ORDER : This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the order dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3 and for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + 2400 grade pay w.e.f. 1.4.2006. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are working on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II in Jail Department, whose initial pay scale was Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590 which is not increased upto Rs.5200-20200 + 1900 grade pay. Petitioners No. 1 and 2 were appointed in the year 1998, petitioner No.3 was appointed in 1999 whereas petitioners No. 4 to 17 were appointed in the year 2008. At the time of their appointment, the minimum requisite qualification for the post of Pharmacist Grade-II was 10+2/Higher Secondary Pass in Science subject. The minimum qualification for appointment on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II is also exactly similar in the Health Services Department, but on the basis of recommendation of D.N. Tiwari Committee, the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200 + 2400 grade pay was given to Pharmacist Grade-II of Health Services Department w.e.f. 1.4.2006 whereas the present petitioners who are also working on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II in Jail Department are getting lower pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200 + 1900 grade pay. The nature of work, responsibility and liability of Pharmacist Grade-II working in Jail Department are higher than the Pharmacist Grade-II working in Health Services Department, but the respondent authorities have wrongly denied the pay scale of Rs.5200-20,200 + 2400 grade pay without any just and cogent reason. The aforesaid action on the part of the respondent authorities is arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 & 39(d) of the Constitution of India. Hence this petition for the following reliefs: “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue notice to the respondents returnable within early date of hearing. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 08.10.2012, passed by respondent no.3. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200 + 2400 grade pay w.e.f. 01.04.2006. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 08.10.2012, passed by respondent no.3. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pay-scale of Rs.5200-20200 + 2400 grade pay w.e.f. 01.04.2006. 10.4 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other ancillary relief, as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10.5 Cost of the petition.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is contrary to the minimum educational qualification fixed by the respondents in respect of appointment of the petitioners as there was no difference in the qualification for appointment on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II between the Jail Department and Health Services Department, hence the same is liable to be set aside. The nature of work of the petitioners is more qualitative than the nature of work of Health Services Department, therefore, also the petitioners are entitled for the pay scale granted to Pharmacist Grade-II of the Health Services Department. The responsibility and liability of Pharmacist Grade-II of Jail Department is higher than that of Pharmacist Grade-II of Health Services Department. The action of the respondent authorities is discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India i.e. equal pay for equal work as the respondent authorities without any rational basis discriminated the similarly placed persons. Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India provides that the State shall in particular direct its policy towards securing that there is equal pay for equal work both men and women, but here in the present case, violating the aforesaid mandate, the respondent authorities have deprived the petitioners from the pay scale granted to the similarly situated persons. The action of the respondent authorities is discriminatory, irrational and unreasonable, hence the instant petition deserves to be allowed with direction to the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + 2400 grade pay w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to the petitioners. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . 4. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and others Vs. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148 . 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are working on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II within Department of Jail, they are getting pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + 1900 grade pay and have made representation for extending the benefit of pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 + 2400 grade pay which has been granted to Pharmacist Grade-II of Health Services Department. After due consideration, the said request and proposal was rejected by the impugned order dated 8.10.2012. It is submitted that in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh, as per MP Class-III (Non Ministerial and Ministerial Cadre) Jail Service Recruitment Rules, 1974, pay scale of Compounder was of Rs.155-252/-. Thereafter, as per MP Pay Revision Rules, 1983, the said pay scale was revised from 1.4.1981 as Rs.515-800/-. Subsequently, the same has again been amended in the year 1985 as Rs.515-840/-. Copy of the relevant pages of the Rules, 1974 and Rules, 1983 is filed as Annexures R/1 and R/2 respectively. Later, as per MP Pay Revision Rules, 1987, with effect from 1.1.1986 the pay scale of Rs.515-840 has again been revised to Rs.870-1420/- and thereafter, as per MP Pay Revision Rules, 1990, the said pay scale has been revised to Rs.950-1530/-. In the year 1998, again the same has been revised to Rs.3050-4590/- and lastly, as per CG Pay Revision Rules, 2009, applicable from 1.1.2006, the said pay scale of Compounder (Pharmacist Grade-II) has been revised as Rs.5200-20200 + 1900 grade pay. According to the said Rules, 2009 the petitioners are getting the pay. There is no infirmity or illegality in granting pay scale of Pharmacist Grade-II to the Jail Department. The petitioners are getting pay scale in accordance with the Rules, 2009. It is a well settled principle of law that fixation of pay scale and grant of pay is the nature of work of executive and the same cannot warrant judicial review. Thus, the petitioners’ pay scale has been fixed in accordance with the Rules, 2009 and as per the Rules, they are getting their salary. It is a well settled principle of law that fixation of pay scale and grant of pay is the nature of work of executive and the same cannot warrant judicial review. Thus, the petitioners’ pay scale has been fixed in accordance with the Rules, 2009 and as per the Rules, they are getting their salary. So far as grant of pay scale of Pharmacist Grade-II of Health Services Department is concerned, fixation of pay scale depends upon the recruitment rules and other aspects also. It is for the executive to decide the pay scale of a particular post. The petitioners cannot claim the equal pay as the terms and conditions of the employees of both the departments are separate and independent. Hence the instant petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II in Jail Department. Petitioners No. 1 & 2 are working since 1998, petitioner No.3 is working since 1999 and the remaining petitioners are working since 2008. Annexure P/1 is the letter dated 8.10.2012 of the Under Secretary, State of CG (Jail), Home Department regarding amendment in the pay scale of Pharmacist Grade-II, which reads as under : NRrhlx<+ 'kklu x`g ¼tsy½ foHkkx nkÅ dY;k.k flag Hkou] ea=ky;]jk;iqj dzekad&,Q 3&32@rhu&tsy@2012 jk;iqj fnukad 08@10@2012 izfr] vfrfjDr egkfuns'kd] tsy ,oa lq/kkjkRed lsok,Wa] NRrhlx<+ jk;iqjA fo"k;% QkekZflLV xzsM&02 ds osrueku esa la'kks/ku gsrqA lanHkZ% vkidk i= dzekad@6337@LFkk-@ts-eq-@12 fnukad 07-09-2012 d`i;k lanfHkZr i= dk voyksdu djsaA fo"k;kafdr izLrko ds laca/k esa ys[k gS fd tsy foHkkx ,oa lapkyuky; LokLF; lsaok,Wa ds QkekZflLV xzsM&02 ds in dh fu/kkZfjr U;wure 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk esa fHkUurk gksus ls lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx }kjk izLrko dks vekU; fd;k x;k gSA ¼,0,p0fl}dh½ voj lfpo N0x0 'kklu] ¼tsy½ x`g foHkkx Annexure P/4 is the order dated 22.7.2011 of the General Administration Department, State of CG, Raipur and para (2.3) relates to the upgraded pay scale of certain posts being sanctioned which shall be with effect from 1.4.2006. Para 2.3 reads as under : ¼2-3½ 'kklu ds fofHkUu foHkkxksa esa fuEufyf[kr in Lohd`r gksus dh n'kk esa mudk fnukad 01-04-2006 ls la'kksf/kr osrueku fuEukuqlkj gksxk %& Øekad inuke ikapos osrueku esa la'kksf|r osrueku NBosa osrueku esa fu/kkZfjr rRLFkkuh osrueku $ xszM is 2-3-1 flLVe ,sukfyLV 10000 & 15200 15600 & 39100 $ 6600 2-3-2 dEI;wVj izksxzkej 8000 & 13500 15600 & 39600 $ 5400 2-3-3 Lkgk;d izksxzkej 5500 & 9000 9300 & 34800 $ 4300 2-3-4 Lkgk;d v/kh{kd ¼foHkkxk/;{k dk;kZy;½ 5000 & 8000 9300 & 34800 $ 4200 2-3-5 MkVk ,UVªh vkWijsVj 4000 & 6000 5200 & 20200 $ 2400 2-3-6 Okkgu pkykd ¼Hkkjh okgu½ 3500 & 5200 5200 & 20200 $ 2200 2-3-7 LFky lgk;d 3050 &4590 5200 & 20200 $1900 7. As per Schedule A, pay fixation of the employees of Home/Jail Department is as under: x`g] tsy foHkkx Lak- Ø- foHkkx ,oa inuke ikapos osrueku esa fu/kkZfjr osrueku NBosa osrueku esa fu/kkZfjr rRLFkkuh osrueku $ xszM is ikapos osrueku esa la'kksf/kr osrueku fn- 01-04-2006 ls NBosa osrueku esa fu/kkZfjr rRLFkkuh osrueku $ xszM is Tksy eq[;ky; 7- ofj"B c<+bZ izf'k{kd tsy 3050 & 4590 5200&20200$1900 3500 & 5200 5200&20200$2200 lapuky;] lapkyd esfMdksyhxy laLFkku 8- iz;ksx'kkyk rduhf'k;u 4000&6000 5200&20200 $ 2400 4500 & 7000 5200 &20200 $ 2800 In the Directorate of Health Services, the pay scale of Pharmacist Grade-II is provided in Schedule A as under : Lakpkyuky;] LokLF; lsok,a 19- QkekZflLV xzsM&2 3050 & 4590 5200&20200 $ 1900 4000 & 6000 5200 & 20200 $2400 Annexure P/5 is copy of the representations submitted by the petitioners in which they are demanding their pay scale like other Pharmacists posted in Health Services Department. The petitioners have also filed Annexure P/6 i.e. copy of the advertisement dated 8.10.2007 issued by the Jail Headquarters, Chhattisgarh, Raipur for the post of Compounder (Pharmacist Grade-II). As per this advertisement, the qualification of Pharmacist Grade-II is as under : 1- 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk %& 1- mEehn~okj dks 10$2 f'k{kk i}fr esa ckjgoha ijh{kk ¼tho&foKku HkkSfrdh] jlk;u fo"k;½ mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg,A 2- Hks"ktK ¼QkekZflLV½ dk fMIyksek rFkk 3- QkesZlh dkamfly ls Hks"ktK ¼QkekZflLV½ dk iath;u gksuk pkfg,A Annexure P/7 is the advertisement dated 19.10.2012 issued by the Department of Health Services, Bilaspur. As per this advertisement, qualification of Pharmacist Grade-II is as under : 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk %& 1- tho&foKku] jlk;u ,ao HkkSfrdh ¼ck;ksykth dsesLVªh ,ao fQftDl esa½ gk;j lsds.Mjh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ @10$2 f'k{kk i}fr esa 12 oha ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg;sA 2- Hks"kt ¼QkekZflLV½ dk fMIyksek rFkk 3- QkesZlh dkSf'ky ls Hks"ktK ¼QkekZflLV½ dk iath;uA Annexure P/10 is the advertisement dated 24.1.2013 for appointment on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II issued by the Jail Department. In this advertisement, qualification of Pharmacist Grade-II is as under : ^^10$2 iz.kkyh ds varxZr gkbZLdwy ijh{kk mRrh.kZ ;k iqjkuh iz.kkyh ds varxZr gk;j lsds.Mjh foKku ladk; ¼tho&foKku lfgr½ ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksuk pkfg,] ekU;rk izkIr laLFkk ls QkesZlh dh fMxzh@fMIyksek mRrh.kZ rFkk fu;ekuqlkj QkesZlh vf/kfu;e ds varxZr iathd`r gksuk pkfg,A 8. Thus, it is clear from Annexures P/6, P/7 & P/10 that qualification for appointment on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II in both the departments are same. The petitioners have also filed e-iz- r`rh; Js.kh ¼vfyfid oxhZ; rFkk fyfid oxhZ;½ tsy lsok Hkjrh fu;e Hkkx&d ¼r`rh; Js.kh&vfyfid oxhZ;½ . As per Schedule -3 the educational qualification of Pharmacist Grade-II is as under : 9. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jagjit Singh (supra) in paras 42.2, 42.3 and 60 held as under : “42.2 The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant, is in a “different department” vis-a-vis the reference post, does not have any bearing on the determination of a claim, under the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. Persons discharging identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of Government (see – the Randhir Singh case (1982) 1 SCC 618 , and D.S. Nakara case, (1983) 1 SCC 305 ). 42.3 The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification (see – Randhir Singh case). For equal pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity (see – Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (1988) 3 SCC 91 case, Mewa Ram Kanojia case (1989) 2 SCC 235 , Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers’ Union case (1991) 1 SCC 619 and S.C. Chandra case (2007) 8 SCC 279 ). 60. 60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were being discharged by regular employees, holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ summarized by us in paragraph 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals, were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted, that during the course of their employment, the temporary employees concerned were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities, which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts, were also posted to discharge the same work, which was assigned to temporary employees, from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals, were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent-employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State, that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity, on any of the principles summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged government employees, holding the same post. 10. There can be no doubt, that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged government employees, holding the same post. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that qualifications are different in both the departments for appointment on the post of Pharmacist Grade-II but looking to the previous advertisements and Schedule of Jail Department, it is clear that qualifications are one and same for the aforesaid post in both the departments. It is not in dispute that at the time of appointment of the petitioners, they were having requisite qualification as per the advertisement. However, the pay scale of Pharmacist Grade-II working in Health Services Department is upgraded but the petitioner’s pay scale upgradation was denied on the basis of minimum educational qualification. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the overall material placed on record and the legal principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above matter with reference to application of principle of “equal pay for equal work”, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned order dated 8.10.2012 (Annexure P/1) is hereby set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to grant pay scale to the petitioners equivalent to the pay scale granted to Pharmacist Grade-II of the Health Services Department as per Schedule A of the order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure P/4) from the date it fell due to them. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.