K. M. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) KANTIBHAI R Patel-the petitioner herein has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 21. 10. 1999 passed by the Government of Gujarat through the Director of Libraries, Gandhinagar. By the said order, Government of Gujarat decided that the petitioner was not entitled to the pay scale scale of Rs. 700-1600 which is available to University Librarians but he is entitled to receive the pay scale of College Librarian and whatever excess payment has been made to the petitioner pursuant to the said pay scale be recovered from the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:2. 1. The petitioner was appointed as a third grade librarian with effect from 24. 12. 1963 at Vadodara. At the time of his appointment the petitioner was in the pay scale of Rs. 60-70 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 105-4-185-EB-5-205-215 and then Rs. 400-725. 2. 2 it has been contended in the petition that the Government had issued the Government Resolution dated 6. 10. 1979 and created a special grade of Rs. 550-25-750-EB-30-900 for the post of College Librarians with effect from 1. 1. 1973. It has been stated that said pay scale was subsequently revised to Rs. 700-1600. . The petitioner was also entitled to the said pay scale of College Librarians as the petitioner was also a Government Librarian at the relevant time. 2. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said action of the Government some petition was filed before this court. It was the case of the petitioner that thereafter common categories of the Librarians viz. Librarian serving in Scahivalaya Central Library, (2) Librarians serving in colleges owned, controlled and managed by the Secretary, Education Assertion. It has been the contention of the petitioner that both the posts of Librarian i. e. Librarian in Sachivalaya Library as also Librarian in college library are identical. They are doing equal work. They are having equal educational qualification and that they must be treated equally. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work must apply to them. 2. 4. It has also been stated that some where on 30. 10. They are doing equal work. They are having equal educational qualification and that they must be treated equally. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work must apply to them. 2. 4. It has also been stated that some where on 30. 10. 1984 the pay scale of College Librarians had been challenged by the petitioner before the Services Tribunal and the Services Tribunal ordered the Government that a Committee is to be constituted for considering the case. Accordingly said proceedings was dismissed. 2. 4 (A) it has been averred that on the basis of the order of the Tribunal a Special Committee has considered the case subsequently vide order dated 18. 11. 86 and the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 was confirmed which was revised at Rs. 700-1600 and deemed date was also given. 2. 4 (B) however, when the Government passed the impugned order dated 21. 10. 1999 denying the benefit of pay scale, the petitioner again made representation on 30. 10. 1999 and ultimately the petitioner did not get relief from the Government and therefore, the present petition. 2. 5 learned counsel for the petitioner has invited my attention to the fact that in the past also certain persons claimed benefit like the petitioner and the Government denied the said benefit. 2. 6 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said action, some of the petitioners filed Special Civil Application No. 878 of 1984. From the record it appears that in that matter, the learned Single Judge after hearing the arguments, has allowed the petition and arrived at two significant factual features for the purpose of giving relief to the petitioner, namely, (1) the posts of Librarians in college and posts of Librarians in District library are equivalent and are inter-transferable and (2) the duties of both the posts are similar and identical. Thus, the finding warranted for applying the principle of `equal pay for equal work. The learned Single Judge therefore directed the respondent State to grant the petitioner benefit of revised pay scale for the period in question. 2. 7 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge, the State filed Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 189 of 1986 before this court and the Division Bench of this court had dismissed the the Letters Patent Appeal. The said judgement is reported as STATE OF GUJARAT VS. 2. 7 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge, the State filed Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 189 of 1986 before this court and the Division Bench of this court had dismissed the the Letters Patent Appeal. The said judgement is reported as STATE OF GUJARAT VS. NATWARLAL BABALDAS PATEL in 1993 (1) GCD 377 (Guj ). The Division Bench after considering the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF M. P. VS. PRAMOD BHARTIYA reported in AIR 1993 SC 286 was pleased to hold at para 5 on page 379 as under:-"in our view, this test is amply satisfied in the present case and we are not able to appreciate and sustain the projection of a classification sought to be based on the Government Resolution, as done before us for the first time. We can only call this theory as totally irrational and militating against the solemn principle of "equal pay for equal work", the application of which, in our view, is a must to the facts of the present case. This being our conviction, we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal, making no order as to costs. " ( 3 ) MY attention was also invited to the judgment of this court in the case of M. S. Pandya vs. State of Gujarat and ors. reported in 1997 (1) GLR 647 which also dealt the same case like the present case before me. The learned single Judge after considering several judgments of this court, in para 20 observed as under:" In my opinion the decisions of this court referred to hereinabove would clearly apply to the Librarians working in Government, whether as District Librarians or College Librarians, else it would clearly amount to giving discriminatory treatment to the District Librarians. The question regarding discrimination would obviously be dependent upon the facts concerning powers duties and responsibilities and this court had frequently expressed that there was no distinction on that score between the District Librarians and the College Librarians. This would, however, be subject to what has been noted from the subsequent event which was not canvassed previously at any point of time and which arises from the Rules framed in 1986. This would, however, be subject to what has been noted from the subsequent event which was not canvassed previously at any point of time and which arises from the Rules framed in 1986. " ( 4 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the facts that the case of the petitioner is also covered by the judgment of this court in para 35 on page 669, where the court has observed as under:". . . . . IT appears from the aforesaid table that the petitioners Kantibhai Ranchhoddas Patel Mohmad Iqbal Shaikh and Varshaben B. Mehta would be entitled to the benefit of the Government Resolution dated 6. 10. 1979 as concluded hereinabove. " ( 5 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court (Coram:: C. K. Thakkar. J as he was then) in Special Civil Application No. 2813 of 1986 rendered on 12. 11. 1997 where identical question was raised and in the said judgment in page 5 this court has observed as under:"in my opinion, the point is concluded by various decisions of this court. So far as this first decision is concerned, it is approved by a Division Bench and even SLP is dismissed, the submission of Mr. Hathi that the point is no longer res integra must be upheld. " ( 6 ) THE learned advocate for the petitioner has also invited my attention to the judgment in the case of N. C. Patel and ors. vs. State and ors reported in 1989 (2) GLR 1526. ( 7 ) IN my view there is no distinction between the work of Librarian working in the College Library and the Librarian working in District Library wholly by the Government authorities. There are also no distinguishing features between them. In fact I am bound by the decisions of this Court which I have referred to earlier on this behalf. In my view the point is concluded by various decisions of this court. So far as the point involved in this case is concerned the same is concluded by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore, the point is no longer res integra. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. ( 8 ) THE respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. Therefore, the petition deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. ( 8 ) THE respondents are directed to extend the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 with effect from 1. 1. 1973. The order dated 21. 10. 199 is quashed and set aside. The petitioner has been retired on 21. 3. 2001. Now the Government authorities will abide by the decision of this court and after considering the principles laid down by this court try to formulate the principles of pay scale in the case of the present petitioner and try to give effect of the decision of this court as early as possible preferably by 14. 9. 2001. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Driect service is permitted. .