laboratory Assistants: 5.16.5.4 The nature of work of the Laboratory Assistants is different from that of Attenders/Clerical Assistants. Their work requires some basic knowledge relating to scientific equipments such as its functions, usage, precautions in handling scientific equipments etc. Considering the supportive role of Laboratory Assistants in handling scientific equipments and higher qualification required for appointment, the Commission recommend enhancement of the scale of pay from Rs.3050 - 5230 to Rs.3350 - 5275 to the post. It is significant that what the Government did was to bring about the pay scale parity between the LTA's in the VHS Department and Technical Assistant Grade II in the Technical Department by making the pre-revised scale equal at Rs.3350 - 5275. This effectively brought both categories of posts into the pre-revised Pay Band S-5. Thereafter, however, while the revised pay scale for LTA's in the VHS Department was retained in Pay Band S-5 and fixed at Rs.5510 - 8590, the revised pay scale for Trade Instructors Grade II was enhanced and fixed in Pay Band S-7 at Rs.6680 - 10790. In effect, therefore, the Government, while addressing the disparity issued by equalising the pay scales at the pre-revised stage, immediately thereafter reintroduced the disparity in another form while implementing the Pay Revision in 2004. 4. The applicants impugned the Pay Revision order, initially before this Court through writ petitions that were disposed directing the Government to examine the matter afresh, and later before the Tribunal through O.A.No.584 of 2012 challenging the order of the Government that refused to redress the grievance. The said O.A. was disposed by the Tribunal with the following observations and directions: “9. We went through the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the bar by learned counsel on both sides. The said O.A. was disposed by the Tribunal with the following observations and directions: “9. We went through the pleadings and materials on record and also the submissions made at the bar by learned counsel on both sides. We notice that Annexure A13, the relevant portion of 8th Pay Commission Report, has upheld the claim of the Lab Technical Assistants for a higher scale of pay. The relevant portion of the said report reads as follows: “Higher scale for Laboratory Assistants: The nature of work of the Laboratory Assistants is different from that of Attenders/Clerical Assistants. Their work requires some basic knowledge relating to scientific equipments such as its functions, usage, precautions in handling scientific equipments, etc. Considering the supportive role of Laboratory Assistants in handling scientific equipments and higher qualification required for appointment, the Commission recommend enhancement of the scale of pay from Rs.3050-5230 to Rs.3350-5275 to the post.” Thus their pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.3050-5230 was revised to Rs.3350-5275. Thereafter the corresponding revision applicable to the scale of Rs.3350-5275, that is the scale of pay of Rs.5510-8590 was also allowed to that post. So, normally the applicants cannot have any grievance. But simultaneously when the pay of Trade Instructor Gr. II was revised, it was given upward revision by two stages, that is for the scale of pay of Rs.3350-5275, the Pay Commission allowed the scale of pay of Rs.6680-10790 instead of Rs.5510-8590. So the applicants claim parity at the post revision stage also. One of the reasons given in Annexure A19 for rejecting the claim of the applicants is that at no point of time pay parity existed between Lab Technical Assistants and Trade Instructor Gr. II. The said finding in Annexure A19 cannot be correct. The said finding may be technically correct, but Annexure A13 would indicate that taking into account the claim of the applicants their pre-revised scale of pay at the time of pay revision was treated as equivalent to that of Trade Instructor Gr. II. Another reason given by the Government for rejecting the claim of the applicants in Annexure A19 is that the nature of work of Trade Instructor Gr. II and Lab Technical Assistants are entirely different. Government seriously disputes the claim of the applicants that the duties and responsibilities of Lab Technical Assistants is on a higher pedestal when compared to the duties responsibilities of Trade Instructor Gr. II. II and Lab Technical Assistants are entirely different. Government seriously disputes the claim of the applicants that the duties and responsibilities of Lab Technical Assistants is on a higher pedestal when compared to the duties responsibilities of Trade Instructor Gr. II. But the Government have not given any reason or material for the said finding. The ipse dixit of the Government will not be sufficient for rejecting the claim of the applicants especially in view of Annexure A17 judgment of the Hon'ble High Court directing the Government to reconsider the matter. Though the impugned order Annexure A19 is a lengthy one, on the points that are relevant the order is non-speaking. Two points which are to be specifically considered are the following: (1) qualification prescribed for the two posts; and (2) the nature of duties of the incumbents working in the two posts. If they are comparable and the V.H.S.S stream is on a higher pedestal, the persons in that stream are entitled to get at least the pay equivalent to that of the other stream. Going by the qualification, it is manifestly clear that the qualification for the post of Lab Technical Assistant is slightly higher than that of the qualification for the post of Trade Instructor Gr. II. The general educational qualification for the post of Lab Technical Assistant is SSLC, whereas the general educational qualification for the post of Trade Instructor Gr. II is IIIrd Form, which is equivalent to 7th standard. The technical qualification for the post of Lab Technical Assistant is certificate in VHSE and two years' experience certificate in the concerned branch, whereas in the case of Trade Instructor Gr. II, the technical qualification is trade certificate in the appropriate branch or junior school leaving certificate with specialisation in the appropriate field. So the qualification of Lab Technical Assistant is plainly higher when compared to Skilled Assistant Gr. II. Regarding the nature of duties as mentioned earlier the finding of the Government that they are higher for the Trade Instructor Gr. II when compared to Lab Technical Assistant is not supported by any material. The finding is non-speaking without giving any details. So we notice that the order of the Government, Annexure A19 is vitiated for not taking into account the relevant facts. So it is an unreasonable order in the 'Wednesbury' sense. 10. II when compared to Lab Technical Assistant is not supported by any material. The finding is non-speaking without giving any details. So we notice that the order of the Government, Annexure A19 is vitiated for not taking into account the relevant facts. So it is an unreasonable order in the 'Wednesbury' sense. 10. Accordingly, Annexure A19 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Government for a fresh decision in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made by us hereinabove. The Government while disposing of the matter shall specifically say though the qualifications for Lab Technical Assistant are higher, why they are not eligible for the scale of pay of Trade Instructor Gr. II. If the nature of duties justify such differentiation, the Government shall give details regarding the same with specific materials.” It can be seen from the order of the Tribunal that it found that the LTA's of VHS Department were possessed of higher educational qualifications than the Trade Instructor Grade II, and hence, unless it could be demonstrated that the nature of their duties was different, a disparity in their pay scales could not be justified. In the order that was passed by the Government, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal [Annexure A26], the reasons stated for rejecting the request for parity is as follows: “7) As per G.O read as 2nd paper above, the duties and responsibilities of Trade Instructor Grade II in Technical Education Department are as follows: 1. Charge of hand tools if the number of skilled assistance in a section is more than one tools commonly used will be kept in a separate locker under the joint responsibility of all the skilled assistance. The remaining item will be kept by the senior most hand (The workshop Superintendent, foreman with the help of the concerned workshop Instructor shall give the charges of hand tools to the skilled assistance). 2. Maintenance of subsidiary registers in respect of items under his charge. 3. Demonstration of the various operations, proper methods of handling tools etc to the students as directed by the Instructor. 4. Preparation of advertisement operation by students, which may damage equipment. 5. Help the students in the correct handling of tools and operation sequences. 6. Preparation of work pieces. 7. Moulding and sharpening of special tools. 8. Numbering of Models. 9. Demonstration of the various operations, proper methods of handling tools etc to the students as directed by the Instructor. 4. Preparation of advertisement operation by students, which may damage equipment. 5. Help the students in the correct handling of tools and operation sequences. 6. Preparation of work pieces. 7. Moulding and sharpening of special tools. 8. Numbering of Models. 9. Servicing and repairs of machines in the section as directed by the Instructor. 10. Any other departmental work as per direction from the superiors. 8) As per the circular read as 4th paper above, the duties and responsibilities of the Lab Assistants in Vocational Higher Secondary Education are as follows. 1. Lab Assistants are in the Non teaching category. 2. He/She should attend all the laboratory works irrespective of Vocational/Non Vocational subjects as per the instruction of the Principals for the smooth functioning of the VHS Course. 3. He/She should make all arrangements for the conduct of practicals as per the instruction of concerned teacher. 4. He/She should maintain the labs properly and neatly. 5. The primary duty of Lab Assistants is to assist the Instructor/Teacher in the Laboratories of the schools as per the time schedule, fixed by the principals of the schools. 6. Laboratory of the school includes both Vocational and non Vocational Laboratory. 7. He/She should have to assist the production aspects of PTC. 9) From the above, it is seen that the qualification prescribed for the posts of Lab Technical Assistant in Vocational Higher Secondary Education and Trade Instructor in Technical Education Department and the nature of duties of the incumbents working in the two posts differ. 10) It is also seen that at no point of time, there existed a parity between the scales of Lab Technical Assistant of Vocational Higher Secondary Education Department and Trade Instructor Gr. II of Technical Education Department. Considering the different nature of work of Lab Technical Assistant from that of Attenders (Clerical Assistant) the 8th Pay Commission Report has recommended to enhance the pay scale of Lab Assistants from 3050-5275 to 3350-5275, simultaneously the same Commission has recommended to enhance the scale of pay of Trade Instructor Gr II of Technical Education Department from 3350-5275 to 4000-6090 taking into account of their qualifications, duties and responsibilities. 11) As per G.O read as 1st paper above, Trade Instructors in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic etc belong to the category of teaching staff and they are eligible for benefit under rule 60(c) of KSR Part I. The scale of pay of such a category of the post cannot be compared with that of Lab Technical Assistant who is supporting staff in Vocational Higher Secondary School. 12) In fixing the scale of pay of a post, qualification is only one among many factors to be considered, it is not the sole factor to be considered. Moreover, the qualifications for the post of Trade Instructor Gr. II have been revised vide G.O read as 8th paper above to SSLC and concerned Trade certificate or THSLC in appropriate Trade. 13) In the above circumstances, the request of the applicants does not merit consideration and hence rejected. The Order of the Hon'ble Tribunal read as 9th paper above is complied with accordingly.” 5. It is significant that while the Government chose to find that the qualifications of both posts were different, it did not mention the finding of the Tribunal that the qualifications required for LTA's in the VHS Department were higher than that of the Trade Instructor Grade II. That apart, the Government order highlighted that the Trade Instructor Grade II is a teaching post, whereas the LTA is a non-teaching post. This appears to be an incorrect assumption of facts, since, a reference to the G.O.(MS)No.476/Edn/ 64 dated 4.9.1964, that was relied upon to hold so, clearly indicates that the Trade Instructor Grade II was only treated at par with teaching staff for the limited purposes of Rule 60(c) of Part I KSR that permits inter alia teachers, whose date of retirement falls in the middle of the academic year, to continue in service till the end of the academic year. At any rate, it was Annexure A26 order of the Government that was impugned before the Tribunal in O.A.No.1644/2014, from which this O.P.(KAT) arises. 6. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, found inter alia as follows: (i) That both LTA's and Trade Instructor Grade II were not part of teaching staff and the commonality between the two categories of posts was that they were supporting staff in their respective Department. 6. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, found inter alia as follows: (i) That both LTA's and Trade Instructor Grade II were not part of teaching staff and the commonality between the two categories of posts was that they were supporting staff in their respective Department. (ii) That there was essentially no difference in the nature of duties performed by the incumbents of each of those posts. (iii) The Trade Instructor Grade II had been given the benefit of a higher pay scale even when they were having a lesser qualification than LTA's of the VHS Department. (iv) The impugned order of the Government could not be legally sustained and was liable to be set aside and the applicants entitled to notional fixation as far as the 2004 Pay Revision order was concerned and enhanced pay along with arrears from the date of effect of the 9th Pay Revision Order. 7. In the Original Petition before us, it is the contention of the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the LTA in the VHS Department could claim parity only with Workshop Attenders in the Industrial Training Institute, since the pay scales of the said categories of posts had always been similar. It is pointed out that Trade Instructor Grade II is a higher post to that of the Workshop Attender, and, hence, the LTA's of the VHS Department could not claim parity with the said posts. It is further submitted that the Trade Instructor Grade II, being a post in the teaching category, the LTA in the VHS Department, who were not in the teaching category, could not seek a comparable pay scale. Lastly, it was contended that pay fixation, being a complicated exercise, it was not open to the Tribunal or this Court to re-visit the decision of the Government which was taken after considering all relevant factors. Reliance is placed on the decisions reported in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Others -[ (2006) 11 SCC 709 ], Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee - [ (2006) 9 SCC 643 ], Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and Others - [ (2019) 3 SCC 547 ] and Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Thana Singh and Others - [ (2019) 4 SCC 113 ] in support of his contentions. 8. 8. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Smt.V.P. Seemandini, duly assisted by Smt.V. Bhargavi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, took us through the various Pay Revision Orders to show that until 2004, the pay scales of the LTA in the VHS Department and the Trade Instructor Grade II in the Technical Department were the same. It was pointed out that, in 2004, although prior to the implementation of the 8th Pay Revision, the Government had brought about the parity in the pre-revised pay scales, the disparity once again arose only because the Government reintroduced the same after having remedied the earlier disparity. A specific reference is made to the 8th Pay Revision Order, where, the revised pay scale for Trade Instructor Grade II was fixed in Pay Band S-7 while retaining the revised pay scale of LTA's in the VHS Department in Pay Band S-5. She also reiterates that while the nature of duties of both the posts was the same, the qualification requirements for LTA's was much higher. She contends therefore that the impugned order of the Tribunal warrants no interference. She places reliance on the judgments reported in State of Haryana and Another v. Ram Chander and Another - [ (1997) 5 SCC 253 ], Union of India v. Tarit Rajan Das - [ (2003) 11 SCC 658 ], Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. -[ (2008) 1 SCC 586 ], Union of India (UOI) and Others v. Rajesh Kumar Gond - [JT 2013 (15) SC 186], State of Punjab and Others v. Jagjit Singh and Others - [ILR 2016 (4) Kerala 419], judgment dated 1.1.2009 in W.A.No.1360 of 2008 and judgment dated 3.6.2009 in W.P.(C).No.27580 of 2007. 9. We have considered the material on record as also the arguments of the learned counsel on either side. At the very outset, we deem it appropriate to remind ourselves of the oft-repeated caution by the Supreme Court that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body and that courts must realise that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. That apart, fixation of pay and determination of parity is a matter for the Executive to discharge for it may have a cascading effect and reaction that can have adverse financial consequence. [See: Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey [( 2000 (8) SCC 580 ], S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others - [ (2007) 8 SCC 279 ], HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees. Welfare Society v. Heavy Engg. Corporation Ltd. [ (2006) 3 SCC 708 ], State of A.P. v. A.P. Pensioners' Association - [ (2005) 13 SCC 161 ] and Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee - [ (2006) 9 SCC 643 ]. 10. That being said, it cannot follow 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 aggrieved 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. When the court is convinced of a situation where persons holding identical posts with regard to qualifications, duties and responsibilities are treated differently merely because the posts are in different Departments, then it must interfere to check such irrational and arbitrary actions of the State [See: Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. -[ (2008) 1 SCC 586 ], Union of India (UOI) and Others v. Rajesh Kumar Gond - [JT 2013 (15) SC 186] and K.T. Veerappa and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others - [(2006) 9 SCC 406]. 11. In matters of pay fixation, it is now trite that ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in view several factors such as, (i) method of recruitment; (ii) level at which recruitment is made; (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre; (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required; (v) avenues of promotion; (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities; and (vii) employer's capacity to pay, etc. Further, for determining the equivalence of posts, the following factors are determined, namely, (i) the nature and duties of a post; (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; (iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. It is also trite that the burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. Accordingly, the person claiming parity must produce material before the court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and they are entitled to parity of pay scales. Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is left to expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It is also well settled that the financial implication of a State is a relevant factor for accepting the revision of pay and that it is not always impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection based on merit with regard to experience and seniority. A mere difference itself does not always amount to discrimination and non-uniformities would not in all events violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India [See: Union of India v. P.K. Roy -[ AIR 1968 SC 850 ], Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and Others - [ (2019) 3 SCC 547 ], State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das - [(2019) (4) SCC 125] and Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee - [ (2006) 9 SCC 643 ]. 12. On the facts of the instant case, it is clear that the posts in question were once the same and interchangeable. The subsequent re-designation of the posts brought them under two different departments, and even then, the parity in pay scale between them was maintained till 1997. It was thereafter while implementing the 7th Pay Commission recommendation with effect from 1997, that the Trade Instructor Grade II was granted a higher pay scale of Rs.3350 - 5275 in Pay Band S-5 while LTA's of the VHS Department were granted the pay scale of Rs.3050 - 5230 in Pay Band S-4, notwithstanding that the pre-revised pay scales for both categories was Rs.1050 - 1660. When representations were preferred by the LTA's for parity in pay scale, on that occasion, what the Government did was to bring about pay scale parity between the LTA's in the VHS Department and Trade Instructor Grade II in the Technical Department by making their pre-revised scale equal at Rs.3350 - 5275. When representations were preferred by the LTA's for parity in pay scale, on that occasion, what the Government did was to bring about pay scale parity between the LTA's in the VHS Department and Trade Instructor Grade II in the Technical Department by making their pre-revised scale equal at Rs.3350 - 5275. The Government, however, in the same stroke, and while implementing the revised pay scale under the 8th Pay Revision, retained the pay scale for LTA's in the VHS Department in Pay Band S-5 by fixing the pay scale at Rs.5510 - 8590. The revised pay scale for Trade Instructor Grade II was however enhanced and fixed in Pay Band S-7 at Rs.6880 - 10790. In effect, therefore, while technically addressing the disparity issue by equating the pay scales at the pre-revised stage, the Government immediately reintroduced the disparity while implementing the 8th Pay Revision in 2004. It was this anomaly/disparity that was brought to the notice of the Tribunal, which, in the first round of litigation, found that when it came to educational qualifications, the LTA's were possessed of higher qualification and unless it was demonstrated that the duties performed by Trade Instructor Grade II was vastly different, the grant of a higher pay scale to them could not be justified. In the order of the Government that was passed based on the directions of the Tribunal, the Government highlighted the fact that the post of Trade Instructor Grade II was a teaching post unlike the LTA of the VHS Department, which was a non-teaching post. This finding of the Government was patently wrong since the G.O. relied on by them clearly indicated that the Trade Instructor Grade II was only treated at par with teaching staff for the limited purposes of Rule 60(c) of Part I KSR that permitted inter alia teachers, whose date of retirement falls in the middle of the year, to continue in service till the end of the academic year. It is also significant that in the UO notes produced by the applicants along with their O.A. and which forms the back documents for the Government order that was impugned before the Tribunal, while there is a clear mention of a recommendation by the Director of the VHS Department for parity in pay scale of LTA's with Trade Instructor Grade II, the said recommendation was not accepted only because of a remark by the Finance Department. 13. On a consideration of the entire matter and the circumstances under which the disparity arose in the fixation of pay scales for the two categories of posts, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal that, in our view, correctly finds that the differential pay scales granted to the posts in question were wholly unjustifiable. As a result, we find ourselves unable to accept the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. The O.P.(KAT) therefore fails, and is accordingly dismissed. The petitioners are directed to effect compliance of the directions of the Tribunal within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.