constitutional remedies and held that this principle had to be read under Article 14 and 16 of t he Constitution. This decision was affirmed by a Constituti o n Bench of this Court in D.S.Nakara & others Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 . Thus, having regard to the cons t itutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimin a tion in Article 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrin e of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has assumed status of a fundamen t al right. 10. Initially, particularly in the early eighties, the said p rinciple was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its cascading effect on other cadres, i n subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal p ay for equal work had no mat h ematical application in every case of similar work. It has been o bserved that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive a n d expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully evolved p ay structure ought not to be or d inarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and c a use avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. (Vide: Secretary, Finance Department & others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & others , 1992 (2) SCT 301 and State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association , 2002 (3) SCT 674 . N evertheless, it will not be corre c t to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because deter m ination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no j urisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the Executive or the Legislature, a s is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubt e dly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical post s or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they b e long to different departments or the basis for classification o f posts is ex-facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust, it is open to th e Court to intervene.
