JUDGMENT 1. - This is a petition filed by D. P. Gupta, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the University of Jodhpur for fixation of the petitioner's pay at the rate of Rs. 680/- per month since 10-5-1966 and for payment of all consequential benefits upto the date of the filing of the petition. The petition arises out of the following facts: 2. The petitioner was at lecturer in Physics under the Rajasthan Govt Later on, tie became an employee of the University Jodhpur & was posted as a lecturer in the Physics Department of the University right from July 1962. In the seniority list of the lecturers as published by the Government of Rajasthan vide Extra ordinary Gazette dated 23rd November, 1963, the petitioner's name appeared at serial No. 42 where, as the name of Shri D R. Mehta, lecturer in Commerce, was mentioned at serial No.192. The petitioner was senior to Shri H.D. Purohit, lecturer in Physics also it is evident from letter No F.(1) (127)/ Estt./DEC/66 dated 9/14 August, 1967, which was addressed to the petitioner by the Director of College Education. The seniority of the petitioner was maintained by the University of Jodhpur also when he became an employee there of The Deputy Secretary to the Education Department, Cell (III) of the Government of Rajasthan addressed a letter No F 6(8) Edu/ Cell (III,/66 dated 7.3 1969 to the Registrar, University of Jodhpur for revision of scales of pay and fixation. in the revised pay-scales wherein it was stated that the Government of Rajasthan has decided that pay should be fixed at a stage in the new scale equal to the pay in the old scale and if there is no such stage, at the next stage above. The date of annual increment, however, was directed to remain unchanged except it, the case of Professors previously drawing Rs. 1000/- or Rs. 1050/- per month whose date of annual increment was directed to be 1st April every year. The date of annual increment, however, was directed to remain unchanged except it, the case of Professors previously drawing Rs. 1000/- or Rs. 1050/- per month whose date of annual increment was directed to be 1st April every year. it was further stated in the letter that where a senior person had drawn pay higher than or equal to the pay of his Junior prior to 1.4.1966 and the Junior started getting higher pay, then the pay of senior should be stepped up to the pay of the junior with effect from such date on which his junior began to get the higher pay. After the receipt of this letter by the University of Jodhpur its Syndicate vide its resolution No.15 dated 26th July, 1969 resolved that the pay of lecturers who were senior and had drawn pay higher than or equal to the pay of teachers junior to them prior to 1-4-1966 should be stepped up to the pay of junior teachers if the junior teachers have started getting higher pay in the revised University Grants Commission Scales of pay. In pursuance of the above resolution, an Office Order No. JDR/U/ADM/216 282 dated 13.1.1970 was published by the University which is reproduced here under:- UNIVERSITY OF JODHPUR JODHPUR Dated the 13th January, 1970 OFFICE ORDERIt has been decided by the Syndicate vide its Resolution No. 15 dated 26th July, 1969 that the pay of the teachers who were senior and had drawn pay higher than or equal to the pay of teachers junior to them prior to 1.4.1966, and the juniors have now begun to get higher pay in the revised University Grants Commission scales of pay should now be stepped up to the pay of the junior teachers with effect from the date mentioned against each.The seniority of the persons in every case has been determined on the basis of the date of their first entry into the Government Service in a Degree College on the basis on the information furnished by the persons concerned. In the absence of any official record in the University in support of the information so furnished, the list is being circulated provisionally. Any person having any grievance against this order or whose name has been left out may submit his representation by 5.2.1970 after which no representation will be entertained and the list will be finalised. In the absence of any official record in the University in support of the information so furnished, the list is being circulated provisionally. Any person having any grievance against this order or whose name has been left out may submit his representation by 5.2.1970 after which no representation will be entertained and the list will be finalised. The teachers whose names are included in the provisional list are requested to submit documentary proof about their date of joining in Degree Colleges before 5.2.1970 failing which their names will not be included in the final list. sd/- REGISTRAR "Later on 13th April, 1970 an Office Order No. JDR/60/ADM/4752.4830 was passed by the University which also is reproduced below: 'UNIVERSITY OF.JODHPUR JODHPUR. Dated the April, 1970. OFFICE ORDERIts pursuance of the Syndicate Resolution No.15 dated 26th July, 1969 the Vice Chancellor has been pleased to order that if a teacher who was drawing higher pay than another teacher on 31st March, 1966, starts getting lesser pay than the latter due to fixation of his pay in the revised UGC scales of pay, then the pay of such a teacher should be stepped up to the pay of the teacher who was drawing lesser pay than him on 31st March, 1966, with effect from the date the latter started getting pay higher than him. He will however, get his neat increment only after completion of a period of one year from the date his pay has been stepped upto bringing him at par with the teacher who was junior to him in respect of pay on 31st March, 1966.The pay of the teachers, as shown in the enclosed statement has accordingly been stepped upto the pay of such teachers with effect from the dates such teachers, started getting pay higher to them in the revised UGC pay scales.It is in suppression of this office order JDR/U/ADM/216.282 dated the 13th January, 1970.No.JDR/U/ADM/4752-4890 SD/. REGISTRAR. dated the 13th April, 1970"By this order the pay of Shri H.D. Purohit who was junior to the petitioner was stepped up to Rs. 680/- per month from 10.5.1966. REGISTRAR. dated the 13th April, 1970"By this order the pay of Shri H.D. Purohit who was junior to the petitioner was stepped up to Rs. 680/- per month from 10.5.1966. The petitioner's name however, did not appear in the statement enclosed with aforesaid order dated 13.4 1970 and the benefit under resolution No. 15 passed by the Syndicate was denied to the petitioner because full effect was not given to the resolution No.15 by the Vice Chancellor in his Office Order dated 13th April, 1970. 3. The petitioner, therefore, made a representation on 27.1.1971 followed by reminders dated 9 2.1971 and 14.7.1973, but no reply was given to him The petit once has, therefore, filed this writ petition on the following grounds: (1) The benefit extended by the Resolution No 15 was denied to the petitioner and, Shri D. R. Mehta who was junior to the petitioner and was drawing pay equal to the petitioner prior to 1.4.1966 was allowed to draw a pay of Rs. 680/- higher than the pay of the petitioner from 10.5.1966. Likewise Shri H C. Purohit, Lecturer in Physics, who was junior to the petitioner vas given benefit of resolution No. 15 as would appear from the statement enclosed with the Office Order dated 13.4.1970 (2) In this manner, the petitioner has been subjected to discriminatory treatment by the University of Jodhpur, in violation of Articles 16 of the constitution of India as the persons situated in a position similar to that of the petitioner have been granted the benefit of resolution No. 15 of the Syndicate, while the same benefit was denied to the petitioner by the University who acted arbitrarily in depriving the petitioner of his just claim. 4. The writ petition was admitted by this Court on 22 4 1974 and notice of admission was given to the Respondent that is the University of jodhpur. 5. A reply was filed on behalf of the University by its learned counsel on 18.1.1978. The reply was supported by an affidavit of Shri I.S. Chakravarti, the Registrar of the University. In the reply it was pleaded that Shri H.D. Purobit was not junior to the petitioner and the letter of the Deputy Director College Education could not make the petitioner senior if Shri H.D. Purohit was really senior to him. It was further alleged in the reply that Shri H.D. Purohit was getting Rs. In the reply it was pleaded that Shri H.D. Purobit was not junior to the petitioner and the letter of the Deputy Director College Education could not make the petitioner senior if Shri H.D. Purohit was really senior to him. It was further alleged in the reply that Shri H.D. Purohit was getting Rs. 640/- in the pay scale of Rs. 400-40800-50950 on March 31, 1966 and, therefore, the petitioner's allegation that he was drawing salary less than that of the petitioner on or before 1.4.1966 is not correct, as the petitioner was drawing a pay of Rs. 610/- only in that scale. According to the reply of the University, the petitioner's name did not figure in the order dated 13 4.1970/- cause only a teacher who was drawing higher salary than another teacher on 31.3.1966 was entitled to a step-up in his pay in case the latter-started drawing higher salary by virtue of fixation. It was further stated in the reply that the petitioner was not entitled to higher fixation as per order dated 13.4.1970 as Shri H D. Purohit was senior to the petitioner even as per senior rite list published by the Government of Rajasthan in May, 1972 in the Rajasthan Rajpatra dated 25th May, 1972. It was further denied by the University of jodhpur that any discriminatory treatment was given to the petitioner in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Some legal objections to the maintainability of the writ petition also were raised in the written merely on behalf of the Respondent. The first objection was that the petitioner should have approached the Civil Court for redress of his grievance and as he did not avail himself of that remedy in time, he is included from invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The other objection raised by the Respondent was that the writ, petition filed by the petitioner is highly belated and the petitioner is guilty of laches as he kept quiet for more than 3 years and, therefore, on the ground of undue delay and leches also the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 6. I have carefully perused the record of the writ petition and heard Mr. M.R. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Mridul and Mr. V. L. Mathur, learned counsel for the Respondent. 7. 6. I have carefully perused the record of the writ petition and heard Mr. M.R. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Mridul and Mr. V. L. Mathur, learned counsel for the Respondent. 7. Firstly, it has been contended by, Mr M. R. Singhi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the Syndicate is the executive body of the University of Jodhpur and the Vice Chancellor was bound to give effect to the orders of the Syndicate regarding the appointment, suspension, removal or dismissal of officers and teachers of the University subject to the previsions contained in sub-sections (5) and (6) of section 12 of the Jodhpur 'University Act, herein. after referred to as the University Act. It was further urged that the Vice Chancellor did not give full effect to the Resolution in No. 15 passed by the Syndicate on 26th July, 1969 as is evident from Office Order No. JDR/U 4752/4830 dated 13th April 1970. The Vice Chancellor merely occurred that if a teacher who was drawing higher pay than another teacher on 31st March, 1966 starts getting lesser pay than the latter due to fixation of his pay in the revised UGG scales of pay , then the pay of such a teacher should be stepped up to the pay of the teacher who was drawing lesser pay than him on 31st March, 1966 and the stepping up shall be made from the date latter starts getting pay higher than him. It was further ordered that the next increment after stepping up shall be given only after completion of,a period of one year from the date his pay has been stepped up at par with the teacher who was junior to him in respect of the pay on 31st March, 1966. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this Office Order passed by the Vice Chancellor was not in accordance with the Resolution No. 15 passed by the Syndicate on 26th July, 1969-because the Syndicate resolved that the pay of lecturers who were senior and had drawn pay higher than or equal to the pay of teachers junior to them prior to 1.4.1966 should be stepped up to the pay of junior teachers if the latter have begun to get higher pay in the revised University Grants Commission Scales of Pay. It was further urged that an Office Order was issued by the University of jodhpur in accordance with the Resolution No., 15 of the Syndicate on 18th January 1970 asking any person to submit his representation by 5.2.1970 if his name has been left out and he is denied the benefit of the resolution of the Syndicate. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Vice Chancellor should have ordered that the pay of the teachers who were senior and had drawn pay higher than or equal to the pay of teachers junior to them prior to 1-4-1966 shall be stepped up to the pay of the junior teachers if the latter have begun to get higher pay in the revised University Grants Commission Scales of pay. 8. I have considered the above contention. It is not devoid of substance. The Vice Chancellor is the Principal, Executive and Academic Officer of the University of Jodhpur. His powers and authorities are provided under section 12 of the University Act. Sub-section (7) of section 12 of the Act clearly lays down that subject to the provisions of contained in sub-sections (5) and (6) the Vice Chancellor is bound to give effect to the orders of the Syndicate regarding the appointment, suspension, removal or dismissal of officers and teachers of the University. Subsections (5) and (6) of section 12 of the Act relate to immediate action taken by the Vice Chancellor in any emergency. Section 16 of the University Act further provides that the Syndicate is the, executive body of University in the instant case. It is not disputed that the Syndicate of the University of Jodhpur vide its resolution No. 15 dated 26th July, 1969, resolved that the pay of lecturers who were senior and had drawn pay higher than or equal to the pay of the teachers junior to them prior to 1-4-1966 should be stepped up to the pay of the junior teachers if the latter have now begun to get higher pay in the revised University Grants Commission Scales of Pay. This resolution was passed in pursuance of letter No. F6 (82) Edu/Cell 111/66 dated 7.3.1969 which was sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government Education Department Cell III Rajasthan Jaipur to the Registrar, University of jodhpur. This resolution was passed in pursuance of letter No. F6 (82) Edu/Cell 111/66 dated 7.3.1969 which was sent by the Deputy Secretary to the Government Education Department Cell III Rajasthan Jaipur to the Registrar, University of jodhpur. The Vice Chancellor, as stated above, was bound to give effect to this resolution No. 15 of the Syndicate, because, it relaxed to employment of the teachers of the University The word 'employment' included all matters relating to appointment to the pest of teacher such as terms and conditions of service, salaries, scales of pay, increment, promotion, age of superannuation, pension, leave and so on. What the Vice Chancellor did in this case was that he issued an office order No. JDR/U/ADM/4752,4830 dated 13th April, 1970, in pursuance of the aforesaid resolution No. 15 of the Syndicate In this office order, it was merely stated that if a teacher who, was drawing higher pay than another teacher on 31st March, 1966 starts getting lesser pay than the latter due to fixation of his pay in the revised UGC scales of pay, then the pay of such, teacher should be stepped up to the pay of the teacher who was, drawing lesser pay than him on 31st March, 1966. In this office order he deliberately omitted to state that if a teacher who was drawing pay equal to the pay of another, teacher on 31st March, 1966 starts getting lesser pay than the latter due to fixation of his pay in the revised U GC scales of pay then the pay of the said teacher will also be stepped up to pay of the teacher who was drawing pay equal, to his pay on 31st March, 1966 with effect from the date the latter starts getting higher pay than him. In this manner the Vice Chancellor merely gave a partial effect to the resolution No. 15 of the Syndicate and denied benefit there of to those teachers who were drawing pay equal to the pay of teachers junior to them on 31st March 1966 and who after 31st March, 1966 started getting lesser pay than the latter due to fixation of pay in the revised UGC scales of pay. 9. In paras Nos. 9 and 10 of his writ petition, the petitioner, clearly alleged that the pay of Shri D.R. Mehta, lecturer in Commerce, was raised to Rs. 9. In paras Nos. 9 and 10 of his writ petition, the petitioner, clearly alleged that the pay of Shri D.R. Mehta, lecturer in Commerce, was raised to Rs. 680/- per month on 10.5.1966 in pursuance of the resolution No. 15 of the Syndicate and the office order of the Vice Chancellor dated 13.4.1970 whereas his pay was not raised and remained Rs. 640/- although Shri D.R. Mehta, lecturer in Commerce, was junior to him drawing Rs. 610/- per month on 31.3.1996. In the reply filed on behalf of the University pare No.9 of the writ petition was admitted in toto and the contents of pars No. 10 were admitted in so far as rise in pay of Shri D.R. Mehta was concerned. However, in reply to pars No. 10 it was stated that as per the order dated 13.4.1970, the petitioner was not entitled to higher fixation. The reason given by the University for denying benefit under Resolution 15 of the Syndicate to the petitioner is given out in pars No.7 of its reply. The reason is that the petitioner's name did not figure in the order dated 13.4.1970 because according to the office order issued by the Vice Chancellor only a teacher who was drawing higher salary than another teacher on 31.3.1966 was entitled to a step up in his pay in case the teacher drawing lesser pay on the aforesaid date starts drawing higher salary by virtue of fixation. The aforesaid reason given by the University is not valid in view of the express provisions contained in resolution No.15 of the Syndicate which clearly provides that the teachers who were senior and had drawn pay higher than or equal to the pay of the teachers junior to them prior to 1.4.1966 and the junior teachers have now begun to get higher pay in the revised University Grants Commission Scales of Pay should be stepped up to the pay of the Junior Teachers with effect from the date mentioned against each of them. The University was bound to consider the seniority and pay of the petitioner as on 31.3.1966 and not beyond that date vis-a-vis the seniority and Fay of Shri D.R. Mehta lecturer in Commerce. The University was bound to consider the seniority and pay of the petitioner as on 31.3.1966 and not beyond that date vis-a-vis the seniority and Fay of Shri D.R. Mehta lecturer in Commerce. The argument advanced on behalf of the University that while reviewing such cases, the seniority & pay of the teacher as stood after 31.3.1966 has to be looked into, cannot be accepted in view of the terms of resolution No 15 of the Syndicate. Hence in my opinion, the pay of the petitioner should have been stepped up to Rs. 680/- per month from 10.5.1966 on which date the pay of Shri D.R. Mehta who was junior to him was raised to Rs. 680/- per month. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner was senior to Shri H.D. Purohit who also was given benefit under resolution No.15 of the Syndicate. The above contention is refuted in the reply filed on behalf of the University. In reply to pars No. 6 it has been stated that Shri H.D. Purohit was getting Rs. 640/- in the pay scale of Rs. 400-40-800-50-950 on 31.3.1966 & therefore it cannot be said that he was drawing a salary of Rs. 610/- in that scale. The petitioner did not produce the authentic statement of the pay of Shri HD Purohit. Hence this fact having been disputed by the University cannot be accepted. 11. It was further argued on behalf of the University that the petitioner should have approached the Civil Court for redress of his grievance and as he did not avail himself of that equally efficacious remedy within the prescribed period of limitation of three years, he is precluded from invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The above contention has no force because the petitioner made a representation to the Registrar, University of jodhpur on 27.1.1970 but his name did not appear in the statement enclosed with the office order dated 13.4.1970 and the benefit of resolution No 15 of the Syndicate was denied to him. His representation was not considered and no decision was communicated to him despite reminders sent by him on 9.2.1971 and 14.7.1973. His representation was not considered and no decision was communicated to him despite reminders sent by him on 9.2.1971 and 14.7.1973. His writ petition cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he did not file a civil suit for seeking redress of his grievance specially when there is no ground on the basis of which the petitioner could be deprived of the benefit to which he was entitled under resolution No. 15 of the Syndicate. 12. Another contention put forward on behalf of the University that the petitioner is guilty of undue delay and lac hes as he kept silent for more than three years. This contention also is devoid of substance in view of the fact that he made a representation without delay to the University on 27.1.1970 and gave two reminders on 9.2.1971 and 14.7.1973 for review of his case, but his representation was not considered and no decision was communicated to him. As the petitioner has been subjected to a discriminatory treatment by the act of the University in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India in as much as the persons situated in a position similar to that of the petitioner, have been granted the benefit of resolution No.15 of the Syndicate and the same has been denied to the petitioner without any reasonable cause, the delay, if any, in filing the writ petition is not of material significance and the petitioner cannot be held to have been guilty of undue laches and delay in invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The result of the above discussion is that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is accepted and the respondent University is directed to fix the petitioner's pay at Rs 680/- per month from 10.5.1966 and to give him all consequential benefits upto the date this order. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ accepted. *******