M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) AT the out set, it may be stated that the matters of 1982-83 are coming up for final hearing. The Board was notified way back on 3rd July, 1995 and these are all old matters which are pending since last more than one decade. But with regrets not less than surprise, it is to be recorded that in most of the cases, the State and its Functionaries who are respondents have not cared to file replies. Same is the position in the present case in which no reply whatsoever has been filed and the facts have, therefore, remained uncontroverted. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in the instant case was working as Assistant Lecturer in the institution headed by respondent No. 3 that is College of Arts Diploma Course. A reference has been made to a Government Resolution dated 20th June, 1973 introducing scheme for examination for Higher Arts Drawing Examination. By this resolution, the government has revised the syllabus and scheme of the examination for Diploma Course for Arts. , as follows: (1) Five Years Diploma Course : (i) Drawing and Painting. (ii) Sculpture, (iii) Applied Art. (2) Two years Duration : (i) Drawing Masters Course renamed as Arts Teachers Diploma. (3) One Year duration : post Diploma Art Masters Course of one year. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that all the aforesaid courses have foundation course as a part of 1st Year study and all students taking any of the branches as enumereted above or any of the courses referred to hereinabove have to study the first year course known as foundation course and this foundation is a common course for all the students who went to appear in the examination held by the Government of Gujarat and it is only after successful completion of the aforesaid foundation course of first year, that the student is admitted to the specialised course for drawing and painting, sculptures, applied arts, drawing course and Arts Teachers Diploma Course ("atd Course" for short ). Through this petition, the petitioner seeks to raise the grievance in the matters of pay scales fixed by the Government with regard to the assistant lecturers teaching in each of the institutions and it has been submitted that if the assistant teacher is appointed in any arts college, his pay scale is fixed at Rs. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks to raise the grievance in the matters of pay scales fixed by the Government with regard to the assistant lecturers teaching in each of the institutions and it has been submitted that if the assistant teacher is appointed in any arts college, his pay scale is fixed at Rs. 550-900 and if the assitant lacturer is appointed in ATD Colleges, pay scale is Rs. 440-750. A copy of the resolution dated 10th July, 1977 is annexed at Annexure-B in support of this assertion. It is submitted that initially, pay scale of the assistant lecturer was Rs. 350-600 which was later on revised to Rs. 550-900 vide Resolution dated 15th April, 1977. The pay scale of the Assistant Teacher in drawing Teachers College now known as ATD College was Rs. 350-600 and the same was subsequently revised by resolution dated 26th July, 1979 to Rs. 440-750. It has been submitted that earlier, special civil application no. 2682 of 1978 was filed by one Shri jashvantrai B. Naik and after passing of the aforesaid resolution dated 26th July, 1979, when it was not implemented for quite some time, a statement was made before the Court that the arrears, if any, will be paid and further payment of salary on the basis of the new pay scale will be made by 7th June, 1980 and in view of his statement, aforesaid special civil application was withdrawn. ( 4 ) THUS, the grievance of discrimination in the matters of pay scale to the holders of the post of assistant lecturers teaching the foundation course in ATD College on one hand and those assistant lecturers teaching the same course in Fine Arts College on the other hand was agitated befoere the Government through the association of Assistant Lecturers but nothing was done and the petitioner was constrained to file this petition with a 490 grievance that nothing has been done till March, 1980 and even if the resolution of 26th july, 1979, it is implemented, the discrimination in the matter of pay scale is not redressed. The petitioner is holding qualification of Arts Master (AM) and Diploma in painting. The petitioner is holding qualification of Arts Master (AM) and Diploma in painting. The petitioners case is that the holders of the same qualification teaching the same subject in the same course are getting higher pay scale merely because they are teaching in the Fine Arts Colleges and the petitioner is getting lesser pay scale merely because he is teaching the same subject in the same course in different institution that is arts Teachers Diploma College and he submits that the nature of the duties being exactly identical, holders of equal posts cannot be discriminated in the matter of pay scale merely on account of their posting in different institution and it is a case of discrimination merely because of posting in different institutions and the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has made specific averments in this regard in para 10 of the petition and it has been contended that there is no justification to pay the Assistant Lecturers working in ATD Colleges in the pay scale of Rs. 440-750 and to pay the Assistant lecturers in the Fine Arts College in the pay scale of Rs. 550- 900. Neither any reply controverting the facts alleged by the petitioner has been filed nor during the course of arguments, any justification whatsoever has been made for the discrimination complained in the petition. ( 6 ) MR. L. R. Pujari, learned Assistant Government Pleader has submitted that he is handicaped because the Solicitors have not send the papers and brief to him nor any officer-in-charge of the matter appointed by the Government has approached him and he also does not have the rules on the basis of which he can argue the matter. However, he has submitted that the Government has powers to prescribe different pay scales for holders of the same post and in support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V. Markande vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, air 1989 SC 1308 and also in the case of Mevaram vs. All India Institute of Medical sciences, AIR 1989 SC 1256 . In the case of V. Markande, (Supra), non- graduate supervisors sought to claim parity with the graduate supervisors in the pay scale and the supreme Court held that prescribing lower pay scales for non-graduate supervisors was not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. ( 7 ) SIMILARLY in the case of Mevaram, (supra), grievance was raised on the principle of equal pay for equal work for differential treatment to persons belonging to the same class on the basis of educational qualifications and the Supreme Court held that prescribing different pay scales was justified in view of the difference in educational qualifications and prescribing of different pay scales on the basis of educational qualifications was held to be permissible classification. ( 8 ) SO far as the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court are concerned, same have to be followed and the same are binding and there cannot be any quarrel with the propositions of law but the question is about their applicability to the facts of the present case. Here is a case in which neither there is any difference in the matter of educational qualifications nor in the matter of discharging of duties. It has not been shown that the qualifications held by the Assistant Lecturers posted in Fine Arts colleges are higher in comparision to the Assistant Lecturers who are posted in Arts teachers Diploma Colleges. Not only that, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confronted the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Pujari with the Government Resolution dated 9th October, 1987 which has been given effect from 1. 1. 1986 and in terms of this resolution, the Assistant Lecturers working in the Fine arts College and those working in the Arts Teachers Diploma Colleges have been brought at par in the matter of pay scale. This by itself is sufficient to show that there was no reasonable classification or permissible classification to differentiate the holders of these posts as the resolution dated 7th October, 1987 is not based on any subsequent amendment or change in the qualification or on any other relevant or change in the qualification or on any other relevant considerations. This by itself is sufficient to show that there was no reasonable classification or permissible classification to differentiate the holders of these posts as the resolution dated 7th October, 1987 is not based on any subsequent amendment or change in the qualification or on any other relevant or change in the qualification or on any other relevant considerations. The mere fact that the resolution has been passed and the Government realised the genuineness of the grievance which were raised by the persons like the petitioners only in the year 1987 and while passing this resolution has given effect to the same from 1. 1. 1986, it cannot be said that the anomaly and the discrimination did not exist prior to 1. 1. 1986. In this view of the matter, the supreme Court decisions on which reliance has been placed by the learned Assistant government Pleader are of no avail to the case of the respondents and the respondents cannot be allowed to raise any plea in the vaccum. If any law has to be applied, law has to be applied on facts. There is no factual foundation whatsoever so as to invoke help of the principles which have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove. It is a dismal fact which has been noticed by this Court time and again in several cases where returns are not filed by the Department and the Government despite the pendency of the matter in this Court for years together even beyond the period of one decade in large number of cases, and the learned Assistant Government Pleaders appearing in the matters on behalf of the respondents have to cut a sorry figure for want of reply in absence of the officer-in-charge of the matter from the Department with relevant record and instructions and brief and papers not being received by them from the office of the Solicitors and this two tier system for the purpose of defending the Government cases is thus having no effect in the interest of the Government in such litigations and the matters have to be decided only on the basis of the pleadings as are available on record. It is still more painful situation to note that even the relevant service rules are not available in the office of the Government Pleader and it has been pointed out by the learned assistant Government Pleader appearing in the matter that there are no published set of the rules, and even if they are published, their non-availability in the Government pleaders office precipitates the situation in which they are not even able to raise legal submission in the cases which may be urged on behalf of the Government on the basis of the relevant scheme of the rules even if no reply and returns are filed. The matters pending for the years together even for more than one decade cannot be made to wait further for filing of returns or replies etc. and it is for the Government Pleader in such a manner so that Law Officers working in the office of Government Pleader are well armed and equipped to put up the case of the Government and its functionaries in an effective manner. ( 9 ) BE that as it may, so far as the position which emerges in the facts of the present case is concerned, it is very much clear that there is no reasonable classification from the very inception to make any differentiation between the lecturers working in the Fine arts Colleges and those working in the Arts Teachers Diploma Colleges in the matters of pay scales and the result is that this petition succeeds and it is directed that the appropriate action be taken and necessary resolutions and orders be passed by the government so that the candidates like the petitioner working in the Arts Teachers diploma College are treated at par with those working in the Fine Arts Colleges for the period on and from the date of issue of the resolution dated 10. 7. 1977 to 31. 12. 1985 because the relief has been already granted for the period on and from 1. 1. 1986. The directions as aforesaid shall be carried out by the concerned respondents as early as possible but in no case later then the period of four months from the date writ is served upon the first respondent. The petitioners shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. .