Honble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The intra Court appeal, under the rules of the Court, arises from the judgment of the Honble Single Judge dated 25.9.2007 dismissing the appellants Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 46478 of 2007, which had been preferred against the order of the State Government-respondent No. 1 dated 5.9.2007.

2. We have heard Shri S.S. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

3. It appears that the petitioner-appellant is working as Lab Assistant (Rural). However, he made representation before the State Government claiming pay scale of Lab Assistant (Ayurved), which had been rejected vide order dated 5.9.2007. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred the aforesaid writ petition. The Honble Single Judge having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having noticed that the eligibility of work and the area of work being different held that there could be no comparison between the Lab Assistant (Ayurved) and the Lab Assistant (Rural) and, therefore, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri S.S. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that earlier there were only one cadre of Lab Assistant and common pay scale had been provided. However, subsequently, the Lab Assistant (Ayurved) claimed salary of Lab Technician, which was allowed. The Honble Single Judge by the judgment dated 3.2.1989 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8364 of 1989 directed to the State Government to examine the case and grant the aforesaid pay scale on the ground that their qualification, nature of duties are similar to each other, therefore, they deserve same pay scale. It is further contended that against the aforesaid judgment SLP was dismissed and, therefore, the State Government granted pay scale of Lab Technician to the Lab Assistant (Ayurved). He, therefore, submitted that since the qualification etc. are similar to each other the Lab Assistants (Rural) are entitled to get the same scale, which is paid to Lab Assistant (Ayurved).

5. We are not convinced with the submission for the reason that it is apparent from the order of the State Government dated 5.9.2007 that the qualification, nature of work etc. of the Lab Assistant (Rural) is not similar to that of Lab Assistant (Ayurved). Besides that, admittedly, their cadre is separate and governed by separate rules. Thus, there being no similarity in the nature of work, qualification and the place of work, the parity in the pay scale cannot be claimed.

6. The principle of equal pay for equal work can neither be applied mechanically nor in a casual manner nor would be attracted only on the ground that nomenclature or some of the conditions of work or qualification etc. are similar. It depends upon a variety of factors and even a single difference may justify difference in the pay scale. It is difficult to exhaustively give all such factors or circumstances wherein the difference in pay can be justified but some of such aspect may be given hereunder as having been laid down even by the Honble Apex Court, since this issue has time and again cropped up before the Honble Apex Court and this Court frequently. The law has been laid down by the Honble Apex Court in catena of cases, some of which are referred to herein-below.

7. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India and others, (1982) 1 SCC 618 the Apex Court considering the principle of equal pay for equal work held as under :

"It is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d) of the Constitution, the Apex Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer." (Paras 7 & 8)

8. In R.D. Gupta and others v. Lt. Go