JUDGMENT Anshuman Singh, J. - This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, filed by the petitioner, who is working as a Research Assistant in the University of Allahabad for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay him salary payable to lecturer of the University. 2. It is alleged that a post of Research Assistant fell vacant in the department of Political Science of the University and applications were invited for filling the same. The petitioner also applied to be appointed on the said post. He appeared before the Selection Committee on 11th December, 1987 which recommended the name of the petitioner to the Vice-Chancellor and on the said recommendation the Vice-Chancellor was pleased to appoint him which was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 3rd Feb. 1988, copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. In pursuance of the aforesaid appointment letter, the petitioner is alleged to have joined the University as Research Assistant in the department of Political Science on 4th February, 1988 which fact is corroborated by the contents contained in Annexure 4 of the writ petition. According to the allegations contained in the writ petition, it is stated that from the very inception of his joining, the petitioner was assigned the same duties as that of the lecturer. He was required to teach Constitution of five countries to B.A. Part I classes for six periods in a week and three periods to B.A. Part II classes in a week about comparative Governments and Politics and the petitioner has been discharging the same duties till today. It has also been averred that the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of appointing ad hoc lecturers in the University is the same which selects Research Assistants. It has been further stated that the petitioner was appointed in the over see committee to which the lecturers are appointed and he discharged his duties as a member of the said committee which is an appex body to supervise LL.B. examinations. He is also alleged to have been appointed Invigilator in the year 1987. Petitioner's claim is that though he is discharging all the duties of the Lecturer in the University, yet he is being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. He is also alleged to have been appointed Invigilator in the year 1987. Petitioner's claim is that though he is discharging all the duties of the Lecturer in the University, yet he is being paid salary in the pay scale of Rs. 515-15-590-18-626 E.B.-18-680-20-780 E. B. 20-860/- while the Lecturers are being paid in the pay scale of Rs. 2,200 to Rs. 4,000/-. It is alleged that the petitioner made several representations orally to the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar for being paid the salary in the scale of Lecturer but since no heed was paid by the authorities of the University. the petitioner approached this court by means of the present writ petition. 3. In the case in hand, counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged and since there are no private parties to be served and the respondents are represented by their counsel, as provided under the Second Proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court and with the consent of the parties, this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. 4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf Of the University respondent No. 1, the claim of the petitioner has been contested. specially the allegation that the petitioner has been discharging the same duties as that of the Lecturer has been denied. In the counters affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh, respondent No. 2, almost the stand taken by the University has been endorsed. In the rejoinder affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, the stand taken by the respondents has been denied and the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated. In paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that according to Statute 6 of Chapter X of the First Statute of the University "Instructors or Teaching Research Assistants or part time Lecturers or ad hoc Lecturers shall be appointed by the Executive Council on the recommendation of a Selection Committee consisting of the Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of The Faculty and the Head of the Department concerned." It has been further stated that under the Act and the Statute only three categories of teachers are contemplated in the University viz., Professor, Reader and Lecturer. It has been further stated that Instructors in the physical training, Demonstrators and Catographers have already been designated by the State, opposite party No. 2 and the remunerations which are paid to the Lecturers of the University have also been paid to them. It is to be emphasised at this stage that prior to the grant of designation and the salary of Lecturers. Demonstorators, Catgraphers and the Instructors in physical training, the teaching Research Assistants, like the petitioner were getting the same pay scale i.e. the scale which was applicable to the Instructors, Demonstrators etc. Thus, it is clear that only the petitioner. who is the Research Assistant has been denied the payment of salary of Lecturers grade, whereas Catographer Demonstrators and Instructors in physical training have already been given the salary of a Lecturer and thus the petitioner who belongs to the category of Research Assistant has been discriminated. Not only this, it has also been asserted that three Research Assistants in the University of Allahabad namely Dr. Ashfaq Hussain (Urdu Department), Mrs. Kamal Singh and Mrs. Nisha Srivastava (Commerce) are getting the salary of a Lecturer and only the petitioner who is also the Research Assistant like Dr. Ashfaq Hussain and others is not being paid the salary payable to a Lecturer. It appears that the writ petitions were field on behalf of those persons in this court for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the salary payable to a lecturer and the respondents were granted time to file counter-affidavit but in spite of the time granted to the respondents. since no counter affidavit was filed, this court directed and,the respondents to pay salary of Lecturer to the petitioners who were Research Assistants. For instance a certified copy of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 18998 of 1986 (Dr. Ashfaq Hussain v. University of Allahabad through its Vice Chancellor and another has been filed as Annexure-I to the Rejoinder-affidavit, which runs as under : "Despite time being granted to the respondents no counter-affidavit has been filed. We. therefore issue an interim mandamus to the University of Allahabad to pay salary to the petitioner which is payable to a Lecturer, within four weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of this order upon it, or show cause by filing a counter-affidavit. We. therefore issue an interim mandamus to the University of Allahabad to pay salary to the petitioner which is payable to a Lecturer, within four weeks from the date of service of a certified copy of this order upon it, or show cause by filing a counter-affidavit. Put up for admission after one month." The fact that three other teaching Research Assistants are receiving the salary of a Lecturer may be in pursuance of the order of this court is not disputed. It is also admitted by the counsel for the University that the interim order passed by this court. mentioend above, is operative even today. 5. We have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri S.N. Upadhya, learned counsel appearing for the University and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State of' U.P. 6. Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to Annexures 5 and 5-A of the Writ petition and on the basis of' the facts stated in those two Annexures it has been urged that in fact the case of the petitioner, as alleged in the writ petition has been admitted in toto and the University authorities are estopped from taking a different stand before this Court. The existence of these two documents referred above too have not been disputed, neither the contents have been denied by the University. 7. Before we proceed to decide the controversy involved in the case after a careful perusal of the contents of Annexures 5 and 5-A annexed with the writ petition and the letter dated 11th February, 1992 sent by the Registrar to the Deputy Secretary, Education Department of U.P. Government which has been filed along with the Supplementary rejoinder affidavit, we are of the opinion that they should be incorporated in the judgment in verbatum: [ HINDI MATTER] Resolution passed in General Meeting of A.U.T.A. on 3.3.1984. Resolution No. 2. This meeting of A.U.T.A. notes with satisfaction that the U.P. Government has particularly accepted at least one of the long standing demands of the teachers. This meeting calls upon the U.P. Government to take prompt action on (sic) other demand will pending priority attention to the following demands : 1. Regularisation of all ad hoc and temporary teachers with 3 or more years of service. 2. This meeting calls upon the U.P. Government to take prompt action on (sic) other demand will pending priority attention to the following demands : 1. Regularisation of all ad hoc and temporary teachers with 3 or more years of service. 2. Granting lecturer grade to Instructor/Superintendants of physical education/ teaching Research Assistant and other equivalent posts. 3. Democratisation of teaching Department and University Rules. 4. Medical facilities. The meeting reminds the Governments that urgent action in all outstanding demands is essential in order to regenerate the atmosphere of goodwill and understanding between the Government and the teaching excellence be attained. [HINDI MATTER] 1. Dr. Ashfaq Hussain, University of Allahabad, Advertisement No. 9/ 1978 published in Northern India Patrika, Allahabad dated June 23, 1978. 2. Smt. Kamal Singh, University of Allahabad Advertisement No.8/ 1976 published in Northern India Patrika, dated 26th July, 1976 Smt. Nisha Srivastava. [HINDI MATTER] No. 1 Dr. Ashfaq Hussain, Urdu Department, Teaching experience for more than ten years. Some Photostat copies of the time table issued by the Head of Urdu Department 1985-86 M.A. Final Lecture class of Vth Special paper, proficiency lecture classes of 1st Paper (in leave vacancy) B.A. I Two groups B.A. Final seminar, one group 1984-85 and 1985-86. Profi-lecturer sem. B.A. 1, 2, groups B.A. Final seminar classes B.A. 1, Seminar, one group 1982-83 Profi-lecturer sem. B.A. 1, 2, groups B.A. Final Seminar, one group 1983-84 profi. Lecture classes B.A. 1, Seminar, one group 1982-83 Profi-lecture classes 1980-91 profi. Lecture classes. M.A. Final same, one Cr. M.A. I, Sem. One Cr. B.A. II sem. Classes two group B.A. sem. Classes One Group 1979-80 Profi Lecture Classes M.A. II lecture classes of 2 papers (in leave vacancy) : M.A. II Sem. Classes one group M.A. I Sem. Classes one Gr. B.A. II Sem. Classes one Group B.A. I. sem.Classes M.A. II Sem. Classed one Group Lecture classes also in leave vacancy. 1977-78 Prof. Lecture classes M.A. II Sem. Classes on Gr. M.A. I. One Gr. Lecture classes on Gr. M.A. 1. One Gr. Lecture Classes one Gr. B.A. I, Sem. Classes two Gr. (2) Dr. (Smt.) Nisha Srivastav and Smt. Kamal Singh Photostats copy of the certificate for teaching experience issued by the Head of the Department (M.L.N. Instt. of Business Administration) is annexed. [HINDI MATTER] 7A. Mr. Classes on Gr. M.A. I. One Gr. Lecture classes on Gr. M.A. 1. One Gr. Lecture Classes one Gr. B.A. I, Sem. Classes two Gr. (2) Dr. (Smt.) Nisha Srivastav and Smt. Kamal Singh Photostats copy of the certificate for teaching experience issued by the Head of the Department (M.L.N. Instt. of Business Administration) is annexed. [HINDI MATTER] 7A. Mr. Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the petitioner has been performing the same duties as that of a lecturer, he should be paid salary payable to a Lecturer according to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on certain decisions of the Supreme Court. The first case relied upon by him is the judgment of Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union of India, AIR 1991 SC 1173 . 8. We have perused the aforesaid case of the apex Court and we find that the stand taken by the petitioner finds full support from the ratio laid down in the aforesaid case. Thus, we would like to incorporate the observations made in paragraphs 6 and 7 by the apex court in the aforesaid judgment which is as under : "6. Equal pay for equal work is not expressly declared by the Constitution as a fundamental right but in view of the Directive Principles of State Policy as contained in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution "equal pay for equal work" has assumed the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equal pay for equal work and providing security for service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period has been accepted by this court as a constitutional goal to our socialistic pattern. It has ceased to be a judge made law as it is the part of the constitutional philosophy which ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing equal opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for similarly placed employees of the State. This Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right of equal pay for equal walk in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social justice in a number of decisions. This Court has zealously enforced the fundamental right of equal pay for equal walk in effectuating the constitutional goal of equality and social justice in a number of decisions. See: Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 : AIR 1982 SC 879 : (1482 Lab IC 618), Daily Rated Casual Labour Employed under P & T Department v. Union of India, (1988) I SCC 122, AIR 1987 SC 2342 : (1988 Lab IC 37), Dhirendra Champli v. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC 637 , Surrinder Singh v. Engineer in Chief, CPWD, (1986) 1 SCC 639 : AIR 1986 SC 584 :(1986 Lab IC 551), R.D. Gupta v. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration, AIR 1987 SC 2086 : (1987) 4 SCC 505 : (1987 Lab IC 1670), Bhawan Dass v. State of Haryana, 1987 (4) SCC 634 : AIR 1987 SC 2049 : (1987 Lab IC 1662), Jaipal v. State of Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 354 : AIR 1988 SC 1504 : (1988 Lab IC 1673), Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC 396 : (1990 Lab IC 625). Therefore, the principle of equad pay for equal work even in an establishment which is an instrumentality of a State is applicable in its full vigour. 7. The question then arises whether the respondents have practiced discriminated in denying the employees of the Kendra pay which the Union of India has been paying to other similarly placed employees doing the same or similar work. This question is of primary importance which requires investigation of facts. Unless, it is demonstrated that the employees of the Grih Kalyan Kendra are discriminated in matters relating to pay and other emoluments with the other similarly placed emloyees the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied. While considering this question, it is not necessary to find out similarity by mathematical formula but there must be a reasonable similarity in the nature of work performed by them. It is permissible to have classification in services based on hierarchy of posts, pay scales, value of work and responsibility and experience. While considering this question, it is not necessary to find out similarity by mathematical formula but there must be a reasonable similarity in the nature of work performed by them. It is permissible to have classification in services based on hierarchy of posts, pay scales, value of work and responsibility and experience. The classification must, however, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India, (1988) 3 SCC 91 : AIR 1988 SC 1291 : (1989 Lab IC 1157, Sabyasachi Mukherji, J. (as he then was) observed at. page 1297 of AIR (at page 1163 of Lab 1C): "There may be qualitative differences as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service so long as such valve judgment is made bona fide reasonable on an intelligible criteria which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasis that equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a negation of that right." Elaborating the aforesaid observation the learned judge further observed thus at page 1300 of AIR : (at p 1166 of Lab IC): "The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less - it varies from nature of culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scales has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in fact." 9. Then the Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the case of Jaipal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 1504 : (1988 Lab IC 1673). On the basis of this judgment he contended that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" has been held to be applicable by the apex court even in the cases where the procedure for recruitment of the petition or ,it different than from those with whom petitioners claim 'equal pay for equal work'. Much emphasis has been laid down on the observations contained in paragraph 8 of the aforesaid case which we think proper to incorporate in extenso. Paragraph 8 runs as under: "8. The respondents 'contention that the mode of recruitment of petitioners is different from the mode of recruitment of squad teachers in as much as the petitioners are appointed locally while squad teachers were selected by the subordinate Service Selection Board after competing with candidates from any part of the country. Emphasis was laid during argument that if a regular selection was held many of the petitioners may not have been appointed. They get the employment because outsiders did not compete. In our opinion, this submission has no merit. Admittedly the petition triers were appointed on the recommendation of a Selection Committee appointed by the Adult Education Department. It is true that the petitioners belong to the locality where they have been posted, but they were appointed only after selection. True that they have not been appointed after selection made by the Subordinate Service Selection Board but that is hardly relevant for the purpose of application of doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'. The difference in mode of selection will not affect the application of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' if both the classes of persons perform similar functions and duties under the same employer. Similar plea raised by the State of Haryana in opposing the case of supervisors in the case of Bhagwan Dass (1987 Lab IC 1662) (supra) was rejected, where it was observed that if the State deliberately chose to limit the selection of candidates from a cluster of a few villages it will not absolve the State for treating such candidates in a discriminatory manner to the disadvantage of the selectees once they are appointed provided the work done by the candidates so selected is similar in nature. The recruitment was confined to the locality as it was considered advantageous to make recruitment from the cluster of villages for the purposes of implementing the Adult Education Scheme because the instructaors appointed from that area would know the people of that area were intimately and would be in a better position to persuade them to take advantage of the Adult Education Scheme in order to make it a success." 9A. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed an uncertified copy of the unreported decision of the Supreme Court, along with an affidavit, rendered on 25th April, 1985 in Writ Petitions Nos. 9555, 9621- 62/83, 485-576/84, 14083-14084/84, 14059 14074;84, 15682-87, 14090, 14095-14098, 14100/84, 16272, 16277-16278/84, 16280- 16281/84, 16283-16284/84, 16289/84 and 16294/84, Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. State of Rajasthan and on the basis of the said judgment he contended that the controversy involved in the present case is fully covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the above case and the principle laid down therein are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. We feel it proper to refer to the facts of the case of Bindeshswari Prasad Singh (supra) for proper appreciation of the controversy. It appears that some dispute arose for payment of salary to the Research Assistants of Udaipur University. They claimed equal salary payable to the lecturer as recommended by the University Grants Commission. Rajasthan High Court held that Research Assistants of Udaipur University are entitled to University Grants Commission grade recommended for the lecturers. The aforesaid decision of the Rajasthan High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court through Special Leave to Appeal. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal against the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court and the view taken by the High Court was maintained. Thereafter, a review petition was also filed arising out of the Special Leave Petition but the same was rejected on 8th Nov. 1984. Subsequently, a bunch of special leave petitions were filed before the apex court. Thereafter, a review petition was also filed arising out of the Special Leave Petition but the same was rejected on 8th Nov. 1984. Subsequently, a bunch of special leave petitions were filed before the apex court. The sheet anchor of the argument advanced on behalf of the applicants in We review petitions before the Supreme Court was that the judgment of the 'Rajasthan High Court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, was in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh (supra), likely to create inconvenience, inasmuch as, the Research Assistants and lecturers who formed entirely a separate and distinct cadre would have to be either amalgamated or a confusion will be created in the matter of promotions in case they are at par in the matter of pay scale. The Supreme Court, however, directed that the Research Assistants and the lecturer will form separate cadre and they need not be brought on a common seniority list only on the ground that both have enjoined the same pay scale as recommended by the University Grants Commission. Their Lordships observed that it would protect the apprehension which has arisen in the minds of the University, but, however, the view taken by the Rajasthan High Court that Research Assistants are also entitled to the same scales of pay which was being paid to the lecturer as recommended by the University Grants Commission was not reversed. Thus, on the basis of these three judgments, referred above, counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner has fully established its claim for the payment of salary which is being paid to the lecturer of Allahabad University and as such is entitled for issuance of a proper writ in his fay our. 10. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced before us a certified copy of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court dated 16th Sept. 1992 rendered in Writ Petns. Nos. 16309-16376 of 1984 (Gopal Krishna Sharma v. State of Rajasthan) with Writ Petition No. 563 of 1989 (Yamuna Shankar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan). We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we find that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 9555/83 (Bindeshwari Prasad Singh) (supra) has been affirmed and the said judgment has strengthened the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the apex court has again reiterated that the. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we find that the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition No. 9555/83 (Bindeshwari Prasad Singh) (supra) has been affirmed and the said judgment has strengthened the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as the apex court has again reiterated that the. Research Assistants are entitled to same pay as payable to the lecturers. Apart from the said case in that of Gopal Krishna Sharma (supra) the Supreme Court has held that the petitioners in the case were entitled to receive the difference of pay from the very date of appointment with interest. 11. From it perusal of Annexure 5, and 5-A of the writ petition and Annexure-1 to the Supplementary rejoinder-affidavit, the un-disputed facts which have emerged are as under: 1. Qualifications of the Research Assistants and that of Lecturers is the same. 2. Lecturers and Research Assistants have been performing teaching duties. 3. Research Assistant like ad hoc Lecturers have also been selected by Selection Committee. 4. Three other Research Assistants, except the petitioner are receiving salary which is payable to Lecturers of the University, may be under the orders of this Court. Apart from the aforesaid facts, the other redeeming fact which has been proved on record is that even the University has recommended to the Government for re-designating Research Assistants and granting them same emoluments and other benefits which are payable to Lecturers. From the perusal of the aforesaid documents, it is also apparent that even the Teachers Association of the University has been raising demands for payment of salary of a Lecturer to Research Assistants which is indicative of the fact that the payment of Lecturer grade salary to the Research Assistant would be conducive for the smooth working of the University as it will not encourage any dissatisfaction rather it would be welcomed by the teaching staff. 12. However, counsel for the University adopted a very strange stand and made futile efforts to dislodge the claim of the petitioner. 12. However, counsel for the University adopted a very strange stand and made futile efforts to dislodge the claim of the petitioner. He mainly placed reliance on sub-section (3) of Section 21 of the State Universities Act and contended that in view of the said provision, the State Government will fall heavily on the University in case the University pays salary to the petitioner that of the Lecturer as the prior approval of the State Government is necessary for making payments and since the State Government has not passed any order directing the University to pay salary to the Research Assistant payable to a Lecturer, University cannot pay the same. It is admitted to the parties that the payment of salary to the employees of the University is paid by the State Government but as far as the stand taken by the counsel for the University before us is concerned, he cannot dispute the claim, inasmuch as the moment the University authorities sent three letters namely, Annexures-5, and 5-A to the writ petition and Annexure-I to the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit, the University burnt its beat and now it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents University to say that the petitioner was not discharging the same duties as are being discharged by the Lecturers of the University 13. Mr. S.N. Upadhya, learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. J.P. Chaurasiya, AIR 1989 SC 19 : (1959 Lab IC 1146). We have no hesitation in saying that the ratio laid down by the apex court in the case of J.P. Chaurasiya (supra) does not improve the case of the respondents. In the case of J. P. Chaurasiya, the ratio laid down was that there can be two scales of pay in the same cadre of persons performing the same or similar work or duties, whereas there is no such controversy in the instant case. 14. Learned counsel for the University has also placed reliance on a judgment in the ease of Mewa Rarn Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical' Science (1989) 1 JT (SC) 512: (1989 Lab IC Big). We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are of the opinion that the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present one. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are of the opinion that the facts of the said case are distinguishable from the facts of the present one. In the ease of Mewa Ram Kanojia (supra) different qualifications were prescribed for the two posts even there was difference in the nature of responsibility of two posts involved on which the doctrine of equal pay for equal work was to be applied, whereas in the inastant case, the qualifications for the post of lecturer and teaching Research Assistants are the same and since both the discharging the same duties as that of teaching there is no difference in the responsibilities and both have to be selected by the same Selection Committee. Thus, the case relied upon by the counsel for the University is of no assistance to the respondents. 15. The third case on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the University is of Umesh Chandra Gupta v. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, AIR 1989 SC 29 : (1989 Lab IC 1156). In the said case, the Supreme Court has only reiterated the ratio laid down in J.P. Chaurasiya case (14989 Lab IC 1146) (SC) (supra) and taus, in our opinion, the said case also does not help the respondents. 16. Though, Mr. Upadhya hearted coursel for the University has wade straneous efforts to demolish the case of the petitioner but in our opinion, he has not been able to cut any ice and the can of the petitioner stands fully established. 17. In fact in view of the contents contained in Annexures 5 and 5-A of the writ petition and Annexure I to the supplenientary rejoinder-affidavit nothing remains to be proved by the petitioner regarding his claim for payment of salary payable to a Lecturer and in fact the University was estopped from adopting a contradictory stand. However, in spite of the clinching admission of facts we allowed full opportunity to the counsel for the respondents but they utterly failed in demolishing the case of the petitioner. 18. However, in spite of the clinching admission of facts we allowed full opportunity to the counsel for the respondents but they utterly failed in demolishing the case of the petitioner. 18. We have given our thoughtful considerations to the rival contentions of the counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the materials on the record and in view of the catena of decisions of the apex Court, specially the recent judgment of Gopal Krishna Sharma ( AIR 1993 SC 81 ) (supra) we have arrived to the conclusion that the petitioner has made out a feel proof case and is entitled to the reliefs claimed in the petition. 19. Since we have already formed the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the payment of salary payable to Lecturer in the University of Allahabad, the next question calls for adjudication is the date from which he is entitled or the same. In view of the ratio laid down by the apex Court in the case of Gopal Krishna Sharma (supra) we think that the ends of justice would he not in case the petitioner is paid the salary payable to a Lecturer from the date on which he resumed his duties i.e. 4th of February, 1988. 20. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The petitioner is entitled to receive the salary, according to the pay scale of Lecturer of Allahabad University from 4th February, 1988 along with interest payable by a scheduled bank. Since the petitioner is being paid the salary of Research Assistant from 4th February, 1988, he is entitled to the difference of pay payable to Lecturer with that of Research Assistants till 31st October, 1992. Consequently, the respondents are directed to calculate the difference payable to the petitioner and to pay the same within a period of three months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the order of this Court along with interest. We further direct the respondents to pay salary equal to the salary payable to a Lecturer of the University to the petitioner every month beginning from 1st November, 1992.