The judgment establishes that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be enforced through a writ petition, and the authority to determine pay scales lies with the executive.

Heard both sides. These writ petitioners are working in various posts coming under the "B" and "C" categories of the third respondent Co-operative Sugar Mills. The petitioners moved this Court earlier by filing writ petitions in W.P.Nos.24395 to 24376 of 2008.

2. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is one and the same, the facts relating to the first writ petition in W.P.No.23428 of 2009 are taken up for discussion. The petitioner Mr.R.Augustin Xavier Arokiasamy was the petitioner in W.P.No.24395 of 2008. The prayer in the earlier writ petitions was for a direction to revise the pay scale to all supervisors of C-Grade employees. Those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 13.10.2008. This Court, without going into the merits of the contentions, directed the second respondent – Commissioner of Sugar to dispose of the representations of the petitioners on merits in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said direction, the second respondent by the impugned order dated 17.2.2009 disposed of the representation of the petitioner and similar orders were passed in respect of other writ petitioners. In the operative portion of the said order, in paragraph Nos.6 and 7, he had observed as follows:-

"....6) However, the post of Wireless Operator has not been brought under Common Cadre System and it is continued to be covered under Wage Board Scale and hence your claim to revise your pay on par with Government Pay Scales as in the case of other Supervisory Grade employees in Common Cadre System cannot be considered.

7) Regarding the Court Order issued in W.P.No.15192/2000, dt.22.4.2003 and in W.A.No.1089 and 4074 of 2004 dt: 12.7.2007, it is informed that, in the above Court Order, the Honble High Court has directed only to revise and refix the pay scale of the Petitioner in the above Writ Petition. Also in the G.O.Ms.NO.123, Industries Department, dt: 30.5.2008, issued based on the above Court Order, directions were issued to the Commissioner of Sugar only to revise the pay scale of the Petitioner in the above Writ Petition and not ordered for revision of pay scales to all Supervisory "C" Grade employees and hence your request for revision of your pay scale in the post of Wireless Operator with effect from 13.2.1991 i.e., the date of joining in the post on par with the Government scale of pay applicable to other Supervisory "C" Grade employees in Erstwhile Common Cadre System cannot be considered."

Challenging the same, the petitioners have come forward to file the present writ petitions.

3. The petitioners were also inspired by the fact that some other employees of the Cooperative Sugar mills, who are similarly placed, have moved this Court with a batch of writ petitions, which came to be disposed of by a common order dated 2.9.2009. In those writ petitions, certain employees employed in various sugar mills in Tamil Nadu coming under the control of the second respondent challenged the similar orders passed by the Commissioner of Sugar before this Court and this Court gave the following direction as found in paragraph No.38 of the order, which reads as follows:-

"38. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed in the following terms:-

(1) The respondents are directed to revise the pay scale of the petitioners on par with the scale of pay of the erstwhile supervisory C category employees, notionally fix the same from the date on which the other erstwhile supervisory C category employees were given the benefit of pay revision and however, pay the arrears only from the month of September 2008 as indicated above.

(2) It is, however, made clear that the employees in supervisory C category, who have not claimed to be treated as common cadre employees, shall be treated to have exercised their option under Section 75 of the Act to remain in non-common cadre services and so they will not be entitled for the benefits of the common cadre services...."

Therefore the petitioners claim that they are ent