V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Oil Technological Research Institute (OTRI) was established in 1949 to focus on the new technologies in the extraction of oil from various seeds and their utilisation. The Government of Andhra Pradesh by G. O. Ms. No. 199, Industries, Commerce and Power (IF. CELL) Department, dated 18-4-1985, having regard to the fact that the performance of OTRI is not satisfactory and that the Institute Has not achieved the desired objectives, ordered that OTRI be transferred to Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University (JNTU), the first respondent herein, with effect from 1-4-1985, to be a constituent department of JNTU from that date. The said Government Order inter alia provided that the permanent staff of OTRI shall be absorbed in JNTU after obtaining option and "those opting for the service of JNTU would be integrated into their service as per University Rules". The petitioners herein at the relevant time were working in OTRI; the first petitioner as Joint Director, the second petitioner as Oil Technologist, the third petitioner as Processing Engineer, the fourth petitioner as Senior Scientific Assistant and the fifth petitioner as Technical Assistant. They opted for the JNTU service and worked in JNTU for about six years. In 1991, they filed the writ petition seeking a direction to JNTU to pay compensatory allowance in lieu of residential Attender (hereinafter referred to as attender Allowance ) at the rate of Rs. 200. 00 per month as is paid to other employees holding corresponding posts in the University. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kotha Venkata Rao submits that the petitioners have been subjected to hostile discrimination in matters of payment of pay scales as well as Attender Allowance. He, however, admits that in this writ petition, we are concerned only with Attenders Allowance. He submits that the University has allowed such Attender Allowance to the persons holding the posts of Registrar, Deputy Registrar etc. and that by reason of the Government Orders, the petitioners herein were holding Gazetted posts and, therefore, any denial of the Attender Allowance would be hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel, has, however, not placed any authority in support of the contention. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed, the respondent University opposed the relief on the ground that as per G. O. Ms. The learned counsel, has, however, not placed any authority in support of the contention. ( 3 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed, the respondent University opposed the relief on the ground that as per G. O. Ms. No. 296, Finance and Planning (FW. T. A.) Department, dated 24-11-1986, Gazetted Officers were sanctioned attender Allowance and as the petitioners were not drawing such allowance at the time of issuing the G. O. , they are not entitled for the same. The University also placed reliance on Section 44 (2) of the Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University Act, 1972. ( 4 ) THE short question that falls for consideration is whether the petitioners who were employees of OTRI and who never enjoyed the benefit of Attenders Allowance, on their absorption in JNTU are entitled for Attenders Allowance? ( 5 ) THE Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G. O. Ms. No. 25, Finance and Planning (FW. PRC. I) Department, dated 11-2-1988 extending the benefit of revised pay scales to the non-teaching staff of JNTU and other Universities. Paragraphs 4 and 5 are relevant. A reading of these two paragraphs would show that the Government extended the revised pay scales as specified in Schedule I to the Government Order in G. O. Ms. No. 228, Finance and Planning (FW. PRC. I) Department, dated 17-11-1986 and also agreed to extend the pay fixation formula. Further, the Government also ordered that Typists/steno-Typists and Stenographers shall also be paid special pay as per the recommendations of the Pay Revision Commission. This Government Order has no application to the case of the petitioners. Be it noted that the subject of pay scales to the teaching staff and research staff including librarian is governed by other Government Orders where the pay scales fixed by the University Grants Commission were accepted. The petitioners do not belong to the category of non-teaching staff or the category of teaching staff. ( 6 ) THEREFORE, any reliance placed on these Government Orders is misplaced. ( 7 ) FURTHER, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on G. O. Ms. No. 658 Industries and Commerce (I. E.) Department, dated 11-10-1979, is also of no avail. By G. O. Ms. No. 658, dated 11-10-1979, the Government of Andhra Pradesh declared that the post of Senior Scientific Assistant in OTRI, Anantapur would be Gazetted post. No. 658 Industries and Commerce (I. E.) Department, dated 11-10-1979, is also of no avail. By G. O. Ms. No. 658, dated 11-10-1979, the Government of Andhra Pradesh declared that the post of Senior Scientific Assistant in OTRI, Anantapur would be Gazetted post. Admittedly, except the first and fourth petitioners, other petitioners do not get any benefit out of G. O. Ms. No. 658, dated 11-10-1979. Be that as it may, I must, however, hasten to add that the mere fact that an employee has a status of Gazetted Officer would automatically get the same benefit on absorption in JNTU. There should be material to show that as on the date of absorption i. e. , 1-4-1985 in JNTU, the petitioners were drawing such allowance. As rightly contended, as per Sub-section (2) of Section 44 of the Act, on absorption into the employment of JNTU, a person will be governed by the terms and conditions governing the said service which shall not be less favourable than those applicable prior to the said date. The petitioners never even averred that they were drawing Attender Allowance while they were working in OTRI. Therefore, the submission cannot be countenanced. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on a University Order No. 116/77, dated 16-6-1977 wherein the Executive Council of the University resolved to allow Attenders Allowance to Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Financial Adviser-cum-Chief Accounts Officer, Directors of the University Headquarters and the Principals of constituent colleges. None of the petitioners fall in any of these categories. Therefore, it must be held that the petitioners by themselves form a separate class and they cannot be equated with the University employees for bringing the case under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In this context, a reference may be made to Jaipal v. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 1504 , wherein it was held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be applied where two classes of persons do the same work under the same employer and with same responsibilities and similar working conditions. It was further held:. . . . . . . The doctrine of equal work equal pay would apply on the premise of similar work, but it does not mean that there should be complete identity in all respects. It was further held:. . . . . . . The doctrine of equal work equal pay would apply on the premise of similar work, but it does not mean that there should be complete identity in all respects. If the two classes of persons do same work under the same employer, with similar responsibility, under similar working conditions the doctrine of equal work equal pay would apply and it would not be open to the State to discriminate one class with the other in paying salary. The State is under a constitutional obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid for equal work. ( 9 ) YET again, in State of U. P. v. J. P. Chaurasia, AIR 1989 SC 19, the question was whether Private Secretaries in Allahabad High Court are entitled to the pay admissible to Section Officers on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Their Lordships laid down the following tests for considering the cases where discrimination is alleged in the fixation of pay scales. It is apt to quote the same. . . . . . . The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalent unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous considerations. ( 10 ) IN view of the two judgments of the Supreme Court referred to hereinabove, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is misplaced, especially when the petitioners have not placed any material before this Court. It is not their case that after absorption into JNTU they were re-designated as Deputy Registrars or Professors or Directors or Principals. In the absence of any such resolution of JNTU, the Court must go by the orders of the Government in G. O. Ms. It is not their case that after absorption into JNTU they were re-designated as Deputy Registrars or Professors or Directors or Principals. In the absence of any such resolution of JNTU, the Court must go by the orders of the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 199, dated 18-4-1985 wherein it was ordered that the services of the staff of OTRI opting for the service of JNTU be integrated in the University service as per rules. It also means that they are entitled to the pay scales as fixed by the University. ( 11 ) FOR all the above reasons, the writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs.