S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) ). The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, who is working as Professor and Head of the Department of English in the School of Languages, Gujarat University, Ahmedabad has brought in challenge the action of the respondent-University and its Executive Council which are joined as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, by which his starting basic salary in the pay scale of Professor in English, viz. Rs. 1500-50-1800- 100-2000-125/2-2500 was fixed at Rs. 1560. 00. In order to highlight this grievance, a few introductory facts deserve to be noted at the outset. ( 2 ) ). Respondent No. 1-University is a body corporate incorporated under Section 3 (1) of the Gujarat University Act, 1949. It is running a school of Languages at Ahmedabad. In the said School, University appoints professors, readers and lecturers in various subjects. So far as the petitioner is concerned he is B. A. First class with two gold medals and M. A. from the Karnataka University. He has also got Doctorate degree from the Karnataka University in English literature. The petitioner joined the Government Polytechnic, Poona in October 1960 and thereafter worked as lecturer and then as Assistant Professor in English at M. E. S. College, Poona from July 196 1/09/1971. In September 1971, he joineoined the Karnataka University as Reader with basic salary of Rs. 950. 00 in the pay scale of Rs. 700-1200. It is not in dispute that before revision of pay scale of University teachers, readers pay scale was from 700-1250 and professors pay scale was starting from 1100. Pursuant to revision of time scales on the recommendations of Sen Commission Junior readers time scale became Rs. 1200-1900, senior readers time scale became Rs. 1600-2000 and Junior Professors time scale became revised to Rs. 1500-2500. As stated above, the petitioner had worked in Karnataka University as a reader on basic salary of Rs. 950. 00 in the pay scale of Rs. 700- 1250. The first respondent had advertised for filling up vacant posts of professors and lecturers in various specialities. One post of professor of English in the University School of Languages, amongst others, was also advertised. That appears to have been done in 1977. The petitioner made application on 18-2-1977 to the first respondent pursuant to the said advertisement. 700- 1250. The first respondent had advertised for filling up vacant posts of professors and lecturers in various specialities. One post of professor of English in the University School of Languages, amongst others, was also advertised. That appears to have been done in 1977. The petitioner made application on 18-2-1977 to the first respondent pursuant to the said advertisement. He was called for interview and was interviewed by selection committee of the University. The petitioner was informed by the Registrar of the University by registered post letter dated 24-8-1977 that the Executive Council in its meeting held on 20-8-1977 had decided to appoint him to the post of Professor of English in the University School of Languages, with effect from 1-9-1977, in the time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 with usual D. A. and other benefits. It becomes obvious that the petitioner was offered the said appointment as Professor in the revised pay scale of junior professor as per Sen Commission recommendations. A copy of the said letter is at Annexure A to the petition. Thereafter, it appears that the petitioner was issued appointment memo on 29-8-1977 which is at Annexure B to the petition and therein, it was stated that the petitioner is appointed in the grade of Rs. 1500-2500 plus D. A. and other allowances as permissible according to the University rules and his starting basic salary will be Rs. 1500. 00. He was, therefore, requested to send his acceptance of the appointment and inform the University when he was likely to join. Thereafter, the petitioner sent his letter of acceptance on 2-9-1977 in which he accepted the appointment but specifically stated that his basic salary at Karnataka University should be protected by the Gujarat University. These averments about the petitioners acceptance of appointment vide his letter dated 2-9-1977 are found in para 2 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder. This acceptance letter of. . the petitioner mentioning this request for protecting his pay as drawn by him at Karnataka University as reader was replied to by the Registrar of the respondent University vide letter dated 8-9-1977 which is at Annexure C to the petition. The Registrar felt happy that the petitioner was able to join as Professor. This acceptance letter of. . the petitioner mentioning this request for protecting his pay as drawn by him at Karnataka University as reader was replied to by the Registrar of the respondent University vide letter dated 8-9-1977 which is at Annexure C to the petition. The Registrar felt happy that the petitioner was able to join as Professor. So far as the petitioners request in his letter dated 2-9-1977 about protection of his salary is concerned, it was mentioned in para 2 of the said letter at Annexure C that the question of refixation of his salary fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Executive Council and,therefore, this matter will be placed in its next meeting and it was stated that it will be helpful if in the meanwhile, the petitioner could let his office have his last pay certificate detailing his basic salary and allowances. In response to the said letter at Annexure C, received from the Registrar of the respondent University, the petitioner vide his letter dated 27-9-1977 at Annexure D, under the captioned subject - Salary certificate last pay drawn, protection of salary - wrote to the Registrar informing him that consequent upon revision of pay scale, the Karnataka University had fixed his salary in the readers scale of Rs. 1200-1900 at Rs. 1780. The petitioner also stated that he felt sure that the Registrar will put his application for protection of his salary before the relevant committee and fix his salary properly in the professors scale after duly protecting the previous salary. It becomes obvious that the query by the Registrar on the one hand and the response by the petitioner on the other centred round the question as to what was the petitioners last salary in readers scaleat Karnataka University pursuant to the revision of readers pay scale as per Sen Commission recommendations. The salary certificate which was subsequently issued to the petitioner by the Karnataka University dated 8-5-1978 also bears out the fact that the petitioner was in receipt of the following emoluments on 31-8-1977 as reader in English in the scale of Rs. 1200-1900: Rs. 1780. 00 Pay Rs. 71. 20 H. R. A - Rs. 1851-20 total It appears that thereafter the question of fixation of petitioners starting salary was referred to the Executive Council which was the competent authority-respondent No. 2 herein. 1200-1900: Rs. 1780. 00 Pay Rs. 71. 20 H. R. A - Rs. 1851-20 total It appears that thereafter the question of fixation of petitioners starting salary was referred to the Executive Council which was the competent authority-respondent No. 2 herein. The Executive Council took up the case of the petitioner for consideration along with cases of three other applicants and others who were raising similar grievance regarding protection of their last pay drawn before they joined as lecturers or professors in the University School of Languages. The minutes of the Executive Councils meeting of 22-10-1977 are brought on record alongwith additional affidavit in reply filed by the Registrar of the University. These minutes show that four applications were received in this connection, three by lecturers in different subjects appointed in the University School of Languages, viz. Dr. Bhagwatiprasad Pandya, Dr. R. G. Gupta and Dr. Suman J. Shah who were appointed as lecturers in Sanskrit. Hindi and Gujarati respectively, while the fourth person listed for consideration was the petitioner who was appointed as professor in English in the School of Languages of the first respondent. In case of all the four applicants, the Executive Council in its resolution dated 22-10-1977 noted that it was decided after some discussion, the detailed information may be called for regarding salary, pay scales and allowances which these teachers were getting in the concerned institutions before they joined the respondent-University. Thereafter, all the details were called for. In the meantime, the petitioner had also supplied details about his revised salary in the Karnataka University. It is not in dispute that the petitioners basic salary in the Karnataka University as reader in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-1900 was fixed at Rs. 1780. 00 as on 31-7-1977. Thereafter the second respondent in its meeting held on 25-2-1978 took up for consideration the question of upward revision of basic pay to be awarded to the concerned teachers who had joined the University and who were claiming protection of their last pay drawn in other institutions from which they were drafted to the University School of Languages. In the said minutes which are also produced by the Registrar of the respondent- University in his additional affidavit, cases of 7 such teachers were considered. They are as under:1. Dr. B. P. Pandya2. Dr. R. G. Gupta3. Dr. Suman J. Shah4. Dr. R. L. Chaudhari5. Dr. In the said minutes which are also produced by the Registrar of the respondent- University in his additional affidavit, cases of 7 such teachers were considered. They are as under:1. Dr. B. P. Pandya2. Dr. R. G. Gupta3. Dr. Suman J. Shah4. Dr. R. L. Chaudhari5. Dr. R. A. Malagi (the petitioner)6. Dr. D. I. Parikh, and7. Dr. H. S. Pathakexcepting the petitioner, rest were appointed as lecturers in various subjects in the same University School of Languages. Only the petitioner was appointed as professor. In the said resolution, in the last column, original basic pay offered to the concerned applicants at the time when they joined the University is mentioned. Excepting the petitioner, rest were offered Rs. 700. 00 in the lecturers time scale which obviously is the revised time scale being Rs. 700- 1200 as per Sen Commission recommendations. So far as the petitioner was concerned his basic pay is shown at Rs. 1500. 00 as professor. That was in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1500-2500 when he joined the University. Thereafter, the Executive Council took up for consideration the question whether this basic salary offered to the concerned applicants should be revised or not. It was also noted that as per the letter issued by the Joint Director of Education, State of Gujarat, dated 9-2-1977, if any teacher was recruited from any of the colleges or University in the State of Gujarat and where revised time scale had come into force, meaning thereby, revised as per the Sen Commission recommendations, last pay of such teachers should be recognized presumably for the purpose of grant by the State. Keeping in view this aspect, the resolution of the Executive Council dated 25-2-1978 read as under: It is, therefore, resolved that basic salary of the aforesaid teachers should be refixed in the concerned pay scale offered to them as under:1. Dr. B. P. Pandya basic salary is fixed at Rs. 1300. 002. Dr. R. G. Gupta, 1100/-3. Dr. Suman J. Shah, 1300/-4. Dr. R. D. Chaudhari, 940/-5. Dr. R. A. Malagi (petitioner) 1560/-6. Dr. D. I. Parikh, 900/-7. Dr. H. S. Pathak, 740/-So far as the petitioners refixation of basic salary as professor in Gujarat University pursuant to the aforesaid resolution is concerned, he was informed about the same by letter at Annexure G dated 15-3-1978. Dr. Suman J. Shah, 1300/-4. Dr. R. D. Chaudhari, 940/-5. Dr. R. A. Malagi (petitioner) 1560/-6. Dr. D. I. Parikh, 900/-7. Dr. H. S. Pathak, 740/-So far as the petitioners refixation of basic salary as professor in Gujarat University pursuant to the aforesaid resolution is concerned, he was informed about the same by letter at Annexure G dated 15-3-1978. The said letter states that pursuant to the resolution passed by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 25-2-1978, his starting salary as a professor in the University School of Languages had been, in view of a (recent) revision of pay scale of University and College teachers, fixed at Rs. 1560. 00 in the scale of Rs. 1500-50- 1800- 100-2000- 125/2-2500 with effect from 26-9-1977 the date on which he joined the said University. The petitioner made a grievance regarding the said refixation by pointing out to the University by various letters that the University had taken a decision that total salary of the concerned teachers who had joined the University from other institutions was to be protected and, therefore, total emoluments drawn by them in other institutions were treated as basic salary in the new time scale offered to them in the University service. So far as the petitioner was concerned, the action of the University in refixing his basic salary in the time scale of professor at Rs. 1560/ - was erroneous and discriminatory. His total emoluments in Karnataka University as a reader before he joined the respondent-University were Rs. 1851-20 as seen at Annexure E (Rs. 1780-00 being pay and Rs. 71-20 being H. R. A.) and, therefore, he was entitled to a rounded up figure of Rs. 1900. 00 which should be treated as his basic salary in the time scale of professor. This request of the petitioner was turned down by the University as per letter dated 26-4-1978 at Annexure H to the petition. That is how, the petitioner has landed in this court, years back in 1979. Earlier, in this petition, notice was ordered to be issued and thereafter the petition was admitted to final hearing by P. D. Desai, J. (as he then was), on 6-3-1980. Thereafter, it appears that it has stood adjourned at final hearing stage from time to time and ultimately reached final hearing before me. ( 3 ) ). The Registrar of the respondent University has filed affidavit-in-reply. Thereafter, it appears that it has stood adjourned at final hearing stage from time to time and ultimately reached final hearing before me. ( 3 ) ). The Registrar of the respondent University has filed affidavit-in-reply. The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder. Thereafter, because of the amendment granted to the petition, introducing paras 30a to 30f, further affidavit-in-reply has been filed by the Registrar and it is followed by affidavit-in-sur-rejoinder by the petitioner. ( 4 ) ). At the time of final hearing of this petition, Mr. Patel produced before me a chart showing details of various information called for from the University by him and supplied by the University to him. That chart is also, by consent of parties, taken on record at Annexure X-1. It is now time for me to refer to the main contentions canvassed by the learned Advocates of the respective parties. Mr. Patel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner joined the respondent-University as professor in English, he was appointed in the time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 which was revised time scale of junior professor as per Sen Commission recommendations. That it was not decided at that stage as to what was to be his starting basic salary as revision of readers timescale in which he was working prior to his selection by the respondent-University as professor was still not finalised by the Karnataka University and this is precisely the reason why, when the appointment order dated 29-7-1977 at Annexure B informed the petitioner that his basic salary in the professors scale was fixed at Rs. 1500. 00, he made a request to refix it by protecting his last pay drawn in the time scale of reader in the Karnataka University and it is that question which was ultimately decided by the second respondent pursuant to the impugned letter at Annexure G and its reconsideration was rejected by letter at Annexure H. Mr. Patel contended in this connection that the said refixation of his starting salary in professors scale at Rs. 1560. 00 was illegal and discriminatory as the University having taken a policy decision to protect the total emoluments drawn by teachers who joined the University School of Languages, it could not have arbitrarily fixed the petitioners basic salary at Rs. 1560. 00 when his total emoluments as reader in the Karnataka University worked up at Rs. 1851. 1560. 00 was illegal and discriminatory as the University having taken a policy decision to protect the total emoluments drawn by teachers who joined the University School of Languages, it could not have arbitrarily fixed the petitioners basic salary at Rs. 1560. 00 when his total emoluments as reader in the Karnataka University worked up at Rs. 1851. 00 and, therefore, his demand for Rs. 1900. 00 by way of rounded up figure was quite justified, Mr. Patel, in this connection, submitted that he is challenging the aforesaid action of the respondents on the touch-stone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and it is not his case that a promise was held out to him when he joined the University as professor by any one, and that promise was committed breach of by any one. ( 5 ) ). In reply, Mr. Shelat for the respondents submitted that the matter is in the realm of contract. When the petitioner chose to join the respondent- University on being selected as professor, it was clearly stated that he was being offered pay scale of Rs. 1500-2500 and if he wanted any increment he could have negotiated with the University at that time but having accepted the said post, it was not open to him now to turn round and demand anything more by way of additional basic salary. It was contended by him that in any case, it was not a policy adopted by the University to protect the total emoluments of all the teachers who were coming from outside and who were appointed in the University School of Languages. That refixation of their basic salary in the running time scale offered to them for the respective posts as lecturers, readers and professors, as the case may be, was done entirely on merits after consideration of individual cases and there was no question of all of them forming one class so that uniform treatment can be at all demanded by them in this connection. In this connection, Mr. Shelat submitted that as per Annexure X which was original composite order passed by the University and as produced by the affidavit in sur-rejoinder by the petitioner himself, in all 19 teachers were appointed out of which there were 7 professors in different subjects. At Sl. In this connection, Mr. Shelat submitted that as per Annexure X which was original composite order passed by the University and as produced by the affidavit in sur-rejoinder by the petitioner himself, in all 19 teachers were appointed out of which there were 7 professors in different subjects. At Sl. No. 1 was the petitioner who was professor in English and he was offered basic salary of Rs. 1500. 00. Second at Sl. No. 3 is Mr. A. S. Nagar who was promoted as professor from readerss post in the University and he was given basic salary of Rs. 1680. 00. Third at Sl. No. 5 is Dr. R. J. Joshi professor in Gujarati and he was offered basic salary of Rs. 1560. 00. Next was Mr. R. K. Dharaiya, professor in History at Sl. No. 7. He was offered Rs. 1560. 00 by way of basic salary. ext was Dr. V. P. Shah, professor of Sociology at Sl. No. 12. He was offered Rs. 1620. 00 as basic salary. Next at Sl. No. 15 is professor Ester A. Solomon. She was promoted from the post of reader to the post of professor and her basic salary was fixed at Rs. 1680. 00 and the last one was Dr. K. M. Koradia at Sl. No. 18 who was appointed as professor of Physics. His salary was fixed at Rs. 1620. 00. That most of these professors were appointed in the University School of Languages and some were appointed in other University Schools and departments but they all were appointed in the running time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 and their basic salaries were fixed in this time scale of professors differently. Mr. Shelat also submitted that from the Executive Councils resolution dated 25-2-1978, it could not be culled out that any policy decision was rendered by the second respondent in connection with listed 7 employees amongst whom, the petitioner is one of them, that their total emoluments being last pay drawn by them outside University before they joined the University, should be made basic salary in the running time scale in which they were appointed at the University. Hence, there is no question of violation of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution and that the petition deserves to be dismissed. Hence, there is no question of violation of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution and that the petition deserves to be dismissed. It was submitted that if the petitioner is given any relief other professors similarly situated like the petitioner and who are appointed in the same time scale along with the petitioner, would raise hue and cry and would feel superseded and would feel discriminated against. In this connection, Mr. Shelat invited my attention to a decision of the Supreme Court in U. S. Menon v. State of Rajasthan, reported in AIR 1968 SC 81 which laid down that Articles 14 and 16 are not violated when an appointment as Deputy Secretaries Special pay is denied to members of Rajasthan Secretariat Service, while special pay is admissible to members of Rajasthan Administrative service under Rajasthan Civil Services (Rationalization of Pay Scales) Rules and Schedules (1966 ). ( 6 ) ). Having given my anxious consideration to these rival contentions I have reached the conclusionthat the petitioners grievance is partly justified and accordingly, the petition requires to be partly allowed as indicated hereinafter. I shall now proceed to state my reasons for the aforesaid conclusion. ( 7 ) ). The undisputed position that emerges on record is that when the petitioner joined University as professor in English in the University School of Languages, he was working as Reader in English in Karnataka University in the revised time scale of reader, i. e. Rs. 1200-1900. His total emoluments as reader worked up to Rs. 1851 being Rs. 1780-00 as pay and Rs. 71-20 as H. R. A. When appointment as professor was offered to him after selection, he was informed that he would be put in time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 as professor of English, meaning thereby, time scale available to junior professor. It cannot be disputed that moment this post was offered to him in the running time scale and he was informed that his basic salary was to be Rs. 1500. 00 as per Annexure B, he immediately pointed out to the University by his letter dated 2-9-1977 that his last pay must be protected and he was accepting professorship in running time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 accordingly. 1500. 00 as per Annexure B, he immediately pointed out to the University by his letter dated 2-9-1977 that his last pay must be protected and he was accepting professorship in running time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 accordingly. This is borne out from his averments in the affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 22-1-1980 at para 2 which are not controverted by the respondent as well as by the contents of Registrars reply at Annexure-C dated 8-9-1977. It cannot, therefore, be held, as submitted by Mr. Shelat that the matter remains in the domain of contract and if the petitioner has accepted the professorship of the University with starting basic salary of Rs. 1500. 00 and had not negotiated further with the University, he has to thank himself. On the contrary, the aforesaid correspondence exchanged between the parties at the relevant time clearly establishes that he had accepted the professorship in the running time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 subject to his request that his basic salary should be fixed by protecting his last pay drawn in the Karnataka University. Not only that, but the said request was accepted by the University and the matter was reconsidered. It is not as if that the University summarily rejected this request on the ground that once the petitioner had joined the University as professor, pursuant to the appointment letter at Annexure-B, he cannot agitate this question. The very fact that the petitioners starting basic salary was refixed at Rs. 1560. 00 as per Annexure-G, shows that the issue was live between the parties and was considered accordingly by the University. Therefore, the extreme contention of Mr. Shelat that the matter is in the realm of contract between the parties and the petitioner cannot turn round subsequently and agitate this question, cannot be accepted as the parties themselves understood that the question regarding refixation of basic starting salary in the time scale of professor, in the light of last pay drawn by the petitioner, was a live issue and was required to be considered on its own. ( 8 ) ). It becomes obvious that the petitioners grievance regarding refixation of his basic salary at Rs. 1560. 00 by the University itself as per letter at Annexure-G will have to be considered in the light of the grievance of Mr. Patel on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. ( 8 ) ). It becomes obvious that the petitioners grievance regarding refixation of his basic salary at Rs. 1560. 00 by the University itself as per letter at Annexure-G will have to be considered in the light of the grievance of Mr. Patel on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. Patel submitted two aspects for myconsideration. ( 9 ) ). Firstly, he submitted that all teachers who had joined the University from other institutions pursuant to the appointment letters granted to them by the University, made a common case that their last pay drawn in other institutions before they joined the University should be protected and the grievance of all of them similarly situated was examined by the Executive Council of the University as per its resolution dated 25-2-1978 after obtaining details regarding their last pay drawn alongwith allowances prior to their joining the respondent-University. That out of 7 such persons and whose cases werejointly examined by the Executive Council on 25-2-1978, the last salaries drawn by six of them in their respective institutions from which they came were all protected and were made basic starting salary in the posts offered to them by the University. That only in case of the petitioner, he was singled out and was given hostile discriminatory treatment. The submission of Mr. Patel was based on conjoint reading of two resolutions of the Executive Council dated 22-10-1977 and 25-2-1978 produced at Annexure 2 by the Registrar along with his additional affidavit-in-reply as well as chart of information called for from the University and supplied to the petitioner being Annexure X-1 and that these documents clearly establish that there was a clear-cut policy adopted by the Executive Council which was ratified by the University to the extent that last pay packet of the concerned teachers who came from outside and joined the University should be protected and made basic starting salary in the pay-scales offered to them at the time when they joined their respectiveposts in the University. ( 10 ) ). Secondly, Mr. ( 10 ) ). Secondly, Mr. Patel contended that even assuming that the petitioners case as professor cannot be compared with rest of the teachers who are listed in the Executive Councils resolution dated 25-2-1978, even then, other professors who joined the University either by being promoted from the posts of readers or being drafted from other equivalent posts outside occupied by them in affiliated colleges in the State or in other Universities in the State, the appointment orders themselves have protected their total pay packet drawn by them prior to their being taken up in the University service as seen from Annexure X -appointment letter issued by the University for all of them as referred to earlier in this judgment. Mr. Patel, therefore, submitted that on both these grounds, a clear-cut policy emerges on record which the University had followed for all the teachers and professors and it decided to protect the last pay drawn by them when they joined the University after leaving their jobs outside. Mr. Patel also contended that even the Registrar of the University in his affidavit-in-reply has accepted the position that the aforesaid emoluments were to be protected for them. My attention was invited to averments found at para 2 of the additional affidavit-in-reply of the Registrar. Relying upon these averments, it was submitted that once this part of the petitioners case is accepted by the Registrar, it must follow as a logical corollary that his total pay packet which he was receiving from the Karnataka University must be protected and must be treated to be the revised basic salary of the petitioner as professor on the day he joined as such in the Gujarat University. ( 11 ) ). I shall deal with both these facets of these arguments about violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution seriatim. ( 12 ) ). So far as grievance regarding inequal treatment being given to the petitioner on the one hand as compared to other teachers similarly situated like him is concerned, it is necessary to recapitulate that in the Executive Councils resolution dated 22-10-1977. ( 12 ) ). So far as grievance regarding inequal treatment being given to the petitioner on the one hand as compared to other teachers similarly situated like him is concerned, it is necessary to recapitulate that in the Executive Councils resolution dated 22-10-1977. cases of three lecturers and the petitioner being professor who had all joined as such, the Gujarat University, were taken up for consideration and it was resolved that their grievances regarding protection of their last pay drawn as per Sen Commission recommendations prior to their joining the respondent was to be considered and for considering this question, it was felt that details regarding pay scale and allowances enjoyed by all these teachers prior to their joining the University should be called for. It is in that light that after this material was available, the question was taken up for consideration by the Executive Council on 25-2-1978. As noted earlier, cases of 7 such persons who had identical grievances and who had made identical requests, were taken up for consideration. A conjoint reading of the resolution dated 25-2-1978 and the information called for by the petitioner and supplied by the University at the request of Mr. Patel as per statement at Annexure X- 1, projects the following picture which can be better shown in a tabular form so as to get a comparative idea as to how the petitioners case was considered vis-a-vis others who were making similar grievances and who were all drafted from outside and had joined the respondent-University at the relevant time: name of teacher Designation Place Date of Salary as Last pay and allow. Refixation of joining originally drawn as per Sen basic pay in fixed upon Commission scale the running appt. with made applicable in time scale by Uni. the parent instn. Uni. Basic. allow. total Figures in these columns are found in (Figs. in this resolution of Ex. Council dated column are based 25-2-1970 on annex X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1. Dr. B. P. Pandya Lecturer in School of 1-9-1977 Rs. 700 1300 1300 Sanskrit Language upwards 2. Dr. R. G. Gupta Lecturer in do do do 1100 1100 Hindi 3. Dr. Suman J. Shah Lecturer in do do do 1300 1300 Gujarati 4. Dr. R. D. Chaudhari Lecturer In do do do 940 940 Hindi 5. Dr. Dr. B. P. Pandya Lecturer in School of 1-9-1977 Rs. 700 1300 1300 Sanskrit Language upwards 2. Dr. R. G. Gupta Lecturer in do do do 1100 1100 Hindi 3. Dr. Suman J. Shah Lecturer in do do do 1300 1300 Gujarati 4. Dr. R. D. Chaudhari Lecturer In do do do 940 940 Hindi 5. Dr. R. A. Malagi Professor in do 29-6-1977 1500 upwards 1851. 20 (as per 1560 (Petitioner) English ann. E) 6. Dr. D. I. Parikh Lecturer in do 1-9-19777 700 upwards 900 900 Gujarati 7. Dr. H. S. Pathak Lecturer do 1-1-1977 do Not available 740 in the light of the aforesaid last pay drawn by the concerned applicants whose cases were considered together by the Executive Council, details are available on conjoint reading of Annexure X-1, resolution of 25-2-1978 and Annexure-E. Leaving aside the case of Dr. H. S. Pathak for whom information about the last pay drawn by him prior to joining respondent-University is not available, for the rest, uniform treatment was given by the Executive Council and their total emoluments by way of pay and allowances drawn by them in their earlier posts with other institutions were protected and were convert ed into basic starting salary in the running time scale offered to them by the University. It is, therefore, easy to presume that even for last applicant Dr. Pathak while granting him Rs. 740. 00 as basic starting salary in the University, it must have been found by the University that that was what he was getting as total emoluments prior to joining the respondent-University. This also becomes obvious when it is seen that the Executive Council earlier had adjourned consideration of this question awaiting information regarding the total salary, pay scale and allowances drawn by the concerned applicants in the earlier employment prior to their being appointed in the University. That appears to have weighed with the Executive Council in converting total emoluments drawn by the concerned incumbent prior to joining the University, as their basic salary in the pay scales offered to them by the University as University teachers. Whether they were lecturers or professors is irrelevant. A uniform policy is discernible from the resolution of the Executive Council itself, as rightly submitted by Mr. Patel. Mr. Shelat for the respondents submitted that at least in case of Dr. Suman Shah, his basic salary was Rs. 1450. Whether they were lecturers or professors is irrelevant. A uniform policy is discernible from the resolution of the Executive Council itself, as rightly submitted by Mr. Patel. Mr. Shelat for the respondents submitted that at least in case of Dr. Suman Shah, his basic salary was Rs. 1450. 00 while he was offered Rs. 1300. 00. As rightly submitted by the petitioner in his affidavit-in-rejoinder, para 7 Dr. Suman Shah was given only Rs. 1300. 00 because after Rs. 1300. 00, there was efficiency bar and a decision had to be taken as to whether he should be allowed to cross the efficiency bar or not and that is why the University offered to him the salary upto the efficiency bar. If there were no efficiency bar at Rs. 1300. 00, Dr. Shah would have been given the full basic salary and that is why, at Annexure X-1, last pay and allowances drawn by Dr. Suman Shah are shown to be Rs. 1300. 00. Therefore, the fact remains that University protected the last pay drawn by the concerned incumbents in their respective earlier assignments before they joined the University and made the last pay drawn by all of them as their respective basic salaries in the running time scale in the new assignments offered to them. That such uniform policy decision is discernible from the resolution of the Executive Council itself. It is difficult to countenance the submission of Mr. Shelat that this was done on individual basis considering the merits of each case. This is clearly contradicted by the very impugned letter at Annexure-G written by the University to the petitioner on 15-3-1978 stating that the Executive Council in its meeting held on 25-2-1978 had fixed the petitioners starting salary as professor in the University School of Languages, in view of a recent revision of pay scales of University and college teachers, at Rs. 1560. 00. Thus, common yardstick adopted by the University for refixing the basic salary was revision of time scale of University and college teachers by Sen Commission and that revision of pay scale which would operate in connection with the concerned teachers was decided to be protected by the University while offering jobs in new time scales to the concerned applicants. If the petitioners case was decided on merits individually, the communication at Annexure-G would not have been so worded. If the petitioners case was decided on merits individually, the communication at Annexure-G would not have been so worded. It is also interesting to note that it was respondents own case as revealed from the additional affidavit of Mr. K. C. Parikh, Registrar of the Gujarat University dated 20-2-1980 in para 2 that while deciding the revision on pay the Executive Council had taken into consideration the total pay packet of the employees concerned so that as far as possible he total payment made to the concerned employee by the University would not be less than what he was drawing before he joined the University. For the purpose of total pay packet, the Executive Council had considered the salary, the dearness allowance and all other allowances admissible to the concerned employees. Once this position is accepted by respondent No. 2, it becomes obvious that what was offered to the concerned teachers as per the resolution at Annexure Z to the additional affidavit of Mr. Parikh, was conversion, of total pay packet of the concerned teachers into basic salary in the running time scale offered to them. Subsequent gloss put by Mr. Parikh in cases of Dr. Bhagwatiprasad Pandya, Dr. R. G. Gupta, Dr. Raghuvir Chaudhari and Dr. Dhirubhai Parikh to the effect that the total pay packets that were receivable by them at the institutions from which they came to the University department would, in view of the revision of the scales of pay, be less and, therefore, the basic salary to be offered to them was suit a by increased so that their total emoluments would be protected, does not stand scrutiny in view of the detailed information regarding last pay and allowances drawn by them as- seen from the table reproduced hereinabove regarding service details of these teachers. It is also not possible to agree with the submission of Mr. Shelat that as petitioners total emoluments at Karnataka University were Rs. 1851-20, he was offered Rs. 1550 as basic pay in professors time scale which with D. A. and other allowances would go upto Rs. 2168. 00 and hence no further protection was required in his case. If it were so, there was no need to increase the basic salary to Rs. 1560. 00 as even at basic salary of Rs. 1500. 00, the petitioner would have got total emoluments of more than Rs. 1850. 2168. 00 and hence no further protection was required in his case. If it were so, there was no need to increase the basic salary to Rs. 1560. 00 as even at basic salary of Rs. 1500. 00, the petitioner would have got total emoluments of more than Rs. 1850. 00 by including permissible D. A. and other allowances, i. e. Rs. 2108-50 in all as shown in para 3 of the affidavit in reply dated 19-12-1979 filed by the Registrar of the University. It must, therefore, be held that Mr. Patel was right when he submitted that a clear-cut policy decision was taken by the Executive Council of protecting the total emoluments of the concerned incumbents in their earlier posts and in offering them the said amount as basic salary in the running time scales offered to them by the University at the time of their appointment. If that is so, it is difficult to appreciate how for the petitioner, a separate yardstick can be put forward and he could be offered as basic salary in the time scale of professor at the University, only Rs. 1560. 00 when he was getting at Karnataka University, a total emolument of Rs. 1851-20, as per the revised pay scale of reader pursuant to Sen Commission recommendations. On this ground alone, the impugned refixation as per Annexures G and N cannot be sustained and would be rendered clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ( 13 ) ). But even that apart, the second aspect of submission of Mr. Patel in this connection also is required to be considered. He submitted that even assuming that the petitioners case cannot be considered with lecturers who were coming from outside, may be from institutions in this State but only with professors, even then, so far as professors were concerned, as per ommon order at Annexure-X, the concerned professors leaving aside the petitioner, were offered by way of starting salary, various amounts which reflected their total pay packet in their earlier jobs, whether as readers in the same University or as readers or professors outside the University. This aspect of the matter is highlighted in para 24 of the petition. Three professors Dr. A. S. Nagar, Dr. E. A. Solomon and Dr. R. J. Joshi have been shown to be getting Rs. This aspect of the matter is highlighted in para 24 of the petition. Three professors Dr. A. S. Nagar, Dr. E. A. Solomon and Dr. R. J. Joshi have been shown to be getting Rs. 1600, 1600 and 1480 before refixation at the University and at the time of their appointment as such; while after refixing, their basic salary was increased to Rs. 1680, 1680 and 1560/- respectively. It was submitted that this was done to protect their basic salary. So far as this aspect is concerned, reply has been given in the additional affidavit-in-reply in para 3 by the Registrar to the following effect. So far as Dr. A. S. Nagar, Dr. E. A. Solomon and Dr. R. J. Joshi are concerned, they were formerly acting as readers in the University department. They had been appointed by selection to a higher post of professor. They had, therefore, been given one more increment in the scale of professor as per resolution passed by the University in thisbehalf. This aspect has been further highlighted in the affidavit-in-reply dated 19-3-1980 by the Registrar. In para 4 thereof, it has been stated that Dr. A. S. Nagar was appointed as professor of Hindi in the School of Languages and he was offered the basic salary of Rs. 1680. Dr. R. J. Joshi professor of Gujarati was offered basic salary of Rs. 1560. Dr. Miss Solomon, professor of Sanskrit was offered basic salary of Rs. 1680 and the petitioner who was appointed as professor of English was offered Rs. 1500. 00 as basic salary and that this was done by the Executive Council on merits. It has been further stated that Dr. Nagar was Reader in the University School of Languages from 8-10-1963; Dr. Joshi was Reader from 16-6- 1969 at the University School of Languages; Dr. Solomon was working as Reader from 15-7-1964 while the petitioner was Reader at Karnataka University from September 1971. The experience of the petitioner is, therefore, much less than those who were appointed as professors. The aforesaid stand taken by the Registrar cannot be sustained to distinguish their cases. When the petitioners own contention is that while fixing basic salaries of these professors, their last salary drawn as readers has been protected, whether the petitioner was working in Karnataka University for a lesser period as compared to those candidates becomes totally irrelevant. The aforesaid stand taken by the Registrar cannot be sustained to distinguish their cases. When the petitioners own contention is that while fixing basic salaries of these professors, their last salary drawn as readers has been protected, whether the petitioner was working in Karnataka University for a lesser period as compared to those candidates becomes totally irrelevant. It is not experience as a reader which is relevant for fixing basic salary in the professors time scale, when all of them were appointed as professors by the same order and at the same time, what is relevant is protection of their last pay drawn in earlier posts which they left while joining the University as professors. So far as this is concerned, a clear-cut averment has been made in para 24 of the petition that in all cases of appointments to the various posts of lecturers, readers and professors in the various departments of the University Schools, made after the introduction and adoption of Sen Commissions scale, the Gujarat University has adopted and consistently followed an uniform policy of protecting the basic salary of the appointees, and then a table is shown wherein position of these three professors Dr. A. S. Nagar, Dr. E. A. Solomon and Dr. R. J. Joshi is also highlighted. When we turn to the affidavit-in-reply, all that is stated is that the salary that has been offered to the teachers is on the basis of merit. The fixation of the salary is decided at the time of appointment and it is erroneous to suggest that there is any uniform policy of protecting the basic salary as alleged. This stand in para 7 of the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. K. C. Parikh while answering the averments made in para 24 of the petition is clearly belied by the Universitys own action in subsequently revising upwards the petitioners basic salary in the professors scale from Rs. 1500. 00 to Rs. 1560. 00. That itself shows that while fixing basic salary in the professors time scale as offered to the concerned professors, merit for fixing basic salary was not the consideration but the anxiety was to protest their last pay drawn. 1500. 00 to Rs. 1560. 00. That itself shows that while fixing basic salary in the professors time scale as offered to the concerned professors, merit for fixing basic salary was not the consideration but the anxiety was to protest their last pay drawn. It is pertinent to note that so far as Gujarat University was concerned, by the time these candidates were appointed, Sen Commission recommendations for revising professors grade had already come into force and this is precisely the reason why total emoluments in the revised time scale of readers were taken care of and therefore starting salaries were accordingly fixed in thenew time scale. But so far as the petitioner was concerned, as the Karnataka University had not undertaken revision of readers grade and had not refixed the petitioners salary in readers grade by the time he was appointed by the University, that question remained to be resolved later on and this is clearly seen from the subsequent correspondence exchanged between the parties and the ultimate decision rendered by the University at least partially in favour of the petitioner, after considering his case as per resolution dated 25-2-1978. Consequently, it must be held that even apart from the teachers whose cases were jointly dealt with as per the resolution dated 25-2-1978, even while fixing initial basic salary of Dr. Nagar, Solomon and Joshi, same policy is discernible, viz. to protect their last pay drawn as readers. If that is so, there is no reason why the petitioner should be given a separate hostile treatment by not protecting his last pay drawn at the Karnataka University as reader in the same revised time scale as per Sen Commission Recommendations which were of universal application throughout India. The second aspect of discrimination as highlighted by Mr. Patel vis-a-vis the aforesaid three professors also stands well made out. Under these circumstances, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Shelat that the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1968 SC 81 (supra) applies in the facts of the present case. In the case before the Supreme Court, the methods of recruitment, qualifications, etc. of Rajasthan Secretariat Staff and Rajasthan Administrative Service were different as noted by the Supreme Court. Shelat that the decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1968 SC 81 (supra) applies in the facts of the present case. In the case before the Supreme Court, the methods of recruitment, qualifications, etc. of Rajasthan Secretariat Staff and Rajasthan Administrative Service were different as noted by the Supreme Court. When an officer was appointed as Deputy Secretary in Rajasthan Secretariat Service, he was not offered special pay while special pay was admissible to the members of the Rajasthan Administrative Service. In the light of these peculiar facts, it was held by the Supreme Court: Everyone appointed to the same post is not entitled to claim that he must be paid identical emoluments as any other person appointed to the same post, disregarding the method of recruitment or the source from which the officer is drawn for appointment to that post. No such equality is required either by Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution. It is difficult to appreciate how this decision can be said to be useful to the respondents. A clear cut policy is discernible, in the present case, from the action of the respondents themselves that while fixing basic salary in the revised time scale offered to these candidates as professors, lecturers or readers, their last pay drawn in earlier posts was to be protected and was to be converted into basic salary in the new time scales offered to them. No question of different recruitment procedure survived for consideration as was the case before the Supreme Court. On the peculiar facts of this case, therefore, the aforesaid decision has no application. 14. I may also mention one submission put forward by Mr. Shelat. He submitted that the titioners case cannot be compared with the case of other University teachers who were appointed either as lecturers or readers or professors in the University by protecting their last pay drawn as they all came from colleges or institutions affiliated to or run by universities in Gujarat; while the petitioner was coming from outside Gujarat. In my view, such type of distinction cannot be sustained on the touch-stone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In my view, such type of distinction cannot be sustained on the touch-stone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It must be kept in view that the petitioners grievance is that after he entered the service of the respondent University as professor and when the question of protecting his last pay arose and when similar questions were raised by other teachers of the university who were recruited on the university staff in different institutions directly run by the university, they all formed one class and the fact whether they came from any of the outside colleges in Gujarat State or any college outside Gujarat would be totally irrelevant. The source from which they were drawn would lose its birth mark moment they all were recruited as teachers in the university and were made university employees. Thereafter, when the question arose about protecting their last pay drawn by them outside the university campus, that had to be resolved uniformly by giving equal treatment to all university employees similarly situated. The petitioner was also one of such employees. It is also easy to visualize that the question whether before the petitioner became the university employee, he was working as reader in Karnataka University or in Gujarat University or in any other University in the State of Gujarat would pale into insignificance as all the teachers appointed in University service are citizens of India and the University being State within Article 12 of the Constitution was required to meet out to them uniform equal treatment without adopting any discriminatory approach especially when Sen Commission recommendations for revising pay scales of lecturers, readers and professors have universal application throughout India. The contention of Mr. Shelat, therefore, that the petitioner formed a separate class as compared to others or that the petitioner should be treated as outsider as compared to other university teachers who are insiders, cannot be sustained and such defence cannot be said to be based on any reasonable classification having any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Such classification is not countenanced by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ( 14 ) ). As a result of the aforesaid. Such classification is not countenanced by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. ( 14 ) ). As a result of the aforesaid. discussion, the petitioner would be entitled to get uniform treatment with other professors and teachers who were appointed by the University after protecting their total emoluments drawn earlier in other posts and offer to them that pay protection as basic salary in the scales of pay in which they were appointed as University teachers, and on the basis, basic salary in the time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 as fixed on 1 5/03/1978 as per Annexure-G would be required to be refixed at Rs. 1850. 00. However, one aspect of the matter in this connection is required to be taken into consideration. Mr. Shelat for the respondent stated that the petitioner was appointed along with other six professors as per common order at Annexure-X. In case of none of the professors appointed with the petitioner, basic salary in professors common scale of Rs. 1500-2500 offered to any one of them is fixed at any figure higher than Rs. 1680. 00 per month. Now, if the petitioners basic salary in the same time scale which has come into force since years is fixed at Rs. 1850. 00, all other professors would feel discriminated against and as they are not parties to this petition, no order fixing petitioners basic salary at any figure above Rs. 1680 can be passed. If any such order is to be passed, the petition would become not maintainable for such relief and hence, such a relief will be required to be refused. Theoretically speaking, this apprehension is totally misconceived as for rest of the professors, though appointed as per common order, their total emoluments last drawn by them have got protected. However, with a view to allaying this apprehension on the part of the concerned professors whose grievance was canvassed before me by Mr. Shelat and when they are not parties to this petition I suggested to Mr. Patel for the petitioner whether he would be agreeable to the refixation of the petitioners basic salary in the professors time scale being Rs. 1550-2500 at Rs. 1680/- which was the maximum offered to the appointees in professors cadre as per common order at Annexure X, instead of Rs. 1850. 00 which otherwise would have become payable to him as found by me. 1550-2500 at Rs. 1680/- which was the maximum offered to the appointees in professors cadre as per common order at Annexure X, instead of Rs. 1850. 00 which otherwise would have become payable to him as found by me. This would avoid unnecessary heart-burning to all concerned especially when they are not before me and years have rolled by and now the petitioner has become senior mostprofessor and presumably his present time scale would have been further revised by passage of time. I may state, in fairness to Mr. Patel, that he left that question to me and stated that I may pass appropriate orders in this connection. In that view of the matter, interest of justice will be served on taking into consideration all relevant aspects of the matter, by directing the university to refix the basic salary of the petitioner at Rs. 1680. 00 instead of Rs. 1560. 00 in the running time scale of Rs. 1500-2500 as professor with effect from 26-9-1977 that is the date on which he joined the respondent-University as professor in English in the University School of Languages. The orders at Annexures G and H will stand quashed and set aside accordingly. The University is directed to work out the monetary benefits of the aforesaid refixation of his basic salary and to make available such benefits to the petitioner with all consequential effects thereof and pay up the amount of arrears which would be due to the petitioner within eight weeks of receipt of writ of this order at its end. On the aforesaid basis of refixation on 26-9-1977 at Rs. 1680. 00 all further and future benefits legally available to the petitioner in the same running time scale as professor including refixation of his present salary in the aforesaid revised time scale or higher time scale, if any, may also be worked out and made available to the petitionerfrom time to time. ( 15 ) ). Before parting with the judgment, I may mention that at the request of the learned Advocate of the petitioner, notice was issued in this petition to the State of Gujarat with a view to finding out whether monetary benefits if any that may be available to the petitioner in these proceedings can be covered by permissible grant to be released by the State of Gujarat to therespondent-University. Pursuant to the said notice, Mr. Pursuant to the said notice, Mr. Mehul Rathod learned Assistant Government Pleader appeared before me and stated that he has not got instructions in the matter and he wanted some time to get further instructions. I would have certainly accepted this request but for the fact that in my view, it is not necessary to pass any orders in this connection against the State of Gujarat in the present proceedings. Pursuant to the present order, whatever monetary benefits are made available to the petitioner can form subject-matter of request by the respondent University to the State Government for releasing appropriate grant for covering this amount. It would equally be open to the State Government to consider the said request of the University in accordance with law and to find out whether this claim can be covered by permissible grant or not. It is to be recalled at this stage that monetary benefits that may be available to the petitioner will be in the revised UGC pay-scale as recommended by Sen Commission and as accepted by the State of Gujarat. If the State Government has covered by permissible grants the amounts payable to the concerned University teachers who have got benefit of the Sen Commission recommendations, then the same benefits can be made legitimately available to the petitioner and to the University in its turn. However, all these questions will have to be considered by the State of Gujarat if the University approaches the State Government for appropriate supplementary grant for covering the monetary benefits flowing to the petitioner pursuant to the present order and it will be for the State Government to take its own decision. I express no opinion on this aspect and leave it open for consideration of the appropriate authority of the State of Gujarat, if so requested by the University. ( 16 ) ). Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extentwith no order as to costs. (RPV) Petition partly allowed. .