JUDGMENT : Muralee Krishna, J. The petitioner who is the applicant in O.A. No.1421 of 2022 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (the ‘Tribunal’ in short), Thiruvananthapuram, filed this original petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 19.08.2024 whereby the Tribunal dismissed that original application filed by the petitioner claiming parity in the scale of pay with that of Dy.S.P (Senior Grade), Deputy Commissioner Excise, Senior Joint Director (Factories and Boilers), Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, DIG of Prison, Senior Deputy Transport Commissioner, Additional Director, Mining and Geology, Deputy Director (Information and Public Relations), which according to him are identical posts as that of the post of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) in that Fire and Rescue department, held by the petitioner at the time of his retirement. 2. Going by the averments in the original petition, the petitioner was promoted as Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) as on 28.06.2001, and he was granted the pay scale of Deputy Director (Administration) in the Fire Force Department till the 9 th Pay Revision Order, as he was the senior-most Senior Grade Divisional Officer. The pay scale of the senior-most Senior Grade Divisional Officer in Fire Force was equal to the pay scale of Deputy Director (Administration) in Fire Force, Dy.S.P (H.G.), Deputy Excise Commissioner, Senior Joint Director in Factories & Boilers, Deputy Commissioner in State G.S.T, D.I.G. of Prison. Even though one level hike was given to the above posts in the 9 th Pay Revision, only a normal revision was recommended for the posts of Senior Grade Divisional Officer. The petitioner retired from service as Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) on 31.07.2001. Despite submitting repeated representations before the anomaly committee, the grievance of the petitioner was not resolved. The Government rejected the claim of the petitioner by Annexure A24 order dated 11.07.2022. Hence, the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the original application. The claim of the petitioner for parity of pay is dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned Ext. P4 order dated 19.08.2024. Hence the petitioner filed the original petition. 3. In the original application, on behalf of the 1 st respondent, a reply statement dated 10.10.2022 was filed, opposing the relief sought by the petitioner. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of that reply statement read thus: “5. P4 order dated 19.08.2024. Hence the petitioner filed the original petition. 3. In the original application, on behalf of the 1 st respondent, a reply statement dated 10.10.2022 was filed, opposing the relief sought by the petitioner. Paragraphs 5 to 8 of that reply statement read thus: “5. In 8 th pay Revision order, the post of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) and the posts of Deputy Director (Administration), Deputy Superintendent of Police (Higher Grade), Deputy Excise Commissioner, Senior Joint Director, Factories & Boilers, Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Services Taxes, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons were placed in same scale of pay i.e. Rs.20700 - 26600. In 9 th Pay Revision, one level hike was given to the above posts except Divisional Officer (Senior Grade). Hence the above posts were placed in the scale of pay of Rs.40640-57440 against the normal revision of Rs.36140-49740. But the Commission recommended only normal revision to the post of Senior Grade Divisional Officer and thus it was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.36140-49740. The scale of pay of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) has been revised normally in subsequent pay revisions also. Since the post is given corresponding revision in all pay revisions, no erosion in scale of pay has occurred to this category due to pay revision 6. Government revised the pay and allowances of the employees based on the specific recommendations of Pay Revision Commissions appointed for the purpose. The Commission is expected to have studied all aspects of all posts under their consideration and thereafter made recommendation for the revision of scales of pay. The scale of pay of a post is fixed considering several factors like duties & responsibilities, delegated powers, educational qualification, hierarchical relation etc. The criteria for fixing pay scale to each category in Government service depends on various complex factors with respect to the department, hierarchy, cadre structure etc. The rules under which the institution has been established, status of establishment, area of jurisdiction, functional relation with other departments, recruitment rules, method of selection, sphere of duties, nature of duties and responsibilities, delegated powers etc. of the category and functional relation between the cadres within the establishment and between the cadres of other departments, if any etc. also play a vital role in determining pay scales. of the category and functional relation between the cadres within the establishment and between the cadres of other departments, if any etc. also play a vital role in determining pay scales. The Commission recommended only normal revision to the post of Senior Grade Divisional Fire Officer and hence the post was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.36140 -49740 in the 9 th Pay Revision. 7. There are more than 4000 categories of posts in the State Government service, the pay of which are regulated in 27 scales of pay in Pay Revisions and so it is quite natural that more than one category will be in the same scale of pay in Pay Revisions. Hence identical scale of pay of posts cannot be taken as a ground for establishing the identical nature of posts. 8. Comparison of scale of pay attached to a particular post in one Department with other posts in other departments is an unreasonable exercise, as different categories in different services/departments require different levels of skills and competencies depending on the nature of duty and delegated powers. Parity in scale of pay can be claimed only in respect of posts which are equated and interchangeable as per Special Rules concerned. As per the Special Rules for the Kerala Fire Service (Amendment) Rules,1988 issued by G.O.(P)No.83/88/Home dated 14.07.1988, Deputy Director of Fire Force (Administration) is the promotion post of Divisional Officer. Hence, it cannot be claimed on any reasonable ground that Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) is an interchangeable post of Deputy Director (Administration).” 4. To the reply statement filed by the 1 st respondent, the petitioner filed a rejoinder dated 17.04.2023. 5. After hearing both sides, by the impugned order dated 19.08.2024, the Tribunal dismissed the original application. Paragraphs 6 and 7 and the last paragraph of that order read thus: “6. In the impugned order Annexure A24 the Government has pointed out the comparison of scale of pay attached to one particular post with other posts in other department can only be an unreasonable exercise as different levels of skill and competence are expected for different kind of posts in different departments. The Government had also pointed out that Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) cannot be held to be an interchangeable post of Deputy Director (Administration). Deputy Director of Fire Force (Administration) is the promotion post of Divisional Officer. The Government had also pointed out that Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) cannot be held to be an interchangeable post of Deputy Director (Administration). Deputy Director of Fire Force (Administration) is the promotion post of Divisional Officer. Therefore, the applicant's request to enhance the scale of pay of the post of Senior Grade Divisional Officer equal to that of Deputy Director (Administration) is without any merit, is the contention raised in Annexure A24. 7. The applicant was enjoying the scale of Deputy Director (Administration)he had expected the corresponding revision of pay and reflection of the same in his pensionary benefits. It is totally within the domain of an expert body like the Pay Commission to take a decision as to which pay is suitable for which post depending on the duties and responsibilities attached to each post. At this point, the learned Government Pleader has brought the attention of this Tribunal to the decision in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria [2024 KHC Online 6370] . The attention of this Tribunal is drawn to paragraph 53 of that judgment which reads as follows: "53. It needs no emphasis that prescription of pay scale for a post entails Policy decision based upon the recommendations of an expert body like Pay Commission. All that the State is obligated to ensure is that the pay structure of a promotional or higher post is not lower than the feeder cadre. Similarly, pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right save and except where the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications, incidental grant of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express equation amongst such posts, cannot be termed as an anomaly in a pay scale of a nature which can be said to have infringed the right to equality under Art. 16 of our Constitution". As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court prescription of pay scale is a policy decision based on recommendation of the expert body, Pay Commission. Intervention of this Tribunal by way of judicial review is not called for in-such decisions. The applicant do not have any right to claim pay parity as it is not an enforceable right. Accordingly, this original application is dismissed, as devoid of merit.” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. Intervention of this Tribunal by way of judicial review is not called for in-such decisions. The applicant do not have any right to claim pay parity as it is not an enforceable right. Accordingly, this original application is dismissed, as devoid of merit.” 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned Ext.P4 order dated 19.08.2024 was passed by the Tribunal without proper consideration of the factual as well as legal aspects of the contention of the petitioner. The learned counsel argued that since the year 1989 onwards, till the 9 th pay revision, the scale of pay of the post of Deputy Director (Administration) Cum Divisional Fire Officer (Senior Grade) and that of Dy.S.P (Higher Grade) Police, Deputy Commissioner, Excise, Deputy Commissioner (L.G), Commercial Taxes and Senior Joint Director of Factories and Boilers was the same. Only in the 9 th Pay Commission Recommendations, the pay scale of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) was fixed below that of the remaining four posts. The learned counsel further submitted that since the petitioner was a senior-most Senior Grade Divisional Officer, he was granted the pay scale of Deputy Director (Administration) till the 9 th pay revision order. Therefore, the impugned order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that, as per the Special Rules for the Kerala Fire Service (Amendment) Rules, 1988, dated 14.07.1988, the post of Deputy Director of Fire Force (Administration) is the promotion post of Divisional Officer. Hence, the post of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) is not an interchangeable post with Deputy Director (Administration). In Annexure A24 pay revision order dated 11.07.2022, which was under challenge in the original application, these aspects are considered in detail by the Government and noting the same, the Tribunal dismissed the original application, and hence no interference is needed to the impugned order of the Tribunal. 9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 10. 9. Article 227 of the Constitution of India deals with the power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court. Under clause (1) of Article 227 of the Constitution, every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. 10. In Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil [ (2010) 8 SCC 329 ] the Apex Court, while analysing the scope and ambit of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, held that the object of superintendence, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court. 11. In Jai Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [ (2010) 9 SCC 385 ] , while considering the nature and scope of the powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the Apex Court held that, undoubtedly the High Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution, has the jurisdiction to ensure that all subordinate courts, as well as statutory or quasi-judicial tribunals exercise the powers vested in them, within the bounds of their authority. The High Court has the power and the jurisdiction to ensure that they act in accordance with the well established principles of law. The exercise of jurisdiction must be within the well recognised constraints. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 12. It cannot be exercised like a 'bull in a china shop', to correct all errors of the judgment of a court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. This correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. 12. In K.V.S. Ram v. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation [ (2015) 12 SCC 39 ] the Apex Court held that, in exercise of the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , the High Court can interfere with the order of the court or tribunal only when there has been a patent perversity in the orders of the tribunal and courts subordinate to it or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 13. In Sobhana Nair K.N. v. Shaji S.G. Nair [2016 (1) KHC 1] a Division Bench of this Court held that, the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Apex Court that in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the lower court or tribunal and the jurisdiction of this Court is only supervisory in nature and not that of an appellate court. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution is called for, unless this Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law. 14. In view of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, the High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by a lower court or Tribunal. The supervisory jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct all errors of the order or judgment of a lower court or tribunal, acting within the limits of its jurisdiction. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. The correctional jurisdiction under Article 227 can be exercised only in a case where the order or judgment of a lower court or Tribunal has been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice. Therefore, no interference under Article 227 is called for, unless the High Court finds that the lower court or tribunal has committed manifest error, or the reasoning is palpably perverse or patently unreasonable, or the decision of the lower court or tribunal is in direct conflict with settled principles of law or where there has been gross and manifest failure of justice or the basic principles of natural justice have been flouted. 15. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P4 order dated 19.08.2024, passed by the Tribunal in the original application. The grievance of the petitioner is that till the 9 th pay revision, the pay scale of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) was the same as that of the other posts pleaded in the original application namely, Dy.S.P (Senior Grade), Deputy Commissioner Excise, Senior Joint Director (Factories and Boilers), Deputy Commissioner, Sales Tax, DIG of Prison, Senior Deputy Transport Commissioner, Additional Director, Mining and Geology, Deputy Director (Information and Public Relations). According to him, the change in the pay scale by reducing it from that of the other posts after the 9 th pay revision order by the Government is illegal. From the materials on record, we notice that the petitioner approached the Tribunal with the very same grievance by filing O.A.No.531 of 2022 and by Annexure A23 order dated 01.04.2022, the Tribunal disposed of that original application, directing the 1 st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representation submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law. In pursuance to that direction, the 1 st respondent passed Annexure A24 order dated 11.07.2022. Paragraphs 3 to 6 of that order read thus: “3. As per the Government Order read as 2 nd paper above, the post of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) and the posts of Deputy Director (Administration), Deputy Superintendent of Police (Higher Grade), Deputy Excise Commissioner, Senior Joint Director, Factories & Boilers, Deputy Commissioner, State Goods and Services Taxes, Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, were placed in same scale of pay ie., Rs. 20700 -26600. 20700 -26600. But in the 9th Pay Revision Order issued vide Government Order read as 3 rd paper above, one level hike was given to the above posts except Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) based on the recommendation of 9 th Pay Revision Commission. Hence, the above posts were placed in the scale of pay of Rs.40640 -57440 against the normal revision of Rs.36140-49740. But the Commission recommended only normal revision to the post of Senior Grade Divisional Officer and thus it was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.36140 -49740. The scale of pay of Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) has been revised normally in subsequent pay revisions also. Since the post is given corresponding revision in all pay revisions, no erosion in scale of pay has occurred to this category due to pay revision 4. Government revise the pay and allowances of the employees based on the specific recommendations of pay Revision Commissions appointed for the purpose. The Commission is reasonably expected to have studied all aspects of all posts under their consideration and thereafter made recommendation for the revision of scales of pay. The scale of pay of a post is fixed considering several factors like duties & responsibilities, delegated powers, educational qualification, hierarchical relation etc. The criteria for fixing pay scale to each category in Government service depends on various complex factors with respect to the department, hierarchy, cadre structure etc. The rules under which the institution has been established, status of establishment, area of jurisdiction, functional relation with other departments, recruitment rules, method of selection, sphere of duties, nature of duties and responsibilities, delegated powers etc., of the category and functional relation between the cadres within the establishment and between the cadres of other departments, if any etc., also play a vital role in determining pay scales. The Commission recommended only normal revision to the post of Senior Grade Divisional Officer, Fire & Rescue Services and hence the post was placed in the scale of pay of Rs.36140 -49740 in 9 th Pay Revision. There are more than 4000 categories of posts in the State Government service, the pay of which are regulated in 27 scales of pay in every Pay Revision and so it is quite natural that more than one category will be in the same scale of pay in all of the Pay Revisions. There are more than 4000 categories of posts in the State Government service, the pay of which are regulated in 27 scales of pay in every Pay Revision and so it is quite natural that more than one category will be in the same scale of pay in all of the Pay Revisions. It cannot be argued on any reasonable ground that the scale of pay assigned to a particular post in a particular pay revision should continue to be on the corresponding revised scale in the next pay revision also. 5. Comparison of scale of pay attached to a particular post in one department with other posts in other departments is an unreasonable exercise, as different categories in different services/departments require different levels of skills and competencies depending on the nature of duty and delegated powers. 6. Parity in scale of pay can be claimed only in respect of posts which are equated and interchangeable as per Special Rules concerned. As per the Special Rules for the Kerala Fire Service (Amendment,) Rules, 1988 issued by the Government Order read as 1 st paper above, Deputy Director of Fire Force (Administration) is the promotion post of Divisional Officer. Hence, it cannot be claimed on any reasonable grounds that Divisional Officer (Senior Grade) is an interchangeable post of Deputy Director (Administration). Hence, the request of the applicant to enhance the scale of pay of the post of Senior Grade Divisional Officer, Fire & Rescue Services Department equal to that of Deputy Director (Administration), Fire and Rescue Services, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Higher Grade), Deputy Excise Commissioner, Senior Joint Director of Factories & Boilers, etc., is devoid of any merit and the same is rejected in accordance with rules and regulations in force”. 16. In the impugned order, the Tribunal relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria [2024 KHC Online 6370] wherein the Apex Court held thus: "53. It needs no emphasis that prescription of pay scale for a post entails Policy decision based upon the recommendations of an expert body like Pay Commission. All that the State is obligated to ensure is that the pay structure of a promotional or higher post is not lower than the feeder cadre. It needs no emphasis that prescription of pay scale for a post entails Policy decision based upon the recommendations of an expert body like Pay Commission. All that the State is obligated to ensure is that the pay structure of a promotional or higher post is not lower than the feeder cadre. Similarly, pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right save and except where the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications, incidental grant of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express equation amongst such posts, cannot be termed as an anomaly in a pay scale of a nature which can be said to have infringed the right to equality under Art. 16 of our Constitution". Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, in the light of the principles laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court in Virendra Bahadur Katheria [2024 KHC Online 6370] , we find no reason to hold that the Tribunal went wrong in finding that it is within the domain of expert body like the Pay Commission to take a decision as to which pay is suitable for which post depending on the duties and responsibilities attached to each post. The pay scale is a policy decision of the Government based on the recommendation of the expert body, the Pay Commission. In such circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. In the result, the original petition stands dismissed.