ORDER : (Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.) Approach to this writ court has been made by an Association along with two office bearers with the following reliefs: “In the Premises aforesaid, it is therefore respectfully prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this Petition, call for the records and issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why:- A) a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the Respondents to constitute an Pay Anomaly Committee for a recommendation for enhancement of Grade pay of the Statistical Assistants i.e the petitioners, who are all Graduates with Mathematics, Statistics or Economics, working under the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to Rs. 2800/- from Rs.2500/- w.e.f 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2010 and Rs. 3300/- from Rs. 3000/- w.e.f 1.1.2011. and B) a writ of like nature shall not be issued directing the Respondents to make a recommendation to enhance the Grade pay of the Statistical Assistants i.e. the petitioners, who are all Graduates with Mathematics, Statistics or Economics, working under the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to Rs. 2800/- from Rs. 2500/-w.e.f 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2010 and Rs 3300/- from Rs. 3000/-w.e.f 1.1.2011 and provide the petitioners with the Grade pay at par with the Science Graduate teachers working in the ME/MEM/MV/Senior Basic Schools. -AND- Upon cause/s shown and after hearing the parties and perusing the records, Your Lordships may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or to pass such further or other order/s as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper. -AND- Pending disposal of the Rule, it shall not be a bar for the Respondents to enhancement of Grade pay of the Statistical Assistants working under the Director Social Welfare, Assam to Rs. 3300/- from Rs. 3000/- w.e.f 1,1.2011 onwards and/or to pass such further or other order/s as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.” 2. The petitioner no. 1 is the All Assam Social Welfare Statistical Employees Association and it has been averred that members of the petitioner no. 1-Association were appointed as Statistical Assistants in the year 1996 and thereafter. The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to fixation of the Grade Pay. 3. I have heard Shri I Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri JK Goswami, learned Addl. Sr. 1-Association were appointed as Statistical Assistants in the year 1996 and thereafter. The grievance of the petitioners is with regard to fixation of the Grade Pay. 3. I have heard Shri I Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also heard Shri JK Goswami, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Assam as well as Shri R Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam. 4. Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially the members of the petitioner no.1-Association was given Grade Pay of Rs. 2,500/-whereas their counterparts in the Education Department working as Statistical Assistants were getting Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/-. By contending that the duties which were required to be performed by the members of the petitioners Association were more strenuous, including field visits, representation was made for enhancement of the Grade Pay which was accordingly enhanced and made at par at Rs.2,800/-. Subsequently, on the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission whereas the Grade Pay of Statistical Assistant working in the Education Department was enhanced to Rs. 3,300/-, those of the members of the petitioners Association were enhanced to Rs. 3,000/-. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the Grade Pay was made at par at Rs. 2,800/-, there was no justification to deny the equal enhancement to Rs. 3,300/-. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-5 which is an extract of the ROP Rules, 2010 pertaining to the Social Welfare Department to demonstrate that they were getting Grade Pay of Rs. 3,000/-. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to an extract of the report of the Pay Anomaly Committee, 2010, more particularly, recommendation against the Sl. No. 44. He has also submitted that representations were submitted in the year 2011 and 2015 and only thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that suitable directions are required to be given for upgrading the Grade Pay of the petitioners Association to Rs. 3,300/-. 7. Per contra, Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has submitted that the entire premise on which the present claim is based is fallacious. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that suitable directions are required to be given for upgrading the Grade Pay of the petitioners Association to Rs. 3,300/-. 7. Per contra, Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has submitted that the entire premise on which the present claim is based is fallacious. He has also raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition by contending that a properly constituted Pay Anomaly Committee had looked into the grievance of all the aggrieved persons before whom the petitioners Association did not approach. He has submitted that after the Draft Report was submitted, objections were entertained by the Pay Anomaly Committee. He has also submitted that reference to the Report of the Pay Anomaly Committee will not come to the aid of the petitioners as the same relates to a different segment of aggrieved employees whose grievance was redressed. 8. As regards the submissions made relating to the nature of the duties, the learned Standing Counsel has contended that the same would not be of much relevance as the said issue should have been raised before the duly constituted Pay Anomaly Committee. In any case, he contends that the averments in the writ petition are also lacking and only certain vague submissions have been made. He has submitted that in matters having financial implications, a writ court should be loath in interfering and giving directions as those are matters within the domain of the Executive and in this connection, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors., reported in (2019) 18 SCC 301 . The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that in paragraph 92 of the said judgment, parameters have been laid down in matters of this nature and the case projected by the petitioners would not fall within the said parameters. 9. Shri Goswami, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, by endorsing the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has also opposed the writ petition. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials available on records have also been carefully examined. 11. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the contesting respondents, this Court is required to examine the claims made in the writ petition from the materials available before it. 12. 10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials available on records have also been carefully examined. 11. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the contesting respondents, this Court is required to examine the claims made in the writ petition from the materials available before it. 12. There is no dispute that the members of the petitioners Association are Statistical Assistants and as per the recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, they were getting a Grade Pay of Rs.3,000/-. Though an extract of the report of the Pay Anomaly Committee, 2010 has been taken recourse to, it does not appear at all that the petitioners Association had approached the said Committee with any grievance. A careful scrutiny of the part of the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Committee, 2010 against the Sl. No. 44 would reveal that it was the grievance of the Statistical Assistants working in the Assam Primary Education, Planning and Statistical Seva Santha, who were Graduates in Mathematics, Statistics and Economics were recommended to be given Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- which was allowed for Graduate Teacher (Science) in ME/MV/Senior Basic Schools. The said recommendation cannot be said to be connected with the present claim made by the petitioners who belong to the Social Welfare Department and at no point of time, had raised any such demand/claim. This Court has also carefully gone through the averments in the writ petition and has not found any materials as to how a case of discrimination is made out vis-a-vis the Statistical Assistants of the Education Department. The annexures appended to the writ petition also do not reveal any such discrimination or give any scope for comparison. 13. The Pay Anomaly Committee is constituted to examine any genuine grievance of a set of employees and there is nothing in this writ petition which would reveal that the petitioners had approached the Pay Anomaly Committee of the year 2010. Much water has flown since then and thereafter the Pay Anomaly Committee, 2017 was constituted and there is no material subsequently brought on record regarding raising of any such grievance before the subsequent Pay Anomaly Committee. This Court has also examined the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (supra) wherein a caveat has been laid in matters of interference by Courts having financial implications. This Court has also examined the parameters laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (supra) wherein a caveat has been laid in matters of interference by Courts having financial implications. The Hon’ble Supreme Court by referring to the earlier judgments in the said field has laid down as follows: “92. In S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [ (2007) 8 SCC 279 ] Markandey Katju, J. in his concurring opinion observed as under : “33. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the court should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive function vide Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen [ (2007) 1 SCC 408 ]. *** 35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay). 36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide State of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [ (2004) 1 SCC 347 ]. 37. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. [ (2002) 6 SCC 72 ] the principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in great detail. In paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body. The 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. The 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. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences vide Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey [ (2000) 8 SCC 580 ].” 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the present is not a fit case for interference. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.