CWP-T No.2186 of 2008. 29.12.2008 Present: Ms. Archana Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Additional Advocate General for the respondents. The petitioner was appointed in the pay-scale of Rs.400- 600/- as Store Keeper. The pay-scale of Rs.400-600/- was revised to Rs.950-1800/- with effect from 1.1.1986. Ms. Archana Dutt submits that in other departments, namely, Mining Department, H.P. State Electricity Board, General Industries Corporation (Industries Department) and H.P. Public Works Department (B&R) the pay-scale has been revised to Rs.1800-3200/-. The petitioner is serving in the Irrigation and Public Health Department. He cannot seek parity with the employees of the H.P. General Industries Corporation and H.P. State Electricity Board. So far as the department of Mining is concerned, the designation is Store Keeper-cum-Assistant. In the H.P. State Electricity Board also, the designation is Store- Keeper/Head Store-Keeper. In the department of Himachal Pradesh Public Works Department (B&R), the nomenclature of the post is Store-Keeper/Assistant Store-Keeper. In the notification meant for the employees of B&R, the pay-scale of Store-Keeper is Rs.400-600/- which was revised to Rs.950-1800/-. The learned Additional Advocate General has also brought to the notice of the Court the duties being discharged by the petitioner in Irrigation and Public Health Department vis-à-vis the duties being discharged by the employees working in H.P. State Electricity Board as Store-Keeper. The fixation of pay- scale and parity in the pay-scales is to be decided primarily by the employer. The employer is the best suited to fix the pay-scale after taking into consideration the duties being discharged by a particular incumbent. This Court will interfere in this matter only if the petitioner is able to establish by tangible evidence that the petitioner is discharging the same or similar duties and the Recruitment and Promotion Rules are more or less similar. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish that he is discharging the same or similar duties at par with his counter-parts in other departments. In view of the observations made hereinabove, there is no force in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. December 29, 2008. (sck)