Judgment U. P. Singh and S. K. Singh, JJ. 1. In this writ application the petitioners have prayed for a suitable direction regarding payment of the revised scales of pay granted by the University Grants Commission, which is being paid to assistant Professor/lecturers/associate Professor holding the equivalent posts and doing similar work. In short, their prayer is that with effect from 1-1-1973 they should be paid the same pay on the principle of equal pay for equal work, which has been paid to other similarly situated persons. 2. The first petitioner was appointed as Foreman in the Bihar College of Engineering in October.1961 and continued as such till May, 1966. Later, he joined R. I. T. , Jamshedpur in the same post as Foreman and continued there from 17-5-1966 to 5-12-1973. On 8th December, 1973 he was reappointed in the said Bihar College of Engineering, on the post of work shop superintendent on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service commission and he is continuing till date. He possessed qualification of Bachelor of engineering (Electrical) having secured First Division from the University of rajasthan in the year, 1952.2. The second petitioner was appointed as Foreman Instructor in the said Bihar College of Engineering in March, 1973. His qualification was I. E. (Mechanical) AMIE (India) D. B. M. , M. B. A. (Patna ). The third petitioner was also appointed as Foreman Instructor in December, 1974 having possessed the qualification of I. E. (Mach.) AMIE (India) and M. Tec. The fourth petitioner was equally appointed in the said college as Foreman Instructor in june, 1980 and he possessed the qualification of B. Sc. Engineering (Electrical)and M. Tech. 3. The petitioners, therefore, claim that they possessed the requisite qualification and performing their duties to the satisfaction of all concern. In July, 1984 by a notification contained in Annexure-1 issued by the University of Patna these petitioners were redesignated in pursuance of the recommendation of the Academic Council and the then Syndicate of the patna University. By another notification dated 29-11-1984 contained in annexure-2 their redesignation was reaffirmed with retrospective effect from 1-1-1973 by Patna University. It is claimed that the post of Foreman instructor was equivalent to the post of Lecturer in the University with special pay for Engineering works and the qualification was same to those of a lecturer in the Engineering College. By another notification dated 29-11-1984 contained in annexure-2 their redesignation was reaffirmed with retrospective effect from 1-1-1973 by Patna University. It is claimed that the post of Foreman instructor was equivalent to the post of Lecturer in the University with special pay for Engineering works and the qualification was same to those of a lecturer in the Engineering College. The post of work shop Superintendent is senior to the post of Foreman Instructor and is equivalent to the post of associate Professor. This position was accepted by the University while redesignating these petitioners. On this basis the petitioners claim that having possessed the similar qualification and performing the same nature of work carried out by the lecturer Associate Professor, they could not be denied the benefit of the grant of revised scales recommended by the University grants Commission, and were thus to be accorded the same benefit which was granted to them. As par back as in January, 5977, the principle was accepted by the Government of Bihar (Science and Technology) that the revised scales are applicable in the case of the petitioners also. That having not been granted the petitioners were made to file representations from time to time before the superior authorities. Such representations were duly recommended to the Government by the University in November, 1980. The detailed letter issue by the then Vice-Chancellor Sri G. P. Sinha, recommending the case of the petitioners in July, 1984 and communicating the same to the Industrial Development Commissioner, has been annexed marked annexure-6 to this application. But all through the case of the petitioners were neglected and not considered in the light of these recommendations and the decisions taken by the University. This resulted in moving of this writ application. 4. As against that Mr. Rafat Alam, learned counsel appearing for the state has pointed out the stand taken in the counter affidavit. The main stand taken therein appears to 1 e that in the Bihai College of Engineering the cadre of teachers i. e. Professor/associate Professor/lecturers are different and separate to the cadre of workshop establishment. The minimum required qualification for the post of Lecture is different than the one prescribed for the workshop Superintendent and Foreman. The more of selection and appointment for Lecturer and Associate Professor is also different. The minimum qualification for appointment of a Lecturer in any Engineering college is B. Sc. The minimum required qualification for the post of Lecture is different than the one prescribed for the workshop Superintendent and Foreman. The more of selection and appointment for Lecturer and Associate Professor is also different. The minimum qualification for appointment of a Lecturer in any Engineering college is B. Sc. Engineering from a recognised Engineering College, whereas for the post of workshop Superintendent the minimum qualification required is Diploma in Mechanical/eltctrical Engineering and for the post of Foreman the minimum qualification required is an J. T. I Ccitificate in different trade. The petitioners were redesignated without prior approval of the State government. In accordance with the redesignation notified by the University contained in Annexure-1 dated 29-11-1984, they were given retrospective redesignation with effect from 1-1-1973 without consultation or concurrence of the State Government. The proposal for approval of the redesipnation was later sent to the State Government. It was fully examined and rejected. The primary reason for such rejection, which is stated in the counter affidavit, appears to be that if the pay scale of Associate Professor and Lecturer is given to these petitioner is would amount to discrimination and disparity of pay with other similarly situated persons in the other Government engineering Colleges. Therefore, in order to maintain parity it was not proper to accept the proposal of the University and, therefore, the notification of the university redesignating the petitioners was rejected. Since the redesignation was made by the University without prior approval of the State Government the same is not binding on the State Government. 5. It appears that during pendency of this writ application, the Secretary in the department of Science and Technology and the Joint Secretary asked the Registrar of the University to send a detail information on the question raised by the petitioners for due consideration. In his communication dated 11-5-1989, the Registrar of the University sent the reply stat ingin categorical and unequivocal terms that the requisite qualification for the post of workshop Superintendent and Foreman Instructor and their pay scale in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna is similar to those of Associate professors/lecturers. It was reiterated that with effect from 1-1-1973 the petitioners were redesignated to their respective posts and their pay scales were allowed to be implemented from that date. The Registrar, therefore, requested the Director, Higher Education to take immediate decision for redressing the grievance of the petitioners. It was reiterated that with effect from 1-1-1973 the petitioners were redesignated to their respective posts and their pay scales were allowed to be implemented from that date. The Registrar, therefore, requested the Director, Higher Education to take immediate decision for redressing the grievance of the petitioners. The Registrar of the University indicated in the said letter that the petitioners are teachers and are included amongst the 48 sanctioned posts of teachers. The communication dated 8-11-1989 addressed by the Financial Adviser of the University to the Vice-Chancellor and was sent for approval of the proposal contained therein after recommending them as bona fide teachers since their posts were sanctioned in modernisation and expansion scheme during the second plan period and included in the total 48 posts of teachers and the budget provision was made for all those posts. It was further recommended that their qualifications were equivalent to those of Lecturers, and much higher than those of workshop Superintendent etc. in government Engineering Colleges of Bihar. Thereafter, the Vice-Cancellor provisionally allowed the petitioners the pay scale of Rs. J 200-50-1300-60-i900/- (work-shop Superintendent) and Rs.700-40-1100-50-1600/- (Foreman instructors) and they have been allowed the benefit of the same from 1-11-1989. It was observed that no arrears will be paid until the matter is finally decided by the Government and specific grants are received for the purposes. Equally, further promotion etc. were to be given after receiving the approval of the Government. The notification dated 15-11-1989 issued by the Vice-Chanceller was communicated to the Special Secretary, government of Bihar in the department of Science and Technology any also to the director of Science and Technology. It appears that a five man Committee in the department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, after consideration of all these facts, submitted the report recommending that workshop superintendent (now designated as Associate Professer) and Foreman Instructor (Now designated as Lecturers) may be allowed U. G. C. pay scale which has been prescribed for Reader and Lecturer with effect from 1-1-1973. It further recommended that the workshop Superintendent and Foreman Instructor in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna are teachers and they possess the qualification and experience as prescribed by the AICTE. It further recommended that the workshop Superintendent and Foreman Instructor in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna are teachers and they possess the qualification and experience as prescribed by the AICTE. Thus, the committee categorised the post of workshop teachers of Bihar College of engineering in Patna in question to be superior than that of the post of workshop Superintendent of other Government Engineering Colleges, since they are not teachers and their requisite qualifications are lower than those of the workshop teachers of Bihar College of Engineering. It has further pointed out that the mode of appointment of workshop Superintendent in the Bihar College of Engineering, Patna and other Government Colleges is also different. In the Bihar Collage of Engineering Patna, the workshop superintendent and Foreman Instructor are appointed on the recommendation of the Bihar Public Service Commission. It has been pointed out that at present, the petitioners are drawing the total emoluments of Rs.4,700/-3,500/-, 3,400/-and 3,000/- respectively from 1-11-1989 but they have been deprived of getting their due promotional benefits, which has caussd serious injustice and financial set back these petitioners. 6. After giving our due consideration to the question raised in this application and after considering to the facts enumerated in various affidavits, counter affidavits and the reply thereto, we find that the prescribed requisite qualification and pay scale for the post of workshop Superintendent/foreman instructors are similar to that of Associate Professor/lecturer respectively as prescribed under the statute of the Patna University. The said statute governs the petitioners prescribing the requisite qualification. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that if they will be granted the same scale it would amount to discrimination because the same is not being paid to other such persons employed in the other Government Engineering Colleges in Bihar is without any justification. The distinction is obvious and they stand as a class by themselves. The Patna University maintains their qualifications and pay. It was in this view that the Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University had to take decision in redesignating them so as to cure injustice and make them equivalent to those of the Lecturers and Associate Professors. The distinction is obvious and they stand as a class by themselves. The Patna University maintains their qualifications and pay. It was in this view that the Vice-Chancellor of the Patna University had to take decision in redesignating them so as to cure injustice and make them equivalent to those of the Lecturers and Associate Professors. After considering every aspect of the matter and giving anxious consideration the vice-Chancellor in its detailed recommendation took the decision that the petitioners are carrying the same nature of duty and are having the same requisite qualification and therefore, there was no justification to deny them the same pay which were being granted and paid to other similarly situated lecturers and Associate Professors. There was no question of any creation of any new post that a prior approval was needed. What was inherently deserved by these petitioners according to the statute was given due consideration and recognised by the Vice-Chancel lor in its recommendation. 7. It has been stated earlier that the qualification of other similarly situated persons like the petitioners in other Government Engineering Colleges in the State of Bihar are inferior to the one which they possess in accordance with the statute of the Patna University. That makes all the difference and give a different complexion to the case of the petitioners. The said stand is not controverted by the respondents. In this view, we have no alternative but to declare thit the petitioners are entitled to the grant of U. G. C. scale which is being paid to other Lecturers and Associate Professors in the Bihar college of Engineering at Patna, where the petitioners are serving. The same has been dented to them with effect from 1-1-1973 and we, therefore, direct that the same shall be payable to them with effect from the said date. In the result this application is allowed. There shall be no order as to cost. Writ application allowed.