G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE state of Karnataka represented through its education department, being aggrieved by the order dated 29-10-1998 passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 11755 of 1994 and other connected cases has preferred this intra-court appeal. The above writ petitions were filed by the non-teaching employees of the respondent-university of Mysore working on different posts for seeking a direction that the university and the state government should extend the Karnataka civil services (revised pay) rules, 1977 to them as well. ( 2 ) THE learned single judge relying on the order dated 18th april, 1990 passed by the division bench in w. a. nos. 2220 to 2239 of 1989 has issued a writ of mandamus to the respondent-university to extend the said revised pay-scale of 1977 to the contesting respondents as well and pay the difference of monetary benefits within 2 months from the date of receipt of the impugned order. It may be noticed here that 20 employees of the respondent-university had filed W. P. nos. 21487 to 21506 of 1982 in this court, inter alia with a prayer that the respondent university be directed to accord revised pay-scales to them w. e. f. 1-1-1977. Though the said prayer was allowed by the single judge but in writ appeals preferred by the university in w. a. nos. 2220 to 2239 of 1989, the division bench set aside the order of the single judge and disposed of the writ appeals in the following terms:"accordingly, these writ appeals are disposed of in the following terms: (a) the order under appeal and the directions issued by the learned single judge are set aside. (b) the writ petitions are disposed of in the following terms: (i) the petitioners may submit their representations against the report of the muddappa committee before the vice-chancellor of the university of Mysore for revising the pay-scales. Within 4 weeks from the date of submission of the representations, the vice- chancellor shall appoint a committee of three persons to go into the representations of the petitioners. Within 4 weeks from the date of submission of the representations, the vice- chancellor shall appoint a committee of three persons to go into the representations of the petitioners. The committee so appointed shall hear the petitioners or their counsels and a representative of the university or its counsel and submit its report to the vice-chancellor within four weeks from the date of its appointment within six weeks from the date of receipt of the report of the committee, the university shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law regarding the revision of pay-scales of the petitioners: in the event the pay-scales are revised, the same shall be given effect to from 1-1-1977 by suitably amending the statutes. Consequent to revision of pay-scales to a higher scale, the petitioners shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits including differences of salary from 1-1-1977. (ii) the university is also directed to give effect to the subsequent revisions in the pay-scales with effect from 1-1-1982 and further revisions, if any, subsequent to 1-1-1982, in the university and the benefit of the same shall also be extended to the petitioner and the fitment in the pay-scales revised with effect from 1-1-1982 and a further revision, if any, shall be made on the basis of the pay-scale revised w. e. f. 1-1-1977. This direction shall also be complied with within the aforesaid period. All the contentions of both sides are left open". ( 3 ) PURSUANT to the above directions the vice-chancellor appointed 3 member committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Hiriyanna, which consisted of deputy secretary to the government, department of personnel and administrative reforms, and deputy secretary to the government who was also internal financial advisor to the education department. The report of the said committee was accepted by the syndicate under its resolution dated 8/9-8-1991 and 23 persons including those who approached this court in the above referred writ petitions were granted the benefit of revised pay-scales. The formal order of university dated 31-8-1991 to the said effect has been placed on Annexure-C to the writ petition. The report of the said committee was accepted by the syndicate under its resolution dated 8/9-8-1991 and 23 persons including those who approached this court in the above referred writ petitions were granted the benefit of revised pay-scales. The formal order of university dated 31-8-1991 to the said effect has been placed on Annexure-C to the writ petition. Subsequently within 2 to 3 years thereof, the writ petitions in which the impugned order has been passed, were filed by the present respondents claiming the relief similar to what had been granted by the university under Annexure-C , which as noticed above, have been allowed by the single judge by applying the equity clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of india. ( 4 ) LEARNED additional government Advocate has questioned the legality of the impugned order primarily on two grounds viz. , firstly, the division bench in w. a. nos. 2220 to 2239 of 1989 had not given any direction for payment of revised pay-scales; it had merely directed for the Constitution of the committee for enquiring into the representations of the petitioners and if found advisable to frame appropriate statutes under the University Act for giving desired benefits. Secondly, according to the learned government Advocate admittedly so far no statutes have been framed and therefore no benefit was admissible to the petitioners of previous writ petitions and even if it is so granted by the university, it is contrary to the Provisions of the university act and therefore that cannot be taken benefit of by the present respondents by invoking articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. ( 5 ) SRI Bhagawan, appearing for the respondent-university fairly concedes that no statutes in terms of Section 36 of the University Act have so far been framed to give benefit of any revised pay-scales to any employee of the university as per the scheme formulated by the division bench. ( 6 ) SECTION 35 of the Karnataka state universities Act, 1976 (for short the 'act') provides for making of statutes inter alia for laying down conditions of service including the emoluments of the employees of the university [clause (m) of Section 35]. ( 7 ) SECTION 36 of the act provides for making of the statutes. The same reads as under:" (1) the statutes may be made, amended or repealed by the senate in the manner hereinafter provided. (1 ). ( 7 ) SECTION 36 of the act provides for making of the statutes. The same reads as under:" (1) the statutes may be made, amended or repealed by the senate in the manner hereinafter provided. (1 ). . . . . . (2) the senate may take into consideration the draft of a statute either ofits own motion or on a proposal made by the syndicate. When the draft is not proposed by the syndicate, the senate shall obtain the opinion of the syndicate thereon before considering the same: provided that if the syndicate fails to submit its opinion within three months from the date it receives the draft, the senate may proceed to take the draft into consideration. (3) the senate if it thinks necessary, may also obtain the opinion of any officer, authority or body of the university in regard to the draft statutes before it takes them into consideration: provided that where such draft statutes pertain to academic matters, the senate shall obtain the opinion of the academic council before considering it. (4) every statute passed by the senate shall be sent to the state government for submission to the chancellor for assent. The state government shall transmit the statutes along with its comments to the chancellor within three months of the date on which it received the statutes from the university. The chancellor may within one month of the date of receipt of the statutes from the state government give or withhold his assent thereto or refer it to the senate for further consideration. (5) no statute passed by the senate shall have validity until assented to by the chancellor". ( 8 ) APART from the above Provisions sub-section (4) of Section 43 very clearly lays down that the university shall not divert for other purposes earmarked funds of revise the scales of pay ofits staff or implement any scheme which involves any matching contribution from the state government or a scheme which imposes a recurring liability on the state government after the assistance from the sponsoring authorities ceases, without the prior approval of the stale government. ( 9 ) IN the present ease it is a matter of record as is even borne out from the affidavit of the vice-chancellor of the university filed on 27-1-2000 that no statutes are framed to implement the revised pay-scales as per scheme formulated by division bench of this court. ( 10 ) IN the above view of the matter in our considered opinion it was not permissible on the part of the learned single judge to issue a direction of the nature impugned herein i. e. , directing the university to extend revised pay-scales and make payments accordingly within 2 months from the date of the receipt of the order. It can unhesitatingly be held that going by the order of the earlier division bench referred to above, even the employees who were before the division bench were not entitled to any benefit of revised pay-scales till the statutes were framed. It is for the vice-chancellor of the university to take appropriate measures to remedy the wrong after giving due notice to the beneficiaries. ( 11 ) KEEPING the facts and circumstances of the case we find it is advisable to direct the university to take appropriate measures in terms of the division bench directions which has to be of general nature regarding revision of pay-scales and forward the draft statutes to the government for its appropriate action in accordance with law. When such draft statutes are received by the government then it will be for the government to take appropriate decision by taking into account the relevant considerations. Accordingly, the order of the learned single judge is set aside. Parties to bear their own costs. ( 12 ) COPIES of this order may be made available to Mr. Bhagawan, counsel for the respondent 1 and the additional government advocate. --- *** --- .