A 2.2. Parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. In fact, one of the functions of the Pay Commission is to identify the posts which deserve a higher scale of pay than what was earlier B being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts. The Pay Commission has two functions; to revise the existing pay scale, by recommending revised pay scales corresponding to the c pre-revised pay scales and, secondly, make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. Therefore, the mere fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same 0 pay scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay scale. One post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher pay scale and another post which is considered tp have E a proper pay scale may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay scale but not any higher pay scale. Therefore, the benefit of higher pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of the subject post and holders of reference category posts, discharge F duties and functions identical with, or similar to, each other and that the continuation of disparity is irrational and unjust. The respondents-lnspectors-AMW claimed parity not on the basis of equal pay for equal work, but on the i;;:isis of previous equal pay. They have neither G pleaded nor proved that the holders of post of Inspectors {Cooperative Societies), Extension Officers {Panchayat) and KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) were discharging duties and functions similar to the duties and functions. of lnspector-AMW. Hence, the prayers in the original writ H petition could not have been granted. The Single Judge
