By this common judgment, these civil rules (Nos 84 of 1992, 92 of 1992 and 279 of 1992) are proposed to be disposed of. At the very outset, it is necessary to clear the fact of each case separately. 2. In Civil Rule No. 84 of 1992, the petitioner Shri Ramendra Nath Dey, Senior Lecturer of Govt Music College, Agartala, has claimed the pay scale recommended by the University Grants Commission for the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 1.12.1977 and the senior scale of pay with effect from 1.12.1985 along with the prayer for a direction to the respondents not to appoint any other person as Vice Principal of the said college except the petitioner. The petitioner who is a Master Degree holder in Classical Vocal Music having to his » credit the Masters Degree in Bengali and Bachelors Degree in Education, joined the post of Senior Lecturer in the said college on 30.4.1977 for imparting lessons in degree course in music. Initially, the college was affiliated with the Calcutta University, but on constitution and establishment of the Tripura University, the B-Music Wing of the college was affiliated with it with effect from 29.10.1987. In 1986, Govt of Tripura extended the University Grants Commission scales of e pay to the college teachers working in the State of Tripura. The petitioner claimed the UGC scale meant for the Assistant Professor with effect from 1.12.1977 (post of Senior Lecturer has been re-designated as Assistant Professor) and, on completion of 8 years from 1.12.1977, the senior scale meant for the Assistant Professor with effect from 1.12.1985 as per UGC recommendation. The claim of the petitioner is mainly based on the judgment of this Court passed in Civil Rule / No.78 of 1980 wherein the Court while holding that the B-Music course of the Govt Music College is a degree level course of the college affiliated to the Tripura University also recommended the UGC pay scale to the Principal on the ground that denial thereof to the Principal was arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner being one of the three members of the teaching staff, taking the said judgment as grounds-well, has staked his claim. S The petitioner, being senior most Lecturer of the college also sought for a direction for consideration of his candidature for promotion to the post of Vice Principal. 3. The petitioner being one of the three members of the teaching staff, taking the said judgment as grounds-well, has staked his claim. S The petitioner, being senior most Lecturer of the college also sought for a direction for consideration of his candidature for promotion to the post of Vice Principal. 3. In Civil Rule No.92 of 1992, Smti Ashima Bhattacharjee and in Civil Rule No.279 of 1992 Smti Namita Deb Choudhury seek relief by way of a direction for their absorption in the post of Assistant Professor of the college in the B Music Wing with consequential benefits of UGC scale with effect from their respective date of joining. 4. The petitioner in Civil Rule No.92 of 1992 having her Master Degree from Rabindra Bharati University, Calcutta and, at the relevant time, working as Assistant Teacher in Maharani Tulshibati Girls Higher Secondary School, was selected and deputed to the Music College to conduct the classes in the streams of Rabindra Sangeet, Wester Music and Karnataka Music in the B-Music Wing and, accordingly, she joined the college on deputation on 9.12.1977. 5. The petitioner in Civil Rule No.279 of 1992, was initially appointed as Lecturer in Melagarh Higher Secondary School, West Tripura and was working at the relevant time in Govt Women's College when she was deputed to the Govt Music College where she had joined on 5.12.1977 to impart lessons in Bengali which is one of the subjects prescribed. 6. The petitioner in Civil Rule No.84 of 1992 stands on different footing inasmuch as he was directly appointed as Lecturer in the Music College while the c petitioners in other two writ petitions were deputed from their parent departments while working as Lecturer/Assistant Teacher in Higher Secondary Schools, In view of this difference in the standing of the petitioners, the case of the petitioners in Civil Rule No.84 of 1992 is proposed to be dealt with separately. 7. It would appear from para 6 of the counter submitted by the State that the Music College (B-Music Wing) was deemed to have been affiliated to the Tripura University with effect from 2.11.1987. 7. It would appear from para 6 of the counter submitted by the State that the Music College (B-Music Wing) was deemed to have been affiliated to the Tripura University with effect from 2.11.1987. The status of this college as a Degree College and its affiliation to the University came in question in an earlier writ petition (Civil Rule No.7.8 of 1980) and this petition was disposed on 6.1.1989 directing payment of UGC scale as per UGC recommendation to Shri Tripurendra Bhowmik, the writ petitioner, who was then working as Principal of the college. Acting upon the said judgment, the State Govt extended the scale as per UGC recommendation to the Principal by addendum dated 31st May, 1993 inserting necessary provisions in the Govt notification No.F.l(499)-DHE/88 dated 31.3.1989. It is, therefore, clear that the State Govt accepted in principle the ratio laid down in the said case to extend the UGC scale to the Principal of the college. This sets at rest the question regarding the status of the Music Collegers-Music Wing) and this question cannot be re-opened for decision afresh by this Court. 8. Shri A. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, argued that since the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court was accepted and acted upon by the Govt, they cannot now deny their obligation under the judgment to extend the UGC scale to the writ petitioner. He has also referred to an observation made by the Division Bench in para 5 of the judgment to the effect that the affidavit-8 in-reply filed by the State Govt on 4.1.1989 in the said writpetition clearly showed that three members of the teaching staff including the-Principal of the Music College were conducting B-Music course and denial of University Grants Commission pay scale to the petitioner (Principal), was, therefore, discriminatory and arbitrary. He sought for extension of UGC recommendation on the basis of said ratio. 9. In para 6 of the affidavit-in-opposition dated 24.3.1995, the State Govt denied that the applicant was appointed as teacher of Degree College (B-Music) as no post of teacher was created either for diploma course or degree course. It is further averred that the petitioner being a teacher like other writ petitioners cannot be redesignated as an Assistant Professor with the benefit of corresponding UGC scale. But the statement by the Govt in their counter donot reflect the correct a position. It is further averred that the petitioner being a teacher like other writ petitioners cannot be redesignated as an Assistant Professor with the benefit of corresponding UGC scale. But the statement by the Govt in their counter donot reflect the correct a position. From Annexure 1, at page 11, we find that Shri Ramendra Nath Dey, the petitioner, was offered the post of Senior Lecturer in Vocal Music and was directed to report for duties to the Principal Govt Music College, Agartala. Annexure 1, in unambiguous language, shows that the petitioner was at the very first instance appointed as Senior Lecturer in Vocal Music in the Govt Music College. It is not understood as to how the Govt in their affidavit could say that the status and position of the petitioner is of a teacher like other writ petitioners. Submission made by the learned Govt Advocate is, therefore, liable to be rejected (in view of Annexure 1), as the status of the writ petitioner as Senior Lecturer with effect from the date of his appointment is evident in Annexure 1. 10. The Govt vide notification dated 31 March 1989, extended the UGC scales to the College Teachers of Tripura with effect from 1.1.1986. While implementing the UGC recommendation in respect of College Teachers, the Govt excluded from its purview certain colleges including the Govt Music College. Para 2 of the Govt notification of 1989 reads as follows : “2. The Govt of Tripura have now decided to adopt and implement the revised pay scales for the teachers of Govt Degree Colleges, Govt College of Education, d Regional College of Physical Education and Tripura Govt Law College with effect from 1.1.986. These orders shall not apply to the teachers of Tripura Engineering College, Govt Music College, Basic Training College and Govt College of Art & Craft.” 11. It would appear from the above that the Govt by way of policy decided to implement the revised pay scales for the teachers of Degree Colleges in the State of Tripura. But the teachers of the Govt Music College which is also a Degree College so far it relates to the B-Music Wing have been excluded. Obviously, the Govt Music College imparting lessons in music at degree level and being affiliated to the Tripura University cannot be excluded from the purview of the scheme (Annexure R/l). But the teachers of the Govt Music College which is also a Degree College so far it relates to the B-Music Wing have been excluded. Obviously, the Govt Music College imparting lessons in music at degree level and being affiliated to the Tripura University cannot be excluded from the purview of the scheme (Annexure R/l). In para 7 of the Annexure R/l we find the reason for such exclusion. Para 7 of Annexure R/l read as follows : “7. The revised scales of pay are applicable only to the teaching staff of the colleges in the categories as mentioned in para 2 above, who having been appointed as such on whole time basis were in position on 1.1.86 or thereafter arid were of have been drawing pay in the UGC scales, 1973 against sanctioned posts. The revised scales will not be applicable to the teachers who were or have been drawing pay in colleges non UGC scales.” 12. It would appear from para 7 reproduced above that the revised scales were not given to the teachers who were or have been drawing pay in colleges in non-UGC scales. This means that the College Teachers of the State of Tripura who were not already in receipt of UGC scales were kept outside the purview of the revised recommendation brought into force in the year 1986. This is, indeed, a policy matter of the State Govt and therefore, it requires consideration whether it would be just and proper for this Court to interfere with the policy decision. Law is, however, settled that interference with the policy decision will be permissible when only the petitioner succeeds in making out a case that he has been arbitrarily deprived of the scale while other persons similarly situated have been allowed. 13. Before embarking upon further discussion, it is considered imperative to dispels of a technical objection raised by Mr. UB Saha, learned Govt Advocate controverting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim of the petitioner is barred by the principle of res-judicata as a similar question raised by the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 195 of 1997 was decided against him. UB Saha, learned Govt Advocate controverting the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the claim of the petitioner is barred by the principle of res-judicata as a similar question raised by the petitioner in Civil Rule No. 195 of 1997 was decided against him. The petitioner Shri Ramendra Nath Dey filed the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 195 of 1997 for quashing the seniority list, recruitment rules and the appointment of the Principal on the ground of inconsistency with the guidelines prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The pay scale given to the Principal which was less than that UGC scale in force at that time was also one of the grounds for assailing the recruitment rules. The learned Single Judge, after a threadbare discussion, dismissed the writ petition thereby rejecting the contention of the writ petitioner that the rules and the seniority list prepared thereunder were violative of UGC norms. According to Mr. UB Saha, learned Govt Advocate, the applicability of the UGC norms in respect of the Govt Music College having been rejected by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner (Civil Rule No.195 of 1997), the petitioner is therefore, estopped from raising the same question again in the instant writ petition. It would appear from the aforesaid judgment that the learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in RL Bansal & others vs. Union of India & others, reported in AIR 1993 SC 978 , observed that the rules made under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, being legislative in character, cannot be struck down merely because the Court thinks that these are unreasonable. But the question relating to unreasonabe and arbitrary exclusion of the Lecturers of the Music College from the purview of UGC scale was not an issue in that case and the decision of that case was rendered without reference to any specific prayer for implementation of such recommendation in respect of the petitioner. Therefore, this aspect of the matter which was not covered by the aforesaid judgment remains open for adjudication. Another special feature is that the instant petition was filed in 1992 whereas the judgment discussed above relates to Civil Rule No. 195 filed in 1997. A decision pronounced in a subsequent writ petition not exactly on the same subject and on a different context, cannot be construed as a bar. Another special feature is that the instant petition was filed in 1992 whereas the judgment discussed above relates to Civil Rule No. 195 filed in 1997. A decision pronounced in a subsequent writ petition not exactly on the same subject and on a different context, cannot be construed as a bar. Even, it cannot operate as constructive res-judicata so as to disentitle this Court from a adjudicating the question relating to unreasonable and arbitrary refusal of the UGC scale. 14. Now let us revert back to the claim of the petitioner based on the earlier judgment passed in Civil Rule No. 78 of 1980 (Annexure 3). The said judgment was rendered by a Division Bench of this High Court and for the purpose of appreciating relevance thereof, it is .necessary to reproduce herein below certain extracts from the said judgment: “3. It is not disputed that the Tripura Govt Music College is conducting B. Music course along with other diploma and certificate course. It is also not disputed that for the purpose of B. Music course the college was affiliated to the Cacutta University in the year 1977 and now to the Tripura University. 5. The decision of the Govt is absolutely clear and unambiguous. The Govt decided to grant University Grants Commission pay scales to teachers of all colleges affiliated to University. From the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner we find that recently State Govt decided to grant the said pay scales even to the members of the Regional College of Physical Education affiliated to University for the purpose of degree as well as diploma. That being the position, we do not find any justification for not granting the University Grants Commission pay scale to the present petitioner of the scale as the college is conducting B-Music course and it is affiliated to the University. Mr. Majumdar, has raised another contention that as the college is also conducting diploma and certificate course the petitioner is not entitled to get the pay scale as these course are not affiliated to any University. In reply, Mr. Lodh has rightly submitted that this is an additional work conducted by the college in question and for that reason the present petitioner cannot be denied of his right to get the pay scale of the University Grant Commission. In reply, Mr. Lodh has rightly submitted that this is an additional work conducted by the college in question and for that reason the present petitioner cannot be denied of his right to get the pay scale of the University Grant Commission. From the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State on 4.1.89 we find that three members of the teaching staff including the Principal of the Music College are conducting B. Music course. This is the admitted position. So we are constrained to hold that denial of University Grants Commission pay scale to the present petitioner is discriminatory and also arbitrary and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.” 15. The above decision inrresistibly leads to the conclusion that the Senior Lecturers of the Music College who are similarly situated with the Principal cannot be denied the UGC scale unless they fall short of UGC norms, or otherwise disqualified. So far the petitioner Shri Dey is concerned, the materials on record show that he is a Master Degree holder in Bengali and Music and also possess a Bachelors Degree in Education. Annexure 4 issued by the Joint Secretary to the Govt of Tripura itself shows that the petitioner Shri Dey, on consideration of his qualification and other eligibility was allocated to the degree course in the Govt Music College along with Smti Ahsima Bhattacharjee, the writ petitioner of Civil Rule No.92 of 1992. This allocation was made on fulfilment of the eligibility criteria prescribed by the University Grants Commission; This is evident from the penaltimate para of the office order referred to above. Therefore, the eligibility of the petitioner for entitlement to the UGC scale also stands cleared from the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Education Department. That apart, there is no effective challenge to the claim that the petitioner is a whole-time teacher. This narrows down the scope of enquiry in this case to the sole question whether non-receipt of UGC scale from before would be an acceptable ground to keep them out of the purview of the scheme. 16. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel put much emphasis on the judgment in CR 78 of 1980. This narrows down the scope of enquiry in this case to the sole question whether non-receipt of UGC scale from before would be an acceptable ground to keep them out of the purview of the scheme. 16. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel put much emphasis on the judgment in CR 78 of 1980. But the learned Govt Advocate controverted the claim pleading that the judgment delivered by this Court in the aforesaid civil rule was contrary to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in AIR 1996 SC 3201 and (1997) 3 SCC 568 . His further argued that the aforesaid judgment was a judgment in personam and, as such decision of that case is not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the dispute in the instant writ petition. 17. In AIR 1996 SC 3201 (State of West Bengal & others vs. TVopical School Employees' Union & others) the Supreme Court did not endorse the decision of the High Court in extending the benefit of pay scales prescribed by the UGC to the non-teaching medical staff and alsp to Class IV Govt employees. In the instant case, we are dealing with a duly appointed Senior Lecturer who has been discharging his duties as a teacher in the Music College since 1977. It is beyond one's comprehension as to how the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in respect of a non-teaching staff could be imported to apply to a member of teaching staff of a degree level college. The analogy sought to be introduced is undoubtedly wide on the mark and has no significance. 18. In (1997) 3 SCC 568 (Union of India & another vs. PV Harisharan & another), the Supreme Court sounded a note of caution against interference with the pay scale recommended by the Pay Commission. It would appear from para 5 of the judgment that it was a case where the Tribunal interferred with the pay scales without adequate reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not the function of the Tribunal. In that case, the pay structure recommended by the Pay Commission was unsettled. Here we are not dealing with the recommendations made by the UGC. The State Govt while implementing the recommendations excluded the Govt Music College from the purview of UGC scale and propriety of this very order is in challenge. In that case, the pay structure recommended by the Pay Commission was unsettled. Here we are not dealing with the recommendations made by the UGC. The State Govt while implementing the recommendations excluded the Govt Music College from the purview of UGC scale and propriety of this very order is in challenge. The decision in this case will rest on the sole question as to whether the State action in keeping the Lecturer of the Govt Music College out of the purview of the UGC scale is unseasonable and arbitrary. The structure of the scales recommended by UGC was also not in dispute in the earlier writ petition. Nor it is disputed here. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Govt Advocate that the decision in Civil Rule No.78 of 1980 was in any manner contrary to the law laid .down by the Apex Court. 19. Learned Govt Advocate further argued that the judgment delivered by the Division Bench in Civil Rule No.78 of 1980 is a judgment in personam and the decision rendered therein cannot be relied upon to extend the benefit to the petitioners. In the aforesaid judgment, the Division Bench accepted the Music College (B-Music Wing) as a degree level college and this decision is undoubtedly final and decisive so far as the status of college is concerned. The claim of the petitioner for UGC scale will, however, depend upon his eligibility vis-a-vis the validky of the provisions of para 2 of the Govt notification dated 31 st March, 1989. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Civil Rule No.78 of 1980, whether in personam or in rem, has immense significance in determining the claim of the petitioner. 20. The documents on record unquestionably point out that Shri Dey was duly appointed as Lecturer of the Music College and has been serving as such since 1977. He also fulfils the UGC criteria required for such posts. The State Govt while extending the scale to the similarly circumstanced teacher, excluded the petitioner from purview of UGC scale. Even, he was not considered when the UGC scale was extended to the Principal of the college under direction of the Court. This undoubtedly amounts to discrimination. It is true that differential treatment 'per se' does not constitute violation of Article 14, but absence of reasonable basis for such differentiation does. Even, he was not considered when the UGC scale was extended to the Principal of the college under direction of the Court. This undoubtedly amounts to discrimination. It is true that differential treatment 'per se' does not constitute violation of Article 14, but absence of reasonable basis for such differentiation does. The reason for such discrimination as is available in para 7 of the Govt notification of 1989 (Annexure R/l) does not appear to be adequate. It is evident that while all the teachers in Degree Colleges a in the State have been given the benefit of the UGC scale. The eligible teaches of the Music College (B-Music Wing) including the writ petitioner have been left out only on the ground that they were not covered by the UGC scale from before. That apart, he plea of financial constraint as is evident from Govt file produced before the Court to justify such differential treatment does not augur well with the concept of equal protection. Differential treatment, without any reasonable basis, is impermissible and has to be taken care of. The State action which is ex facie bereft of judicial attachment cannot but be deprecated as arbitrary. Had the exclusion been on the ground of lack of qualification and experience, the question would have been altogether different. The manner in which and the grounds for which the distinction has been made undisputedly shows that the decision making Jttocess was influenced by consideration other than legal and judicial. Annexure c R/l, the executive order embodying the arbitrary decision of the State cannot clog the process of justice. The prayer for extending the UGC scale has to be allowed despite the fact that the Scheme Annexure R/l has not been specifically challenged. 21. The other prayer of the petitioner for a direction not to fill up the post of Vice Principal by any person other than the petitioner himself is not maintainable on the ground that the authorities are free to proceed to fill up the post of Vice Principal in accordance with the Recruitment Rules. If the petitioner is within the consideration zone for promotion to the said post, his candidature will naturally be taken up by the authority concerned for consideration for promotion to the said post in accordance with the provisions of the rules. Hence, no direction to this effect is felt necessary. 22. If the petitioner is within the consideration zone for promotion to the said post, his candidature will naturally be taken up by the authority concerned for consideration for promotion to the said post in accordance with the provisions of the rules. Hence, no direction to this effect is felt necessary. 22. Now, let us refer to Civil Rule No. 92 of 1992 filed by Srhti Ashima Bhattacharjee. While working as Assistant teacher in Maharani Tulshibai Girls' HS School she was deputed to work in the Music College in her existing pay and allowances vide order dated 1.12.1977. The deputation order reads as follows : “No.F.3 (3-)-Music/77, dated, Agartala, the 1.12.1977. Government of Tripura ::: Education Directorate MEMO Subject: Deputation of Assistant Teacher Smti Ashima Bhattacherjee (MA in Music), Assistant Teacher, MT Girls' HS School, Agartala is temporarily deputed to work in the Govt Music College, Agartala with her existing pay and scale of pay plus admissible allowances until further orders. She will report for her duties to the Principal, Govt Music College, Agartala, immediately. Sd/- Director of Education, Tripura.” 23. In the same manner the petitioner of Civil Rule No.279 of 1992. Smti Namita Deb Choudhury, an Assistant Teacher was also deputed to the Music College in her existing pay and allowances sometime in the year 1977. 24. It would appear from the deputation orders that they were deputed in their capacity as Assistant Teachers to work in the Govt Music College since 1977, both the writ petitioners have been working in the Music College without any interruption. It would, further appear from the pleadings and connected documents that both of them are also duly qualified to hold the post of Senior Lecturer as per UGC norms. The certificates issued by the Principal (available at Annexure 3A in case of Smti Ashima Bhattaeharjee and Annexure 3 in case of Smti Namita Deb Choudhury) would show that both of them were attached to the B-Music section of the college and have been imparting lessons in the degree course of the college since the day they joined the college on deputation. Besides, Smt Ashima Bhattaeharjee was also appointed by the Controller of Examination of Calcutta University as Examiner of the B-Music course Examination in 1980, 1983 and 1987. Besides, Smt Ashima Bhattaeharjee was also appointed by the Controller of Examination of Calcutta University as Examiner of the B-Music course Examination in 1980, 1983 and 1987. Situated thus, it has to be decided whether the writ petitioners who had put in 15 years of service at the time of institution of the writ petitions and by now, completed 20 years and whose, services have been utilised in the degree course of the Music College all-through could be denied the UGC pay contrary to the dictum "equal pay for equal work" and refused absorption as Senior Lecturers (Assistant Professor) as claimed by them. There is no denial to the fact that both the petitioners submitted representations for their absorption without loss of time. Smti Bhattaeharjee, submitted her representation in the month of August, 1991 while Smti Namita Deb Choudhury submitted her representation on 20th July, 1977 and also on subsequent occasions for absorption. But the respondents did not think it necessary to inform them of the decision, if any, taken on such representations. On the other hand, their services were utilized in the college without being recalled back to the lending department. Even they were not given proforma promotion in their parent department. All these may be reads as demonstrative of the intention on the part of the respondents not to e repartriate the petitioners to their parent departments. But now, exhibiting utter ignorance of the circumstances which compelled the petitioners to work in the Music College for such a long time, the respondents are resisting their claim rabsorption and UGC scale without any reasonable ground while other teachers similarly circumstanced have been given the said benefits. This will get further crystallized if we take note of Annexure 10 and 10A of the supplementary affidavit The State Govt has, in pursuance of a judgment passed by this Court, appointed some Assistant Teachers as Lecturers/Assistant Professors of the Govt Degree College. Because of its importance for the purpose of this case, one of such notifications is reproduced below : Government of Tripura ::: Education Department ”No.F. 1 (5-51)-DHE/79/77, dated, Agartala, the 21.11.1995. Because of its importance for the purpose of this case, one of such notifications is reproduced below : Government of Tripura ::: Education Department ”No.F. 1 (5-51)-DHE/79/77, dated, Agartala, the 21.11.1995. NOTIFICATION With reference to Govt of Tripura, Education Department's notification No.F. 1 (411)-DHE/88(L-G) dated 30.5.1989 issued in pursuance of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench, the Governor is pleased to appoint the following Assistant Teachers as mentioned in Column No.2 of the Schedule below as Lecturer/Assistant Professor of colleges as mentioned in Column No.3 in the prc-revise scales of pay as mentioned against each in Column No.4 with other admissible allowances with effect from the date as mentioned against each of their names in Column No.5 and post them temporarily to the colleges as mentioned in Column No.6 of the Schedule : Sl No. Name of Assistant Teacher Pose against which appointed Pre-revised scale of pay Date of appointment with restrospective effect Degree College to which posted 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Smt. Nibha Roy Lecture Rs 275-650 16.9.68 MBB College Agratala 2. Sri Dwipendra Ch Roy, Lecturer Rs. 275-650 16.8.68 Govt College Education Agartala 3. Sri Malat Kr Saha, Assistant Teacher, Pallimangal HS School Assistant Professor in Bengali Govt Collecte of Education Agartala” 25. It would appear from above notification that some Assistant Teachers were appointed as Teachers/Assistant Professors in various subjects with retros­pective effect in MBB College and Govt College of Education. This retrospective appointment shows that they were on deputation to the said colleges. These colleges are covered by the UGC scale as per Annexure R/l. Therefore, there cannot be any reason for the Govt to deny the same benefit to the writ petitioners, namely Smti Ashima Bhattacharjee and Smti Namita Deb Choudhury. 26. The learned Govt Advocate cited some decision of the Supreme Court to counter the claim of the petitioners. In the Regional Manager & another vs. Pawan Kumar Dubey, AIR 1976 SC 1766 , It would appear that the Supreme Court did not approve of sudden reversion of the petitioners without reasonable explanation regarding existence of any administrative exigency for such reversion. The Supreme Court also observed that before Article 16 is held to have been violated by some action, there must be a clear demonstration of discrimination between one Govt servant and another, similarly placed. The Supreme Court also observed that before Article 16 is held to have been violated by some action, there must be a clear demonstration of discrimination between one Govt servant and another, similarly placed. The principles highlighted in the case does not salvage the cause of the respondents. 27. Learned Govt Advocate vehemently argued that the petitioners are now serving in the Govt Music College by virtue of the stay order granted by the Court and, as such, they cannot have any mileage out of their service after stay was granted by the Court. The order for maintenance of status quo was passed by this Court on 20.12.1995 in case of Smti Ashima Bhattacharjee and on 4.1.1996 in case of Namita Deb Choudhury after hearing the learned Govt Advocate. The petitioners joined the Music College in 1977 and by the time the stay orders were passed, they had completed about 18/19 years of service. This is indeed a long period and has to be given due weightage. 28. During pendency of the writ petition, vide Memorandum dated 25th March, 1996 (Annexure 4), the petitioner Smti Ashima Bhattacharjee was directed to be released from the Govt Music College on reversion to join MT Girls HS School. This order passed on 12.3.1996 was subsequently withdrawn by order dated 25.3.1996. This is suggestive of the fact that the respondents are bent upon in reverting the writ petitioners to their parent department while they appointed other teachers on deputation to MBB College and Govt College of Education as Lecturers and Assistant Professor. The refusal of such benefit to the writ petitioners without any reasonable basis sounds a note of discord. This approach bereft of judicial sanctity is ex facie discriminatory. In fact, the services of the petitioners have been utilised by the State Govt in the degree course for more than a decade without least reservation. Denial of their claim for absorption and better pay at this fag end of their service career without any cogent reason is undoubtedly demonstrative of malice, unsustainable in law. 29. In T. Shanthanram vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 1123 the Supreme Court disapproved repartriation of an employee on deputation to another department to a higher post where he had worked uninterruptedly for about 32 years. According to the Supreme Court, such reversion was not justified. 30. 29. In T. Shanthanram vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 1123 the Supreme Court disapproved repartriation of an employee on deputation to another department to a higher post where he had worked uninterruptedly for about 32 years. According to the Supreme Court, such reversion was not justified. 30. Learned Govt Advocate further placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court regarding right of deputationists and their regulation by referring to decisions in Ratilal B. Soni & others vs. State of Gujrat, AIR 1990 SC 1132 ; DM Bharati vs. LM Sud & others, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 162; State of Haryana & others vs. Piara Singh & others, AIR 1992 SC 2130 , and Union of India & others vs. Bishamber Dutta, (1996) 11 SCC 341 . The decision in Ratilal (supra) cannot be invoked in this case for the reason that it was a case of deputation of members of Panchayat Service of the State of Gujarat to the State Govt and the judgment rendered in that case was on a different context distinguishable from the factual matrix of this case. The decision in DM Bharati (supra) mainly related to laches on the part of an employee removed from service in challenging the order of removal within a reasonable time. The decisions in Piara Singh (supra) and Bishambar Dutta (supra) have been rendered on different context. These decisions are of no help to the respondent-State. 31. Here, we may refer to the decision rendered in Bhagwan Das & others vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2049 . Where in para 13, in the back rop of fact situation of that case, the Apex Court held that when the duties and functions discharged and work done by supervisors appointed on regular basis and those appointed on temporary basis are similar, the fact that the scheme under which temporary appointments are made is a temporary scheme and the posts are sanctioned on an year to year basis having regard to the temporary nature of the scheme cannot be a factor for violating 'equal pay for equal work' doctrine. According to the Supreme Court, whether appointments are for temporary periods against posts in temporary scheme is irrelevant and, when it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is to be applied. According to the Supreme Court, whether appointments are for temporary periods against posts in temporary scheme is irrelevant and, when it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is to be applied. Similar view is also available in Swapan Kumar Choudhury vs. Tapash Chakraborty, AIR 1996 SC 662 . The writ petitioners have been working as Lecturers in the degree course of the Music College since 1977. The duties and functions discharged by them are equal to other Assistant Teachers who were also on deputation and appointed as Lecturers/Assistant Professors with retrospective effect. It is, therefore, not understood as to how the petitioners could be discriminated with their counter part in other colleges. In my considered opinion, it will be a miscarriage of justice if the discrimination is allowed to continue. 32. After careful consideration of the case laws referred to by both the parties and considering the circumstances of these cases, I am of the opinion that a case of differential treatment without reasonable basis has been made out. As such, the petitioenrs deserve absorptionsand pay benefit. 33. In the result, the writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to issue necessary orders within 3 months giving benefits claimed by the writ petitioners in their respective petitions in terms of the observations made herein before. No order as to costs.