JUDGMENT : (VIJU ABRAHAM, J.) The above writ petition is filed challenging Exts.P6, P12 and P14 and seeking for a consequential direction to the 1 st respondent to issue appropriate orders declaring the post of Field Officer of Kerala Forest Development Corporation as equivalent to Range Officer (Manager) in Kerala Forest Department. 2. The petitioners are working as Field Officers under the 2 nd respondent Corporation. Previously the post of Field Officer was known as Field Assistant and later it was re-designated as Field Officer, as per the revised Service Rules of the 2 nd respondent. As per Ext.P5 Government Order the 1 st respondent fixed the rank of the employees of the 2 nd respondent corresponding to that of the officials of the Forest Department. As per Ext. P5, the post of Field Assistant (now Field Officer) is equivalent to the post of Deputy Ranger in Forest Department. Later, the Government as per Ext.P6 order approved the revised Service Rules of the 2 nd respondent Corporation. However, in Ext.P6 the post of Field Officer was made equivalent to the post of Forester. The specific case of the petitioner is that method of appointment to the post of Field Officer as per Ext.P6 is by direct recruitment and appointment by transfer of officers in other categories and the qualification required is a Science Degree of a recognized university and physical qualifications as prescribed in the Rules. Though a proposal was mooted for equating the post of Field Officer at par with the post of Deputy Ranger, the same was not done due to the influence of some service organization in the Forest Department. The petitioner would contend that the qualification required for appointment to the post of Field Officer is Degree in Science of a recognized University or equivalent whereas the qualification required for the post of Forester is a pass in plus two and to substantiate the said contention the petitioner relies on Exts.P7 and P8 selection notifications for both the posts. Aggrieved by the action in treating the post of Field Officer at par with Section Forest Officer instead of Range Forest Officer, the petitioners preferred Ext.P9 representation and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C) No.26096 of 2020, the 1 st respondent considered the claim of the petitioners and rejected the same by Ext.P12. Aggrieved by the action in treating the post of Field Officer at par with Section Forest Officer instead of Range Forest Officer, the petitioners preferred Ext.P9 representation and pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment in W.P.(C) No.26096 of 2020, the 1 st respondent considered the claim of the petitioners and rejected the same by Ext.P12. Though a review petition was filed, the same was also rejected by Ext.P14 order. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1 st respondent Government contending that the contention raised by the petitioners based on Ext.P5 notification is not correct and Ext.P5 notification was issued at a time when there was no service rules in Kerala Forest Development Corporation. It is admitted that in Ext.P5 the post of Field Assistant was equated to the post of Deputy Ranger in the Forest department, but the same was for the purpose of giving the powers of Forest Officer to Field Staff of Kerala Forest Development Corporation for implementing Kerala Forest Act in areas managed by them, which includes protection of forest by booking cases and prosecuting before magistrates and issuing timber passes as per timber transit rules. During the inception period of the Corporation, the activities of the Corporation were run by the Government by appointing the officers from the Forest Department. Later the Service Rules of the Corporation came into force in 1986, which was revised in the year 2005. As per the Service Rules, for the purpose of fixing scale of pay, posts were again declared to be equivalent to scale of pay of corresponding posts in Forest Department. In the revised Service Rule several posts were re-designed, several new posts were added, and several changes in the number of posts and designations were also made. One major change was splitting up of post of Field Assistant in to the post of Assistant Manager and Field Officer. Post of Assistant Manager/Field Officer was made as a promotion post of Field Assistant. Thus newly added Field Officer is equated to Section Forest Officer for salary purpose. Eligibility criteria for the post are based on the nature of job and technical knowledge required to carry out technical duties like plantation management etc. Post of Assistant Manager/Field Officer was made as a promotion post of Field Assistant. Thus newly added Field Officer is equated to Section Forest Officer for salary purpose. Eligibility criteria for the post are based on the nature of job and technical knowledge required to carry out technical duties like plantation management etc. and Ext.P5 has nothing to do with the qualification and other service conditions of the Kerala Forest Development Corporation. It is further contended that the post of Field Officer is an entry post in the technical category. The qualification and scale of pay of the said post is fixed taking into consideration the nature of job and other relevant aspects. The post of Assistant Manager which is equated to the post of Deputy Ranger for pay scale is different in all aspects from the Field Officer. It is also contended that the salary or powers are not fixed in accordance with basic qualification required for the post and technical jobs may be having low initial salary and may not have powers attached to the post, but may require a specific subject expertise and managerial posts of highly demanding job nature will have more salary and powers but that may not have any relation to qualification required for the said post. On the basis of the same it is contended that the contentions raised in the writ petition cannot be accepted and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. A detailed counter affidavit was also filed by the 2 nd respondent supporting the orders impugned in the writ petition and contended that the pay for the post of Filed Officers can never be equated with Range Forest Officer. Nature of job is entirely different for these posts. Range Forest Officer and Manager are managerial posts and Manager post which is equated with Range Forest Officer already exists above Field Officer post. 5. I have heard the rival contentions on both sides. 6. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment, the grievance raised by the petitioners was considered and issued Ext.P12, wherein the Government have considered the matter and entered into a finding that an entry cadre post in a Public Sector undertaking cannot be comparable with the promotion post in a Government Department. 6. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P10 judgment, the grievance raised by the petitioners was considered and issued Ext.P12, wherein the Government have considered the matter and entered into a finding that an entry cadre post in a Public Sector undertaking cannot be comparable with the promotion post in a Government Department. The status, qualification and pay scale of posts in each department and corporation are determined by the requirements of the respective institutions. By Ext.P5 notification issued in the year 1975 the Government has appointed officers of the Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd. to be Forest officer of the rank mentioned against Column (2) in Ext.P5. In Ext.P5 the post of the Field Assistant which is now designated as Field Officer was equated to that of a Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department. Explanatory note to Ext.P5 would reveal that the said notification was issued for protection, transport and disposal of the tree growth and other forests produces the Corporation will have to function the same way as the Forest Department as the status of the land leased to the Corporation will continue to be that of the reserve forest and it is for achieving the said purpose Ext.P5 notification was issued and issues started when the service Rules were revised as per Ext.P6. Ext.P6 provided that certain posts are equated to the posts in Forest Department specified against each of them for the purpose of fixation of pay. The relevant extract of Ext.P6 reads as follows: “Provided that the following posts are equivalent to the posts in Forest Department specified against each of them for the purpose of fixation of pay. 1. Field Officer - Forester 2. Assistant Manager - Deputy Ranger 3. Manager - Range Officer 4. Div. Manager - Assistant Conservator of Forests 5. Assistant General Manager - Deputy Conservator of Forests (Non Cadre)” A perusal of Ext.P6 would reveal that the post of Assistant Manager was created, which is the promotion post of Field Officer and therefore, the post of Field Officer was equated to that of the Forester and the post of Assistant Manager was equated to that of the Deputy Ranger for the purpose of fixation of pay. The only aspect to be considered is as to whether such equation of post, equating the post of Field Officer to the post of Forester for the purpose of fixation of pay is in accordance with law. It is not in dispute that the qualification prescribed for the post of Field Officer is a Science Degree of recognized University whereas the qualification required for the appointment to the post of Forester is only pass in plus two. Admittedly by Ext.P5 the post of Field Officer was equated with that of the Range Officer for the purpose of empowering them as Forest Officers. The petitioners relies on Ext.P15 communication issued by the Kerala Forests Development Corporation Ltd., whereby the Forest Officers were entrusted duties that are discharged by the Range Officers, which is equivalent to the post of Manager and Ext.P15 would reveal that in the absence of Divisional Manager, the charge of day to day affairs were handed over to the 8 th petitioner, who is a Field Officer. The petitioners relying on Exts.P16 and P17 submits that in various occasions the charges of Manager was given to the Field Officers of the Corporation. On the basis of the same it is the contention of the petitioners that the duties that are discharged by the petitioners are that of a higher post. The petitioners relying on Ext.P18 would submit that even after the service Rules were framed, the post of Field Assistant(Field Officer)was equated to that of a Forest Officer. The specific contention raised by the petitioners is that the method of appointment and qualification prescribed for both posts also differ. 7.The Apex Court had occasion to consider the parameters to be taken into consideration for determining equation of posts and relative seniority in Union of India and Another v. P. K. Roy and Others [1968 KHC 620] wherein the Court extracted the decision taken by the conference of the Chief Secretaries regarding the same, which reads as follows: “It was agreed that in determining the equation of posts, the following factors should be borne in mind:- (i) the nature and duties of a post. (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officers 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; (iv) the salary of the post.” The Apex Court in Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Thana Singh and Others [ (2019) 4 SCC 113 ] in paragraph 15 & 16 has followed the said findings in P.K.Roy 's case cited(Supra) and also the judgments of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni [(1981) 4 SCC 130], E.P.Royappa v. State of T.N. [ (1974) 4 SCC 3 ] and Sub- Inspector Rooplal and Another v. LT. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others [ (2000) 1 SCC 644 ] which reads as follows: “15. For considering the equation of posts, the following factors had been held to be determinative: 1. The nature and duties of a post; 2. The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; 3. The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and 4. The salary of the post (vide Union of India v. P.K. Roy) 16. After referring to P.K. Roy’s case, this Court, in SAIL, held as under: (SAIL case, SCC p. 132, para 25) “25. In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni (1981) 4 SCC 130 and Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha (1986) 3 SCC 7 , a similar view has been reiterated observing that equal status and nature and responsibilities of the duties attached to the two posts have to be taken into consideration for equivalence of the post. Similar view has been reiterated in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. and Another (1974) 4 SCC 3 and Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Another v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others (2000) 1 SCC 644 , wherein this Court following the earlier judgment in P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 held that the salary of the post alone may not be a determining factor, the other three criterion should also be fulfilled.” The Apex Court in Sub-Inspector Rooplal 's case cited (Supra) in paragraph 17 has held as follows: “17. In law, it is necessary that if the previous service of a transferred official is to be counted for seniority in the transferred post then the two posts should be equivalent. One of the objections raised by the respondents in this case as well as in the earlier case of Antony Mathew is that the post of a Sub-Inspector in the BSF is not equivalent to the post of a Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police. This argument is solely based on the fact that the pay-scales of the two posts are not equal. Though the original Bench of the tribunal rejected this argument of the respondent, which was confirmed at the stage of SLP by this Court, this argument found favour with the subsequent Bench of the same tribunal whose order is in appeal before us in these cases. Hence, we will proceed to deal with this argument, now- Equivalency of two posts is not judged by the sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of two posts many factors other than `Pay' will have to be taken into consideration, like the nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. It is so held by this Court as far back as in the year 1968 in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. P.K. Roy and Ors, [1968] 2 SCR 186. In the said judgment, this Court accepted the factors laid down by the Committee of Chief Secretaries which was constituted for settling the disputes regarding equation of posts arising out of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. These four factors are : (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 seen that the salary of a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalency of posts is the last of the criterion. If the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different, would not in any way make the post `not equivalent'. It is seen that the salary of a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalency of posts is the last of the criterion. If the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different, would not in any way make the post `not equivalent'. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that the first three criteria mentioned herein above are in any manner different between the two posts concerned. Therefore, it should be held that the view taken by the tribunal in the impugned order that the two posts of Sub-Inspector in the BSF and the Sub- Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are not equivalent merely on the ground that the two posts did not carry the same pay-scale, is necessarily to be rejected. We are further supported in this view of ours by another judgment of this Court :in the case of Vice- Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha. [1986] 3 SCC 7 Wherein at para 8 of the judgment, this Court held: "Learned counsel for the respondent is therefore right in contending that equivalency of the pay scale is not the Only factor in judging whether the post of Principal and that of Reader are equivalent posts. We are inclined to agree with him that the real criterion to adopt is whether they could be regarded of equal status and responsibility xxx The true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts" Going by the dictum laid down in these cases 4 factors are to be looked into for the consideration of equation of the posts, (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, required for recruitment to the post and (iv) the salary of the post. Based on these factors for determination of equivalency of two posts, let me consider the claim raised by the petitioners. In Ext.P5 the post of Field Assistant (Field Officer) held by the petitioners was made equivalent to the post of Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department. Based on these factors for determination of equivalency of two posts, let me consider the claim raised by the petitioners. In Ext.P5 the post of Field Assistant (Field Officer) held by the petitioners was made equivalent to the post of Deputy Ranger in the Forest Department. Ext.P6 is the service Rules for the Kerala Forest Development Corporation Ltd wherein also certain posts in the Corporation was made equivalent to the post in the Forest Department for the purpose of fixation of pay whereby the Field Officer was equated to that of the post of the Forester. Admittedly the nature of duties and responsibilities of both posts are different and method of appointment and the qualification prescribed for the post are also different. The basic pay of Forester and that of the Field Officer is also different. Therefore, the above parameters fixed by the Apex Court in the above mentioned cases for equating a post for the purpose of pay were not taken into consideration while dismissing the claim of the petitioners as per Exts.P12 and P14. Therefore, I am of the view that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the 1 st respondent. 8. Accordingly, Exts.P12 and P14 are set aside, directing the 1 st respondent to reconsider Ext.P9, after affording an opportunity of being heard to representative of the petitioners, the 2 nd respondent and any other affected parties and a fresh decision in this regard shall be taken within an outer limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.