JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking a direction to the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- to the employees who are working on the post of Lower Division Clerk/Upper Division Clerk and possess the qualification of Graduation, with effect from the date when the order was made applicable. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that all the petitioners were initially appointed in Mohan Lal Sukharia University, Udaipur (for short, "M.L.S. University") in 1987 as Lower Division Clerk or Upper Division Clerk and the Colleges in which the petitioners had been working, had been affiliated to the respondent, i.e., the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner, with effect from 21.1.1988. The grievance of the petitioners is that at the time of taking-over the services of the petitioners, a Circular dated 21.1.88 (Annexure. 1) was issued which provided that the Service Rules and Regulations of M.L.S. University, Udaipur would remain operative for respondent university till separate sets of rules are approved and implemented. In 1992, M.L.S. University amended the Promotional Pay Scale Rules, 1992 which came into operation with effect from 1.4.1991 and it provided the following pay scale for Upper Division Clerks - Existing pay scale Amended Pay Scales Rs. 1200-2050 2000-3200/- (Graduates) 1400-2600/- (Non-Graduates) 3. Petitioners claim that as the promotional pay scales had been amended in 1992 in their parent University and Graduate U.D.Cs. were given the higher pay scales, they were also entitled for the same. 4. On this, Mr. M.S. Singhvi and Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that on 7.4.96 the respondent University had rationalised the pay structure and passed the order contained in Annexure. R. 1 and in order to remove the disparity, Selection Scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- has been allowed on clerical cadre on completion of eighteen years service in the cadre irrespective of their being of General or in Accounts Section. The said pay scale was made effective from 25.1.92 but the arrears were not liable to be paid. R. 1 and in order to remove the disparity, Selection Scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- has been allowed on clerical cadre on completion of eighteen years service in the cadre irrespective of their being of General or in Accounts Section. The said pay scale was made effective from 25.1.92 but the arrears were not liable to be paid. Subsequently, a meeting was held wherein the Officers of the University, representatives of the employees union of teaching staff and non-teaching staff, including the representative of the petitioners, participated and ultimately the agreement was reached on 16/17th May, 1996, wherein all the representatives had signed the agreement, according to which the pay scale No. 7 has been revised from Rs. 1200-2050 to Rs. 1400-2600/-. The said agreement further provides that on completion of 18 years service, the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- shall be granted and it was further agreed that this promotional pay scale shall be available immaterial of the category of the employee whether he is working in clerical or accounts section. Mr. Singhvi has submitted that as this agreement has been signed by the representative of the petitioners, they have no right to claim something more than it. It has further been submitted that as the services of the petitioners had been transferred from M.L.S. University to the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner in 1988, the respondent University is not concerned as how the pay scale had been revised in M.L.S. University subsequently. I fully agree with the submissions made by Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University. The petitioners have no cause of action if their representative had accepted the agreement and signed the same. 5. Mr. Vyas has submitted that in the same agreement they had also agreed that Rajasthan Agriculture University shall also pay to its employees the pay scales which are being paid in other Universities in Rajasthan, e.g., M.L.S. University, Rajasthan University and Jodhpur University (J.N.V. University, Jodhpur). The agreement has to be read as a whole. The said agreement runs to several pages and large number of decisions have been taken therein and whatever might be the nature thereof, it should be construed harmoniously. Once the parties have agreed to accept the specific pay scale mentioned in the agreement, the petitioners cannot claim anything contrary to it. Mr. The said agreement runs to several pages and large number of decisions have been taken therein and whatever might be the nature thereof, it should be construed harmoniously. Once the parties have agreed to accept the specific pay scale mentioned in the agreement, the petitioners cannot claim anything contrary to it. Mr. Vyas has not pleaded that the said agreement had been obtained by some sort of fraud, mis-representation or coercion by the respondent-university or it cannot be binding on the present petitioner. No allegation of malafide or arbitrariness is alleged. Mr. Vyas has submitted that the petitioners are legally entitled to get the pay scale available in M.L.S. University and the respondents cannot be permitted to exploit the helplessness of the present petitioners and they are bound to honour the mandate of the provisions of Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India which provides for parity in employment and only on this count the petitioners are entitled to claim the pay scales available in the other universities. 6. In Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University, AIR 1986 SC 1448 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that fixation of pay scale is the function of the Experts Body and an exclusive domain and the Court cannot intervene and interfere with the same. In Jaipal and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1988 (3) SCC 354 , the Apex Court observed that once an employee possessed the minimum qualification, as provided under the statutory rules, the higher pay scale cannot be claimed by a particular section of employees merely on the ground of having higher qualification. In Sher Singh and others v. Union of India and others, 1995(6) SCC 515 , the Apex Court has observed that fixation of a particular pay scale is a Policy Decision and is subject to judicial review only in exceptional circumstances where it is shown that the decision is unfair, malafide or contrary to any statutory directions and unless such circumstances exist, there can be no justification of the Court to interfere with the Policy of the Government. 7. 7. In State of West Bengal and others v. Tropical School Employees Union and others, 1996 (8) SCC 294 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the employees of one employer cannot claim the parity in employment with the employees of another employer as they are governed by their own Statutory Rules. In State of U.P. v. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh, AIR 1998 SC 303 , the Apex Court observed that if the mode of recruitment, qualification as per the eligibility is different, the employees cannot claim parity in employment. The natural corrolary of it may reiterate the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Jaipal (supra). Thus, on this count also, the claim of the petitioners is also liable to be rejected. 8. The last submission made by Mr. Vyas is that by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner Act, 1987, an employee of a College Institution, which has been taken-over by the respondent-university, becomes the employee of the University "on the same terms and conditions." There is a complete fallacy in the submission made by Mr. Vyas as the petitioners are not claiming any benefit which was prevailing on the date of their taken over. The institutions had been taken over in 1988. Therefore, petitioners are entitled to claim that their service conditions prevailing in 1988 cannot be adversely affected but they certainly cannot claim that whatever avenues and facilities are afforded by the M.L.S. University subsequent to their taking-over shall also be made available to them by the present respondent and petitioners have admittedly no grievance against any such condition which was prevailing on the date of taking-over. Moreover, the provisions of sub-section (4) have to be read alongwith Sub-section (1) of Section 36, which empowers the State to determine different terms and conditions also 9. In view of the above, the petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******