ORDER : N.P. Singh, J. 1. Delay condoned. 2. Leave granted. 3. These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh for setting aside the common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal dated 2-1-1986 directing that the Librarians working in various engineering colleges, medical colleges and colleges of education be paid the same scale of pay which was being paid to the Librarians and Physical Training Instructors working in colleges of general education. Before issuing the aforesaid direction, the Tribunal has taken note of the fact that so far the Librarians and Physical Training Instructors in the colleges of general education are concerned, they hold Class II gazetted posts whereas the Librarians in technical education colleges like the engineering colleges, medical colleges and colleges of education belong to Class III service. In that connection, the Tribunal has observed as follows: "The assertion of the respondents in their written argument that the duties and responsibility of Librarians and PTIs in colleges of general education are higher is contrary to their admission in their return, which cannot be accepted. They did not give particulars as to how the duties and responsibility of the Librarians and PTIs of colleges of general education are higher. As against this, the petitioners have filed a chart comparing the duties and responsibilities in engineering, medical and colleges of education with the duties and responsibilities of colleges of general education. The correctness of this chart has not been denied by the respondents. Merely because the posts of Librarians and PTIs in colleges of general education are declared gazetted Class II, it cannot be a ground to deny relief claimed by the petitioners inasmuch as the gazetted status was given to them in the year 1986 and not before. The respondents admitted that the State Government is likely to frame recruitment rules so as to make these posts also gazetted Class II in the near future. Therefore, there is no justification to oppose the claim on the ground that the petitioners are non-gazetted Class III employees." 4. The respondents admitted that the State Government is likely to frame recruitment rules so as to make these posts also gazetted Class II in the near future. Therefore, there is no justification to oppose the claim on the ground that the petitioners are non-gazetted Class III employees." 4. It can be said that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion on the materials on record that the assertion made on behalf of the State that the Librarians and Physical Training Instructors of colleges of general education are Class II gazetted employees whereas the Librarians of engineering colleges, medical colleges and colleges of education are non-gazetted Class III employees. It has also been pointed out by the Tribunal that the State Government was likely to frame recruitment rules so that the posts of Librarians in engineering colleges, medical colleges and colleges of education are made gazetted Class II posts. In this background, we are not able to appreciate as to how the Tribunal has given the aforesaid direction to pay the same scale of pay to the respondents. Once the respondents are held to be non-gazetted Class III employees, they cannot claim the pay scale of gazetted Class II employees. This aspect of the matter has been examined recently in different judgments of this Court and has been pointed out that the tribunals and courts should be reluctant in issuing directions on the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". In such a situation, we are left with no other option but to allow the appeals and set aside the impugned orders. The appeals are allowed. No costs. 5. However, the Tribunal shall examine whether the classification of Librarians in general colleges of education and colleges of engineering, medical and colleges of education is reasonable and as to whether any direction is required to be given to the State Government. Appeals allowed.