Page No.# 1/53 GAHC040001562025 2026:GAU-AP:810 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/49/2025 Smti Lupa Samon and 137 Ors Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Shri B CC Samon presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Chimpu Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 2: Hage Badal Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Hage Tanyo presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Chief Engineer Water Resources Department Eastern Zone Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh 3: Yaba Rime Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Tumya Rime presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Superintendent Engineer PHE Aalo Circle West Siang District Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 2/53 4: Karbin Kamduk Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Likar Kamduk presently serving as Superintendent PHE and Water Supply Department Itanagar Yachuli Circle Arunachal Pradesh. 5: Tony Lollen Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Marto Lollen presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Chief Engineer PHE and Water Supply Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 6: Smti Mome Kato Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Wife of Vijum Yomgum presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Superintendent Engineer PHE and WS Circle Miao Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 7: Smti Subu Pubyang Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Subu Tacho presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Superintendent Engineer PHE and WS Circle Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 8: Roka Padu Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Bero Padu presently serving as Superintendent Page No.# 3/53 Office of the Chief Engineer PHE and WS Eastern Zone Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 9: Kaling Borang Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late M Borang presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Fishery Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Kishore Sen Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Kanyalal Sen presently serving as Superintendent Department of Public Libraries Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 11: Rubu Punung Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Rubu Mudo presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Land Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 12: Takhe Tana Age: 47 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Takhe Tapu presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Land Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 13: Smti Tame Yape Age: 53 Occupation : Page No.# 4/53 Address:Wife of Shri Tarh Tabin presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Panchayat Raj Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 14: Debojit Pegu Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Siladhar Pegu presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Panchayat Raj Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 15: Omen Jamoh Age: 59 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late B Jerang presently serving as Superintendent Rural Development Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 16: Aloke Chaudhary Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Son of Late G C Chaudhary presently serving as Superintendent Rural Development Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 17: Subhash Nimacho Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Lisang Nimacho presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Tourism Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 18: Millo Sanbyo Page No.# 5/53 Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Millo Chilyang presently serving as Superintendent Superintendent Engineer WRD Daporijo Circle Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 19: Pradeep Dutta Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late S B Dutta presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Directorate of Geology and Mining Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 20: Milo Lali Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Milo Guro presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Department of Town Planning Mowb-II Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 21: Tapi Dorjee Youden Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Wife of Er Tapi Rai presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 22: T Y Sora Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Lama Wangchu presently serving as Superintendent office of the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries Itanagar Page No.# 6/53 Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 23: Smti Tsering Chhojom Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Cherry presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 24: Rokin Megu Age: 51 Occupation : Address:Son of Osam Megu presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 25: Techi Ranchi Age: 49 Occupation : Address:Son of Techi Tazum presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 26: Babu Kunchandy Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Son of Koshy Kunchandy presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 27: Dao Yirang Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Jokit Yirang presently serving as Superintendent Page No.# 7/53 Office of the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 28: Smti Omen Yirang Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Apil Yirang presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 29: Smti Neena Tapak Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Talut Tamuk presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 30: Koj Tami Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Koj Tagiang presently serving as Superintendent Department of Labour and Employment Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 31: Taro Tallo Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Taro Tailyang presently serving as Superintendent Rural Work Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 32: Smti Ree Taipodia Age: 52 Occupation : Page No.# 8/53 Address:Daughter of Late Gunri Taipodia presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Director Horticulture Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 33: Miss Nyachi Ragi Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Shri Tanya Ragi presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Director Horticulture Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 34: Yomto Riba Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Karyom Riba presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Director Audit and Pension Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 35: Anthony Pertin Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Omak Pertin presently serving as Superintendent Office of the Director Audit and Pension Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 36: Smti Mumtam Pertin Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Son of Kaku Pertin presently serving as Superintendent Director of Textile and Handicraft Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 37: Kago Omo Page No.# 9/53 Age: 46 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Kago Donyi presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Industry Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 38: Takhe Muriyang Age: 49 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Takhe Laling presently serving as Superintendent Department of Economics and Statistic Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 39: Smti Annu Pertin Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Promedra Regrom presently serving as Superintendent Department of IPR Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 40: Smti Hage Yamang Age: 47 Occupation : Address:Son of Radhe Tajum presently serving as Superintendent Department of IPR Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 41: Michi Jailang Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Michi Duma presently serving as Superintendent Department of IPR Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 10/53 42: Michi Challo Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Michi Tacho presently serving as Superintendent Department of Urban Development Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 43: Jishu Deb Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Son of Late J K Deb presently serving as Superintendent Department of Urban Developmet Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 44: Smti Tailyang Diming Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Wife of Tailyang Naku presently serving as Superintendent Department of Urban Development Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 45: Smti Henpu Lollen Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Jondo Lollen presently serving as Superintendent Department of Disaster Management Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 46: Smti Dawa Droima Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Sange Norbu presently serving as Superintendent Department of Women and Child Development Itanagar Page No.# 11/53 Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 47: Nani Talang Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Nani Talang presently serving as Superintendent Department of Elementary Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 48: Gyati Lailang Age: 46 Occupation : Address:Son of Gyati Modi presently serving as Superintendent Department of Elementary Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 49: Smti Phool Kumari Tanga Age: 51 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Rungdo Tanga presently serving as Superintendent Department of Elementary Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 50: Rebom Zirdo Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Taro Zirdo presently serving as Superintendent Department of Secondary Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 51: Bini Tacha Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Bini Teshi presently serving as Superintendent Page No.# 12/53 Department of Secondary Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 52: Smti Gumken Basar Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Kargum Basar presently serving as Superintendent Department of Secondary Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 53: Smti Jarbom Kayi Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Ijar Kayi presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Higher and Technical Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 54: Smti Bengia Yeri Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Bengia Kagam presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Higher and Technical Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 55: Nabam Arun Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Nabam Tapi presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Higher and Technical Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 56: Smti karmik Dabi Age: 55 Occupation : Page No.# 13/53 Address:Daughter of Chakar Dabi presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Higher and Technical Education Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 57: Smti Kime Riba Age: 59 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Takhe Riba presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Animal Husbandry Nirjuli Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 58: Karo Cheda Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Reda Cheda presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Animal Husbandry Nirjuli Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 59: Smti G Kato Taba Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late D Kato presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Animal Husbandry Nirjuli Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 60: Habung Tago Age: 60 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Habung Tana presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Family Welfare Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 61: Koj Tapa Page No.# 14/53 Age: 59 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Koj Hassang presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Health Service Naharlagun Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 62: M T Abing Age: 59 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Millo Tagyung presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Health Service Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 63: Tok Tadik Comder Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tok Tage Comder presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Family Welfare Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 64: Lukgum Romin Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Late M Romin presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 65: W Lobakhow Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Late R Lobakhow presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Page No.# 15/53 Arunachal Pradesh. 66: Miss N P Hina Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Nabam Tapin presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 67: Smti Karnya Kamdak Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Chikar Bam presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 68: Smti Toko Momen Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Toko Riba presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change Department Banderdewa Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 69: N Kamgo Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Maryum Kamgo presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change (Wild Life) Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 70: T Songthing Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Samthok Songthing presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change (Wild Life) Department Page No.# 16/53 Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 71: V Kamcham Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Late J Kamcham presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change (WP) Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 72: Payek Goi Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tagam Goi presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change (Wild Life) Department Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 73: Smti D Lego Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Dana Lego presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change (Wild Life) Department Deomali Tirap District Arunachal Pradesh. 74: K Modi Age: 54 Occupation : Address:presently serving as Superintendent Forest and Climate Change (Wild Life) Department Pasighat East Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. 75: Smti Nyame Koyu Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Taming Jomoh presently serving as Superintendent Page No.# 17/53 Directorate of Agriculture Naharlagun Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 76: Smti Padi Yadi Age: 59 Occupation : Address:Wife of Late Kuru Hinda presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Agriculture Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 77: Puhoja Tangjang Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri P Tangjang presently serving as Superintendent Director General of Police Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 78: Smti Nang Narifa Chowpoo Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Chow Inde Chowpoo presently serving as Superintendent Director General of Police Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 79: Taro Talo Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Taro Chowpoo presently serving as Superintendent Office of CE RWD (Coord) Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 80: Rajeet Tayeng Page No.# 18/53 Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Late A Tayeng presently serving as Superintendent Office of the CE RWD (Coord) Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 81: Tajin Tayum Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Tajing Haglu presently serving as Superintendent Office of the CE RWD (E/zone) Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 82: Koj Tupe Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Koj Panyur presently serving as Superintendent Office of the CE RWD (W/Zone) Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 83: Smti Aman Riba Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Shri Oten Jongkey presently serving as Superintendent RWD Division Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 84: Johny Matey Lowang Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late T Matey presently serving as Superintendent RWD Division Page No.# 19/53 Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 85: Smti Gitani Talom Tayeng Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Taplam Talom presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Research Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 86: Iba Koyu Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Bai Koyu presently serving as Superintendent Directorate of Research Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 87: Smti Hemm Loyi Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Shri R Loyi presently serving as Superintendent Hydro Power Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 88: Hibu Laling Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Hibu Ropo presently serving as Superintendent Hydro Power Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 89: Lod Tale Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Lod Tagia Page No.# 20/53 presently serving as Superintendent Hydro Power Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 90: Tage Ribya Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tage Tabin presently serving as Superintendent Hydro Power Tezu Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 91: Nada Takey Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Nada Pilang presently serving as Superintendent Hydro Power Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 92: Kuru Gambo Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Kuru Neha presently serving as Superintendent Power Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 93: Smti Nani Yani Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Wife of Late Kago Rika presently serving as Superintendent Power Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 94: Dakkar Riba Age: 56 Page No.# 21/53 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Modak Riba presently serving as Superintendent Power Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 95: Smti Tilek Perme Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Agam Perme presently serving as Superintendent Power Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 96: Iken Nyodu Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Liyi Nyodu presently serving as Superintendent Power Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 97: Deyi Ori Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Binde Ori Eshi presently serving as Superintendent Power Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 98: Ms S C Musobi Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Pemo Musobi presently serving as Superintendent PWD Central Zone (A) Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 22/53 99: Johng Tabing Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Gallong Tabing presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD Circle Nobia Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 100: Smti R J Ragi Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Chumbi Butia presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD Western Zone Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 101: Heli Tana Tara Age: 59 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tana Teri presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD Capital Circle Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 102: Anand Peei Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Heli Peei presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD SID and P Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 103: Chow Ming Moungkang Age: 58 Occupation : Page No.# 23/53 Address:Son of Late Chow Mi Moungkang presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD CE (E/Z) Namsai Namsai District Arunachal Pradesh. 104: Nyamar Nyodu Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Lirik Nyodu presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD Vigilance and Training Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 105: Tara Leya Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tapak Leya presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD Circle Daporijo Upper Subansiri District Arunachal Pradesh. 106: Smti Tsewang Pemo Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Shri Pema Tsewang presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD Coordination Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 107: Tato Riram Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Take Riram presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD Circle Boleng Siang District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 24/53 108: Sushi Dorjee Age: 59 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Chichu Norbu presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD Circle Jairampur Changlang District Arunachal Pradesh. 109: Smti kago Yana Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Takhe Tajo presently serving as Superintendent Department PWD YCC Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 110: Dawa Dorjee Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Laida Tsering presently serving as Superintendent PWD Department Tezu Division Lohit District Arunachal Pradesh. 111: Balok Teng Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Son of Shri Pelom Teng presently serving as Superintendent PWD Department CE (HW) Zone Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 112: Yorter Hali Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tayor Hali presently serving as Superintendent Page No.# 25/53 PWD Department CE (NW) Zone Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 113: Tajar Nilo Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Lone Nijo presently serving as Superintendent PWD Department Yachuli Circle Keyi Panyor District Arunachal Pradesh. 114: Smti oken Jini Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Daughter of late Tepi Apang presently serving as Superintendent PWD Department CE (CZ-B) Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 115: Smti Bani Taku Age: 51 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Tacham Taku presently serving as Superintendent Department of Sports and Youth Affairs Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 116: Smti Anju Riju Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Khollong Riju presently serving as Superintendent Department of Registrar of Cooperative Society Naharlagun Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 26/53 117: Smti Yater Mize Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Doge Kamduk presently serving as Superintendent Department of Legal Metrology Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 118: Smti Hage Kaku Age: 42 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Shri H K Shala presently serving as Superintendent Department of Legal metrology Naharlagun Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 119: Nangram Wangsa Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Son of Late C Wangsa presently serving as Superintendent Department of Transport Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 120: Smti Oman Tatak Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Tallom Tatak presently serving as Superintendent Department of Printing Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 121: Smti Jasinta Nabam Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Tana Nabam presently serving as Superintendent Department of Printing Naharlagun Papum Pare District Page No.# 27/53 Arunachal Pradesh. 122: Smti Neelam Yabin Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Wife of Shri Joram Tayam presently serving as Superintendent Department of APEDA Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 123: Bengia Tara Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Bengia Lelly presently serving as Superintendent Department of Women and Child Development Yupia Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 124: Kesang Ngenda Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Sange Wangchu presently serving as Superintendent Department of Women and Child Development Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 125: Ela Linggi Age: 50 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Enga Linggi presently serving as Superintendent Department of Women and Child Development Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 126: Smti Sangeeta Lowang Age: 58 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late P C Bura Gohain presently serving as Superintendent Department of State Transport Page No.# 28/53 Pappu Nallah Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 127: Smti Chrismai Tasar Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Late Tanya Tasar presently serving as Superintendent Department of State Transport Papu Nallah Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 128: Hae Tanio Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Tage Phussang presently serving as Superintendent Department of State Transport Papu Nallah Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 129: Lomkar Ete Age: 54 Occupation : Address:Son of Mellom Ete presently serving as Superintendent Power Department Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 130: Atan Ering Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Son of Kunu Ering presently serving as Superintendent Department of Civil Supplies Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 131: Gyati Koyang Page No.# 29/53 Age: 56 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Gyati Lento presently serving as Superintendent Department of Civil Supplies Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 132: Hage Takha Age: 55 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Hage Rambo presently serving as Superintendent Department of Civil Supplies Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 133: T L Tamin Age: 53 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tatum Gadi presently serving as Superintendent Department of Civil Supplies Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 134: Smti Koj Rillung Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Koj Buda presently serving as Superintendent Department of Civil Supplies Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 135: Smti Gyati Pudu Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Daughter of Tailyang Ekha Rambo presently serving as Superintendent Department of Civil Supplies Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 30/53 136: Tapak Nayam Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Son of Late Tagia Nayam presently serving as Superintendent Department of Civil Supplies Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 137: Hamnyok Tayeng Age: 57 Occupation : Address:Son of Tulsam Tayeng presently serving as Superintendent Department of Civil Supplies Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. 138: Dagge Riba Age: 52 Occupation : Address:Son of M Riba presently serving as Superintendent Department of Civil Supplies Itanagar Papum Pare District Arunachal Pradesh. VERSUS The State of AP and 3 Ors Age: 0 Occupation : Address:through the Chief Secretary Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 2:The Chief Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. 3:The Secretary (Finance) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 31/53 Itanagar. 4:The High Level Standing Committee (Pay Anomaly) Age: 0 Occupation : Address:through the Chief Secretary-cum- Chairman High Level Standing Committee (Pay Anomaly) Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Itanagar. ------------ Advocate for : Dicky Panging Sr. Adv Advocate for : GA (AP) appearing for The State of AP and 3 Ors: Advocate , , , appearing for 2, 3, 4, respectively. :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE Date on which judgment is reserved : 30.07.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 19.08.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the operative of the judgment? : No Whether the full judgment has been pronounced? : Yes Page No.# 32/53 JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV) Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Takam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the Order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, High Level Standing Committee (Pay Anomaly), whereby the claim of the petitioners, who are serving as Superintendents under various Directorates of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, for grant of pay and allowances at par with the Section Officers serving in the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat has been rejected. The petitioners seek a direction upon the respondent authorities to upgrade their scale of pay at par with that of the Section Officer of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat with effect from 01.01.2006, along with all consequential benefits. 3. The petitioners are presently serving as Superintendents in various Directorates under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners have entered the Arunachal Pradesh Ministerial Service at different grades and, in due course, were promoted to the post of Superintendent. The petitioners claim that the ministerial establishments in the various Directorates, District Administration and the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat comprise substantially similar hierarchical posts, namely, Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, Assistant and Superintendent. It is stated that, initially, the posts of Superintendent in the Civil Secretariat as well as in other departments were governed by the common Group-C Recruitment Rules, 1982 and carried the same scale of pay. Page No.# 33/53 Subsequently, separate Recruitment Rules were framed for the Secretariat ministerial service, being the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1989, and for the Superintendent cadre in other departments, being the General Arunachal Pradesh Superintendent Group-B Non-Gazetted (Ministerial) Common Recruitment Rules, 2011. However, despite such separate Rules, the method of appointment to the post of Superintendent continued to be substantially similar, namely, by promotion from the grade of Assistant after completion of five years of regular service. 4. Subsequently, by order dated 14.01.1998, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh,the Superintendents, Assistants and Upper Division Clerks serving in the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat were granted the revised scales of pay pursuant to the recommendations of the 5thCentral Pay Commission with effect from 01.04.1998 and the post of Superintendent in the Civil Secretariat was re-designated as Section Officer and the pay and allowances were revised to Rs. 6500-200-10500 per month.However, the corresponding benefit was not extended to the ministerial employees serving in other departments. Accordingly, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee to look into the issue and pursuant to the recommendation of a Cabinet Sub-Committee, the Secretary (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002 extending the pay and allowances of the ministerial employees of other departments, from UDC to Superintendent, at par with their counterparts in the Civil Secretariat. Consequently, the Superintendents in the Directorates and the Section Officers in the Civil Secretariat continued to receive the same pay and allowances of 6500-10500- 4600 Grade Pay following implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission Page No.# 34/53 with effect from 01.01.2006. 5. However, by an order dated 31.03.2010, issued by the Commissioner (General Administration), in pursuance of an Office memorandum dated 30.08.2008, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the scale of pay of Section Officers/SRA of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat was enhanced to higher pay scale of 8000-13500 PB 3-5400 Grade Pay on completion of four years of service, whereas the Superintendents serving in the various Directorates continued in the earlier scale of payof 6500-10500-4600 Grade Pay. The disparity further continued after implementation of the 7thCentral Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2016, when the Superintendents serving in the other departments were granted a minimum basic pay of Rs. 44,900 by placing at Level 7, whereas the Section Officers of the Civil Secretariat were granted minimum basic pay of Rs. 47,600 by placing at Level 8 and on completion of four years of regular service,the basic pay increased to Rs. 53,100 at Level 9. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid disparity, four Superintendents and five Administrative Officers had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 146/2017, seeking parity in pay with the Section Officers and Under Secretaries, respectively, of the Civil Secretariat. This Court, by judgment and order dated 24.08.2022, directed the High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomalies, headed by the Chief Secretary, to examine whether the employees working in departments/directorates other than the Secretariat Administration Department were entitled to the same scale of pay or whether there existed overwhelming, good and acceptable reasons for retaining the disparity. The Committee was further directed to take note of the observation of this Court Page No.# 35/53 that there did not otherwise appear to be any difference in the nature of work performed by the employees of the other departments and those of the Secretariat Administration Department, unless some tangible, acceptable and reasonable difference was found to exist. 7. Pursuant thereto, the High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomaly held a meeting on 04.07.2024 and thereafter, the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 was issued by the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, High Level Standing Committee (Pay Anomaly), rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The Committee mainly relied upon the alleged differences in the nature of work, transferability, Recruitment Rules, mode of recruitment and promotional avenues of the Directorate/District Ministerial Cadre vis-à-vis the Secretariat Service Cadre. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the said order on the ground that the Committee failed to undertake the exercise directed by this Court in its judgment dated 24.08.2022 and also failed to consider the effect of the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002. 8. Mr. D. Panging, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 has been passed mechanically and without properly examining the question which was required to be considered pursuant to the judgment and order dated 24.08.2022. He submits that the Committee was required to identify a tangible, acceptable and reasonable distinction in the nature of duties and responsibilities of the Superintendents serving in the Directorates vis-à-vis the Section Officers serving in the Civil Secretariat which could justify the continuing disparity in their pay. Instead, the Committee has merely referred to the fact that the two cadres’ function under different establishments, Civil Secretariat staffs work at highest level of Government establishment hierarchy, are governed by different Recruitment Rules, have Page No.# 36/53 different modes of recruitment and promotional avenues and are subject to different posting conditions. He submits that such distinctions, by themselves, do not establish any rational basis for prescribing different scales of pay for posts which had earlier enjoyed parity and involve considerably similar ministerial functions. 9. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Committee has failed to consider the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002 issued by the Secretary (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby, pursuant to the Government's decision, the ministerial employees of the other departments, from UDCs to Superintendents, were specifically granted pay and allowances at par with their counterparts in the Civil Secretariat.The said policy decision continued to operate and the petitioners and the Section Officers of the Civil Secretariat were, in fact, receiving the same pay and allowances even after implementation of the 6thCentral Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006. He submits that the subsequent enhancement granted to the Section Officers, without extending the corresponding benefit to the Superintendents, has resulted in an unjustified and discriminatory disparity. 10. Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the impugned decision is also vitiated by non-consideration of the relevant materials and the specific direction issued by this Court. He submits that the Committee has not demonstrated any tangible difference in the actual nature of duties performed by the two categories of employees and has proceeded merely on the basis that they function in different establishments. Such a distinctioncannot by itself constitute a valid basis for differential pay. He submits that the action of the respondents in continuing the disparity, despite the earlier policy decision Page No.# 37/53 embodied in the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002, is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 11. In support of his submission, Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the following judgments: (i) Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1988) 4 SCC 534 (ii) Commissioner of Police, Bombay Vs. Gordhandas Bhanji, reported in 1951 SCC 1088 12. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also relied on a judgment of this Court dated 01.11.2016, passed in WP(C) No. 495(AP)/2015, Shri Taking Talom & 2 Ors. Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & 5 Ors., to contend that this Court had directed enhancement of the grade pay of the Administrative Officers (Judicial) of the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court at par with the Superintendents/Section Officers of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat. He submits that the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial) in the Itanagar Permanent Bench is analogous to the post of Superintendent in the Directorates and pursuant to the said judgment, the grade pay of the Administrative Officers (Judicial) was accordingly enhanced at par with the Section Officers of the Civil Secretariat. 13. On the other hand, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State respondents, submits that the ministerial staff of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat and those serving in the Directorates/Districts constitute separate cadres governed by distinct Recruitment Rules and therefore, no comparison can legitimately be drawn between the two. The Civil Secretariat is the highest office of the Government where policy decisions are Page No.# 38/53 formulated and having regard to the nature and importance of the functions discharged therein, the Secretariat Service has been provided with separate Recruitment Rules, including mandatory level training. He submits that the Assistant Section Officers, who constitute the feeder grade for Section Officers, are recruited through different modes, including direct recruitment through the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and promotion, whereas the ministerial staff of the Directorates/Districts are recruited at the level of UDCs and LDCs and thereafter promoted through the respective hierarchy of Assistant, Superintendent and Administrative Officer. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the framing or amendment of Recruitment Rules, re-designation of posts and upgrading of posts are matters of policy within the prerogative of the Government, which may take such decisions from time to time having regard to the exigencies of administration and the requirement of efficient functioning of the Government. He submits that the Government has consciously provided separate and fair treatment to the staff and officers functioning at the highest level of the Government establishment. The fact that the two cadres may have enjoyed similar status or pay in the pastcannot constitute a basis for determining their present status, particularly when the Recruitment Rules governing the Secretariat cadre have subsequently been amended/framed. 15. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the subsequent enhancement of the pay of the Section Officers/SRAs in the Civil Secretariat was made in accordance with the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 30.08.2008, the corresponding notification and the Office Memorandum dated 05.01.2009 issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and that the State Page No.# 39/53 Government follows the Central Secretariat and Central Pay Commission pattern with such modifications as may be considered necessary. He submits that the Section Officers are Group-B Gazetted Officers and the Under Secretaries are Group-A Officers, and therefore their posts cannot be treated as analogous to the posts of Superintendents and Administrative Officers in the Directorates. 16. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the distinction is not merely formal but relates to the nature and level of functions discharged by the two cadres. The staff and officers of the Secretariat assist in formulation of Government policies and in taking various administrative decisions, whereas the staff and officers of the Directorates and District Administration mainly implement the policies and orders so formulated. He also submits that, whenever any clarification or interpretation of Government policies, rules or notifications is required, the same is undertaken at the Secretariat level. Therefore, the two sets of employees, functioning at different levels of the Government establishment and governed by different Recruitment Rules, cannot be treated as identical or as counterparts of each other. 17. As regards the reliance placed by the petitioners on the judgment dated 01.11.2016 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 495(AP)/2015, learned Additional Advocate General submits that the said judgment itself made it clear that the enhancement granted to the Administrative Officers (Judicial) of the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Court would not be construed as a precedent for granting similar benefits to Administrative Officers serving under the State Government. The said decision, therefore, cannot be relied upon as a basis for claiming parity with the Secretariat employees, particularly when the determination of pay scales and the structure of the Secretariat Service are matters of policy. Page No.# 40/53 18. Mr. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the High Level Standing Committee, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, had examined the relevant aspects, including the difference in the level and nature of work, Recruitment Rules and designations, and had rightly concluded that the Superintendents of the Directorates/District Administration and the Section Officers of the Secretariat are not counterparts of each other. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 19. In support of his submissions, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Assam Ayurvedic Doctors Service Association & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in 2023 (4) GL 593 (Gauhati High Court) (ii) Delhi Medical Technical Employees Vs. Union of India & Ors., passed in WP(C) No. 12205/2019 (Delhi High Court) (iii) ITGOA & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., passed in WP(C) No. 1144/2026 (Delhi High Court) 20. While rejoining, Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondents' contention that the ministerial staff of the Civil Secretariat and those serving in other departments constitute separate cadres governed by distinct Recruitment Rules does not, by itself, justify the disparity in pay. He submits that the relevant consideration is the actual nature of duties, responsibilities and functional roles discharged by the employees, which, in the present case, are considerably similar. He submits that merely describing the Page No.# 41/53 Civil Secretariat as the “highest office” of the Government cannot constitute a rational basis for denying parity in pay and service conditions to employees performing comparable functions in other departments. 21. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the existence of different modes or channels of recruitment cannot also defeat the claim for parity, particularly when the grievance relates to the discriminatory treatment of employees after their entry into service. The respondents have failed to place any cogent material to demonstrate that the nature and responsibilities of the duties discharged by the Secretariat staff are qualitatively different so as to justify the disparity in pay. 22. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioners, while serving as ministerial staff in various departments, discharge multifaceted responsibilities, including field-related coordination, implementation of Government schemes, maintenance of records, public dealing and time-bound administrative functions. He submits that that, in several instances, the duties performed by the petitioners are more demanding and extensive than those performed by the ministerial staff of the Secretariat, particularly having regard to the resource constraints, field pressures and direct public interface involved in their work. 23. Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the respondents' statement that the enhancement of standards in the Secretariat justifies the disparity is unsupported by any material demonstrating that the duties of the Secretariat staff have undergone such qualitative transformation as would warrant differential treatment of the petitioners. Therefore, he submits that the respondents have failed to establish any rational or tangible basis for continuing the disparity in the scales of pay between the petitioners and the Section Officers of the Civil Secretariat. Page No.# 42/53 24. Due consideration has been extended to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 25. Essentially, the issue which arises for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the decision taken by the High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomaly, pursuant to the judgment and order dated 24.08.2022, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 146/2017, rejecting the claim of the petitioners, who are serving as Superintendents under various Directorates of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, for parity in pay and allowances with the Section Officers serving in the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat, for parity in pay with the Section Officers of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat, calls for interference in exercise of the power of judicial review. 26. The claim of the petitioners is that the ministerial establishments of the Secretariat and the various Directorates have similar hierarchical posts and that, initially and over the years, the posts of Superintendent in the Secretariat as well as in the other departments were governed by the common Group-C Recruitment Rules, 1982 and carried the same scale of pay. It is also not in dispute that, pursuant to the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002, the ministerial employees of the other departments from the grade of UDC to Superintendent were granted pay and allowances at par with their counterparts in the Civil Secretariat and such parity continued even after implementation of the 6thCentral Pay Commission. 27. The aforesaid historical background, however, has to be considered along with the subsequent evolution of the service structure of the two cadres. Though the two categories initially formed part of a common service structure Page No.# 43/53 under the Group-C Recruitment Rules, 1982, separate Recruitment Rules were subsequently framed for the Secretariat ministerial service and for the Superintendent cadre in the other departments. The Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1989 govern the Secretariat ministerial service, whereas the Superintendent cadre in the other departments is governed by the General Arunachal Pradesh Superintendent Group-B Non-Gazetted (Ministerial) Common Recruitment Rules, 2011. It is true that the method of appointment to the post of Superintendent under the respective Rules continued to be substantially similar, namely, by promotion from the grade of Assistant upon completion of five years of regular service. However, the existence of a common or similar promotional qualification at one stage of the service cannot, by itself, establish that the two cadres are identical in all other material respects or that they must necessarily carry the same scale of pay. 28. It is in the aforesaid background that the earlier judgment and order dated 24.08.2022, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 146/2017 requires to be considered. This Court, while disposing of the said writ petition, did not direct grant of parity in pay to the petitioners therein. Instead, having noticed the grievance relating to the disparity in pay, this Court directed the High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomalies, headed by the Chief Secretary, to examine whether the employees working in departments/directorates other than the Secretariat Administration Department were entitled to the same scale of pay as the employees of the Secretariat Administration Department or whether there existed overwhelming, good and acceptable reasons for retaining the disparity. The Committee was further directed to take note of the observation that there did not otherwise appear to be any difference in the nature of work Page No.# 44/53 performed by the employees of the other departments and those of the Secretariat Administration Department, unless the Committee was of the view that some tangible, acceptable and reasonable difference did exist. 29. The aforesaid direction, therefore, cannot be construed to mean a determination by this Court that the Superintendents serving in the Directorates and the Section Officers serving in the Civil Secretariat were identically situated or were entitled, as a matter of right, to parity in pay. The exercise that was directed to the High Level Standing Committee was to examine the claim and ascertain whether there existed tangible, acceptable and reasonable differences between the two cadres which would furnish a basis for parity or disparity in their scales of pay. It is, therefore, necessary to examine whether the Committee, pursuant to the aforesaid direction, considered the relevant aspects and whether the conclusion arrived at by it suffers from such arbitrariness or infirmity as would warrant interference by this Court. 30. It is noticed that pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomaly considered the matter in its meeting held on 04.07.2024. The Committee appears to have considered, amongst others, the difference in the nature of work of the ministerial staff of the Directorate/District establishments and the Civil Secretariat; the fact that the Directorate Ministerial Cadre and the Secretariat Service Cadre are governed by different Recruitment Rules; the difference in the mode of recruitment; and the difference in the promotional avenues available to the respective cadres. The Committee also considered that the two cadres function in different institutional establishments and have different posting and transfer arrangements. Upon Page No.# 45/53 consideration of the aforesaid aspects, the Committee concluded that the Directorate/District Ministerial Cadre and the Secretariat Service Cadre are not similarly situated and that tangible, acceptable and reasonable differences do exists. 31. The main contention of the petitioners is that the aforesaid distinctions considered by the Committee do not establish any tangible difference in the actual nature of duties and responsibilities discharged by the two categories of employees. According to the petitioners, the duties performed by the Superintendents in the various Directorates are substantially similar and in some respects, even more onerous than those performed by the Section Officers in the Civil Secretariat. The petitioners have also placed reliance upon the Charter of Duties of the ministerial staff of various departments in support of such contention. 32. It is, however, significant to notice that the burden in the present case is upon the petitioners to establish that the posts with which they seek parity are comparable in all material respects so as to justify judicial intervention in the matter of pay fixation. The mere fact that both categories discharge ministerial or administrative functions, or that there may be some similarity or overlapping in their day-to-day duties, cannot by itself establish equivalence of the two posts. The question has to be examined having regard to the nature and level of the functions, the service structure, Recruitment Rules, method of recruitment, promotional avenues and other relevant conditions governing the respective cadres. Page No.# 46/53 33. Upon anxious consideration ofthe present case, this Court finds that the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the nature of work performed by the Superintendents in the Directorates is the same as that performed by the Section Officers in the Civil Secretariat. The materials placed on record may establish that the petitioners discharge important and complicated ministerial functions in their respective departments, including coordination, implementation of Government schemes, maintenance of records and public dealing. However, the discharge of such functions, by itself, does not establish equivalence with the functions and responsibilities attached to the post of Section Officer in the Secretariat. The petitioners have also not been able to demolish the distinction considered by the Committee in the institutional role and level at which the two cadres function. 34. The distinction in the Recruitment Rules is also a relevant consideration. As noticed above, although the two cadres had a common origin and the promotional qualification for the post of Superintendent remained substantially similar, the two services are presently governed by separate Recruitment Rules and form part of distinct service structures. The Secretariat Service has its own hierarchy and recruitment mechanism, whereas the Directorate/District Ministerial Cadre has a different hierarchy and service progression. The difference in the promotional avenues is also material. The Directorate Ministerial Cadre proceeds through the hierarchy of LDC, UDC, Assistant, Superintendent and Administrative Officer, whereas the Secretariat Service Cadre has a distinct promotional structure leading from JSA, SSA and ASO to Section Officer and thereafter to higher posts. The petitioners have not demonstrated that these differences in the service structure are irrelevant to the Page No.# 47/53 question of equation of the two posts. 35. Likewise, the fact that the mode of appointment to the post of Superintendent in the two cadres may, at a particular stage, be substantially similar cannot obliterate the other differences in the respective service structures. Equivalence of posts cannot be determined by isolating one factor while ignoring the totality of the conditions governing the two cadres. The petitioners have, therefore, failed to establish that the duties and responsibilities or nature of work, Recruitment Rules, promotional avenues and other relevant service conditions of the two cadres are substantially the same so as to entitled them to grant of parity in pay. 36. The reliance placed by the petitioners upon the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002 also would not lead to a different conclusion. The said Office Memorandum is undoubtedly relevant in appreciating the earlier position over the years, as pursuant thereto the ministerial employees of the other departments from UDC to Superintendent were granted pay and allowances at par with their counterparts in the Civil Secretariat. It is also not disputed that such parity continued for a period of time. However, the said Office Memorandum cannot be construed as an irrevocable guarantee that the pay structure of the two cadres could never thereafter be altered or that the Government was permanently precluded from making a distinction between the two services on the basis of subsequent changes in their service structure, Recruitment Rules, functions and promotional avenues. Historical parity, by itself, does not create an indefeasible right to parity for all times to come. Page No.# 48/53 37. It is a settled proposition of law that equation of posts and determination of pay scale/salary is a complex matter, which should ordinarily be left to the expert body and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Grant of pay parity by the Court may result in a cascading effect and have adverse consequences, particularly if the limitations governing the applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work are not kept in view. The equation of posts and determination of pay scale is primarily a function of the executive and not of the judiciary. Therefore, ordinarily, the Court will not enter upon the task of job evaluation. Reliance in this context may be placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors., reported in 1993 Supp(1) SCC 153, and Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru Vs. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors., reported in (2021) 19 SCC 128. 38. The aforesaid principle assumes greater significance and is applied in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomaly, headed by the Chief Secretary, was specifically entrusted with the examination of the grievance of the petitioners by the direction of this Court. The Committee is seen to have considered the nature of work, the Recruitment Rules, the mode of recruitment and the promotional avenues of the two cadres and upon such consideration, appears to have fairly concluded that the two cadres are not similarly situated. In the absence of any material demonstrating that the said conclusion is arbitrary, based on wholly irrelevant considerations, this Court would not be justified in undertaking an independent exercise of job evaluation and substituting its own assessment for that of the expert body. Page No.# 49/53 39. The fact that the petitioners may discharge onerous duties or that some of their duties may overlap with those performed by the Section Officers cannot, in the absence of a complete and established equivalence of the two posts, be a sufficient ground for directing parity in pay. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied mechanically on the basis of isolated similarities in duties. The totality of the relevant factors governing the two services has to be considered, and in my view the petitioners have failed to establish such equivalence in the present case. 40. The earlier judgment dated 24.08.2022 also does not assist the petitioners to the extent contended. The observation therein that there did not otherwise appear to be any difference in the nature of work was expressly subject to the Committee examining whether any tangible, acceptable and reasonable difference exist. The said observation cannot, therefore, be treated as a final adjudication that the two cadres are identical in nature or function. The Committee was expressly permitted to examine the matter and arrive at a conclusion on the basis of the relevant service-related distinctions. The Committee having undertaken such exercise and having recorded its conclusion, the same cannot be interfered with merely because another view on the comparative nature of the posts may also be possible. 41. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the judgment dated 01.11.2016, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 495(AP)/2015, is also of no assistance to the petitioners. The said decision concerned the pay structure of Administrative Officers (Judicial) of the Itanagar Bench of the Gauhati High Page No.# 50/53 Court in the context of the service conditions applicable to that particular category. The said decision cannot be treated as laying down a general principle that the post of Superintendent in the Directorate is necessarily equivalent to the post of Administrative Officer (Judicial), or that every category performing ministerial or administrative functions is entitled to parity with the Secretariat Service. The decision has to be understood and applied in its contextual facts for which it was rendered. 42. The reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gordhandas Bhanji(supra), also does not advance the case of the petitioners. The said decision lays down the principle that a public order made by a statutory authority has to be construed objectively with reference to the language employed therein and cannot be supplemented by subsequent explanations as to what the authority intended or had in mind. There can be no quarrel with the aforesaid proposition. In the present case, however, the reasons for rejection of the claim are discernible from the impugned order itself. The High Level Standing Committee has expressly noticed the distinctions in the nature of the establishments, Recruitment Rules, mode of recruitment and promotional avenues and, upon consideration thereof, concluded that tangible, acceptable and reasonable differences exist between the two cadres. This Court is, therefore, not required to supplement the impugned order by importing any new or additional reason from the affidavit-in- opposition. 43. The decision in Bharat Singh(supra), relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel, also does not assist the petitioners. The said decision emphasises that Page No.# 51/53 where a contention depends upon facts, the factual foundation thereof must be properly pleaded and supported by material on record. In the present case, in my view,the factual distinctions relied upon by the respondents have been specifically pleaded and are also reflected in the reasons recorded by the High Level Standing Committee. 44. As regards the authorities relied on by the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court finds it unnecessary to discuss the same as the authorities are settled proposition of law and have hardly advance the case of the respondents. Thus, this Court refrained from discussion. 45. This Court takes note that the petitioners have relied upon the parity in pay over the years and have also sought to demonstrate similarity in the duties performed by the two categories. However, the question before this Court is not whether some similarity exists between the two posts, but whether the petitioners have established such equivalence as would render the continuing difference in pay arbitrarily or constitutionally impermissible. On the materials placed, this Court finds that the petitioners have failed to establish that the nature of work, Recruitment Rules, promotional avenues and other relevant service conditions of the two cadres are the same or substantially equivalent. Since the existence of relevant differences having been considered by the expert body, the Court would not be justified in undertaking its own exercise of equation of posts. 46. It is also not the function of this Court, while exercising judicial review, to determine what ought to be the appropriate pay scale for the petitioners or to Page No.# 52/53 direct the Government to adopt a particular pay structure merely because such structure may appear to be more equitable. The determination of pay scales involves consideration of several factors, including the nature and complexity of duties, qualifications, recruitment, responsibilities, promotional avenues, service conditions and the overall administrative structure. Such matters are ordinarily within the domain of the executive and the expert bodies constituted for the purpose. 47. On consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the High Level Standing Committee has undertaken the exercise entrusted to it by the judgment and order dated 24.08.2022. The Committee has considered the relevant service-related distinctions and has recorded reasons for concluding that the Directorate/District Ministerial Cadre and the Secretariat Service Cadre are not similarly situated. The petitioners have failed to establish that the differences considered by the Committee in the nature of work, Recruitment Rules, mode of recruitment and promotional avenues are non-existent, irrelevant or incapable of furnishing a reasonable basis for treating the two cadres differently. 48. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no ground to hold that the impugned Order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, High Level Standing Committee (Pay Anomaly), is arbitrary or otherwise suffers from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the grievance of the petitioners for a direction to grant pay and allowances at par with the Section Officers of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat with consequential benefits cannot be acceded to. Page No.# 53/53 49. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant