ORDER : 1. This petition has been filed for the following reliefs : “1.That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a suitable writ, by which Respondents be directed to change the designation of the Petitioner or the name of the Post of the Petitioner as ‘Laboratory Technician’ in place of ‘Laboratory Assistant’ and their Pay Scale be revised accordingly from the date and in the same way as has been done vide Annexure P/1, in favour of Veterinary Department. 2. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record of the case. 3. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has preferred a representation before respondent No.1, but the same has not yet been decided. He submits that the petitioner has been deprived of equal pay for equal work inspite of the fact that the task of the petitioner, who is a Laboratory Assistant in Agricultural Department, is more strenuous and technical. He submits that the Laboratory Assistants of Agriculture Department and Veterinary Department have been given a different pay scale, though earlier, before passing of the order dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P/1), the pay scale of the Laboratory Assistant of both the Departments were up to the same stage. He submits that by the said order, the nomenclature of the post of the Laboratory Assistant working in Agriculture (Veterinary) Department has been changed to ‘Laboratory Technician’. He would submit that in the matter of R.B. Shinde and others Vs. State of M.P. and others, 1995 M.P.L.S.R. 272 (order dated 19.12.1994 passed in OA No.149/90 by the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Indore Bench), it was materially observed as under : “The pay scales of the applicants, Lab. Assts. and Lab. Assts./Lab. Technicians in the Colleges and other places were the same up to the stage of Choudhary Pay Commission namely Rs.515-800. Thereafter the pay scale of Lab. Technicians was revised to Rs.635-950 whereas the pay scales of the applicants remained the same namely Rs.515-800. With effect from 1-4-1986 the pay scale of Lab. Technicians as per Vora Pay Commission was revised to Rs.1200-1500 but the pay scales of the applicants were revised only to Rs.870-1400. Thereafter the pay scale of Lab. Technicians was revised to Rs.635-950 whereas the pay scales of the applicants remained the same namely Rs.515-800. With effect from 1-4-1986 the pay scale of Lab. Technicians as per Vora Pay Commission was revised to Rs.1200-1500 but the pay scales of the applicants were revised only to Rs.870-1400. Again on enforcement of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1990, the pay scale of Lab. Technicians was revised to Rs.1200-2040 but the pay scale of the applicants continued as before namely Rs.870-1400.” He would fairly submit that the equalisation of the post and determination of the pay scale is the primary function of the Executive with the help of the experts, therefore, the State Government may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner at the earliest within a stipulated time frame. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that this Court has made a direction on 20.4.2023 in the following terms : “Let the State verify whether the duty discharge by the Lab. Attendent in the Agricultural Department and Veterinary Department, if the one and the same and if they are same, why different pay scale has been granted. Let State verify the fact and file affidavit.” He would further submit that in pursuance of the said order, the State has examined the task of the Laboratory Assistant /Laboratory Technician working in two different Departments i.e. Agricultural Department and Veterinary Department and it has been found that the job of the Laboratory Assistant, Agricultural Department is very different as compared to the Laboratory Technician of Veterinary Department. Hence, there is a difference in the pay scale of both the posts depending upon their nature of work in both the Departments. He would place reliance on the matters of State of Haryana and another Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72 and Union of India Vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129. However, he did not oppose the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner to decide the representation, which is pending consideration before the concerned authority, in an expeditious manner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused he record with utmost circumspection. 5. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Another, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129. However, he did not oppose the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner to decide the representation, which is pending consideration before the concerned authority, in an expeditious manner. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused he record with utmost circumspection. 5. In the matter of State of Haryana (supra), it has been categorically held that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. The material observation made in para 10 reads as under : 10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter, several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the State Government. In the context of the complex nature of issues involved, the far-reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration of the State Government, courts have taken the view that ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the Government. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the Government. The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the Government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the State Government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the Government to implement the same. As noted earlier, in the present case the High Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two sections of employees, one in the State Secretariat and the other in the Central Secretariat. It has also ignored the basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and executive instructions issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre. 6. Similarly, in Union of India (Supra), it has been held that the powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are very limited and the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the judiciary. The said relevant para 14 & 17 read thus : 14. In view of the aforestated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. 17. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party. 7. 17. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party. 7. In view of the above discussion and particularly considering the law laid down in the matters of State of Haryana (supra) and Union of India (supra) as also considering the comparative chart filed by the State with regard to two different Departments, whereby task and responsibilities of the Laboratory Technicians/Laboratory Assistants working in the respective two Departments have been mentioned, which shows that considering the nature of their job, two different pay scales have been introduced, this Court does not find any merit in this petition. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, it is observed that the concerned respondent authority shall decide the representation, if any, filed by the petitioner before the said authority, at the earliest, by a speaking order.