IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3687/2008 [OA (D) 168/96] Date of Decision : April 21, 2009 Sh. Kedar Nath Sharma Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and another. Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Dhiman vice Mr. R. Bharti, Advocate, for the petitioner. For the respondents : Mr. R. K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General for the respondents. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner while working as Art & Craft (C&V) Teacher (Rs. 1500-2700) filed the present petition seeking the scale of Fine Art Teacher (TGT) (Rs. 1640-2925). Petitioner is also seeking direction that the respondents be directed to frame the promotion rules qua the promotion of Art and Craft (C&V) Teacher for the next higher post. The main ground on which the parity of pay scale, by applying the doctrine of equal pay for equal work, is sought is that the petitioner as also the Fine Art Teachers are teaching same classes. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 It is a settled position of law that fixation of pay is solely the prerogative of the State being policy decision and until and unless same is capricious, arbitrary and whimsical the Courts should not ordinarily interfere. It is also settled position of law that simply because the two set of employees are discharging same functions and performing same duties that by itself would not be a ground for treating the two posts to be equivalent entitling them to the same pay scale on the basis of principle of equal pay for equal work. [U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and another versus Sant Raj Singh and others (2006) 9 SCC 82; State of Punjab versus Savinderjit Kaur (2004) 4 SCC 58; M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Assn. Versus State of M.P. (2004) 4 SCC 646; State of West Bengal versus T.K. Ghosh (2005) 10 SCC 339; State of Rajasthan versus Gopi Kishan Sen (1993) Supll (1) SCC 522 ] The respondents in their reply have in any event explained that the educational qualification for the post of Fine Art Teacher is different. The educational qualification required for the post of fine Art Teacher is as under: “Matric with Diploma/certificate in fine Arts and drawing after a full time course of 5 years and duration from a recognized University/Institution or its equivalent.” Further it has been clarified that the post of Fine Art Teacher do not exists in all the High Schools. Hence the eligibility criteria for 3 appointment to the posts in issue are different. The principle of equal pay for equal work thus would not apply. The procedure for selection to the post of Fine Art Teacher is also distinct and different in asmuch as Art and Craft Teacher are appointed only on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. Since petitioner has retired the relief clause with regard to the promotional avenues has become infructuous. For the aforesaid reasons the present writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 21, 2009 (PK)