S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THIS Writ Appeal is filed by the Telugu academy represented by its Director as well as by the Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its Secretary, Education department, Hyderabad, and it is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6-11-1993 made in W. P. No. 3111 of 1993. ( 2 ) THE respondent herein, viz. , the Telugu academy Academic Staff Union represented by its General Secretary filed Writ Petition no. 3111 of 1993 praying for the following relief:"petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed herein, the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction more in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to (1) to implement the revised Scales of Telugu university to the Academic Staff of the academy with effect from 1986; (2) to grant Career Advancement Scheme which is being given to the academic staff in Telugu University. " ( 3 ) THE above relief was sought by the respondent-Union mainly on the basis that the Government of Andhra Pradesh in g. O. Ms. No. 520 Education dated 15-2-1986 adopted revised University Grants commission Scales of Pay, 1986 and extended the same to the members of the academic Staff of the University. Further the Government of Andhra Pradesh vide g. O. MS. NO. 169 Education dated 7-7-1990 extended the revised University Grants commission Pay Scales of 1986 to the lecturers in Government and Private Aided degree Colleges and similar treatment flowing from the aforementioned two government orders should be extended to the Academic Staff of the Academy. The petitioner in addition to the two government Orders mentioned above also placed reliance on the judgment of this court dated 21-3-1990 passed in W. P. No. 3436 of 1987. ( 4 ) OPPOSING the writ petition both the appellants filed counter-affidavits. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the government sworn to on 6-9-1993, it is contended as follows:"as the Academic Staff of the Telugu academy have earlier opted for adopted State Government Scales of pay, they have no right to claim U. G. C. Scales applicable to Telugu University staff. They are stopped from doing so. The academic Staff of Telugu Academy and the Teaching Staff of Telugu university belong to two distinct and separate categories. They are stopped from doing so. The academic Staff of Telugu Academy and the Teaching Staff of Telugu university belong to two distinct and separate categories. The nature of their duties and responsibilities vary. They are governed by different sets of service rules and conditions. The methods of their recruitment are quite different they cannot therefore, claim parity of sales of pay as a matter of right. The question of equation of posts and scales of pay is a matter of policy, which has to be decided by the government in consultation with expert bodies like the Pay Revision commission etc. It is not a matter amenable for Judicial Review of the hon ble Court under Article 226 of the constitution. " ( 5 ) FURTHER, in the counter-affidavit sworn by the Director of Telugu Academy filed in the month of April 1993, it is contended as follows:"in view of the heavy investment of the finances, the Government have to necessarily examine several consequences and equally the outcome of the complicated situation that the other autonomous bodies face if such scales are implemented. Though the governing Body of the Telugu academy has recommended to the chairman of the Academy to implement the Telugu University Pay scales to the Academic Staff, yet it is not approved by the Chairman of the academy, as the consultations are to be carried-out within the Collegiate education and Finance Department. The Government has to take into consideration several pros and cons in implementing the suggested scales of pay. " ( 6 ) IT is also specifically contended in the counter-affidavit that the Telugu Academy is not recognized as a University or deemed university or Research Centre or Teaching institution, and, therefore, applying the university Grants Commission Scales to the staff of the Telugu Academy would not arise. It is also specifically contended that the duties and functions discharged by the academic Staff of the Telugu University are different from the duties and functions discharged by the Academic Staff of the telugu Academy. It is also specifically contended that the duties and functions discharged by the academic Staff of the Telugu University are different from the duties and functions discharged by the Academic Staff of the telugu Academy. ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge having noticed the objectives of the Telugu academy and taking into account the order made by this Court in W. P. No. 3436 of 1987 dated 21-3-1990 opined that the writ petitioner is entitled to the relief in the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21-3-1990 made in W. P. No. 3436 of 1987, which is affirmed by the Division bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 724 of 1990. Dealing with the contentions of the respondents, i. e. , the State Government and the Telugu Academy that if the relief is granted, that would involve financial burden and there are no necessary financial reserves to implement such order, the learned Single Judge opined that, that cannot be a ground to deny the writ petitioner to have the same benefits which are extended to some of the similarly placed staff. So opining, the learned Judge disposed of the writ petition by his order dated 6-11-1993. The operative portion of the order reads as under:"under these circumstances , I hold that the members of the petitioner-Union are entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition. Accordingly, a direction shall issue to the respondents to implement the revised pay scale of telugu University to the staff of telugu Academy with effect from 1986. The respondents are further directed to grant career Advancement scheme , which is given to the academic staff in Telugu University. The entire exercise shall be completed as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment". ( 8 ) HENCE this Writ Appeal by the State government and the Telugu Academy. The respondents are further directed to grant career Advancement scheme , which is given to the academic staff in Telugu University. The entire exercise shall be completed as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment". ( 8 ) HENCE this Writ Appeal by the State government and the Telugu Academy. ( 9 ) THE learned Government Pleader for higher Education while assailing the correctness of the order of the learned Single judge would firstly contend that in the judgment in W. P. No. 3436 of 1987 it was not held that the duties and functions of the academic staff of the Telugu Academy are similar to the duties and functions discharged by the Academic staff of the telugu University, and, therefore, the opinion of the learned single Judge is totally misconceived and the outcome of misreading of evidence. The learned government Pleader would point out that what fell for decision in W. P. No. 3436 of 1987 was whether in the light of the conditions imposed on the Telugu Academy by the Government vide G. O. Ms. No. 173 education dated 1-2-1969, while sanctioning the grant of Rs. 13. 3 lakhs, the petitioners therein are entitled to the revised DA merged pay scales on par with the lecturers/junior Lecturers in the government Colleges, and in that writ petition the question whether the duties and functions discharged by the Academic staff of the Telugu Academy are equivalent or on par with the duties and functions discharged by the Academic staff of the telugu University did not arise for consideration. The learned Government pleader also contended that though a specific plea was taken in the counter-affidavits filed by the Government as well as the Telugu Academy that the duties and functions discharged by the Academic staff of the Academy are not similar to the duties and functions of the Academic staff of the telugu University, the learned Judge has not recorded" any finding on the issue. The learned Government Pleader also contended that the question as to whether the duties and functions discharged by the Academic staff of the Academy are similar to the ones discharged by the Academic staff of Telugu university, being an incidence of fact, no finding could be recorded on such factual question in summary proceeding under article 226 of the Constitution on the basis of self-serving averments of the petitioner made in the writ affidavit. Alternatively, the learned Government Pleader contended that even assuming that the duties and functions performed by the Academic staff of the academy are similar to the duties and functions performed by the Academic staff of the Telugu University, is correct, even then, on that count itself and without anything further, the Academic staff of the academy cannot claim as a matter of right or as a matter of course that they should also be paid salary in terms of the pay scales applied to the Academic staff of the Telugu university. ( 10 ) SRI M. Chandra Shekhar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, on the other hand, contended that there is no warrant to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as it is just and reasonable, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The learned Counsel would highlight that the apex body of the Telugu Academy presided over by a person no other than the Chief minister of the State had recommended the pay scales admissible to the Academic staff of the Telugu University to the Academic staff of Telugu Academy also and such a reasonable recommendation made by such apex body of the Academy should bind the government and it is not permissible for the government to reject such recommendation. At this stage itself, it needs to be noticed that during the pendency of the Writ Appeal, this Court by an interim order dated 2-9-1998 directed the respondents to consider the representation of the Academic staff of the Academy and at the time of hearing it was brought to our notice by the learned Government Pleader for Higher education that as permitted by this court, the Government considered the representations of the petitioner-society and rejected the same vide Memo dated 18-11-1998. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, the only question that arises for decision in this writ appeal is whether the writ petitioner has established a legal right to claim the pay scale on par with the pay scales admissible to the Academic staff of the Telugu University or not? ( 12 ) BEFORE proceeding to consider the above question, it needs to be emphasized at the threshold that in the first place the question whether the duties and functions performed by the Academic staff of the academy are similar to the duties and functions performed by the Academic staff of the Telugu University is an incidence of fact and any finding that may be recorded on such question should be only after permitting the parties to adduce evidence and tendering parties for cross-examination by each other, if the facts of the case so warrant. Having regard to the materials placed before us, we should say that the materials placed before the Court are scanty and totally inadequate to record any finding that the duties and functions performed by the Academic staff of the Telugu Academy and the duties and functions performed by the Academic staff of the University are one and the same. Secondly, it also needs to be, noticed that even assuming that the duties and functions performed by both of them are similar, even then, on that count itself, without anything further, the Academic staff of the Academy cannot claim as a matter of right or course that they should also be paid in terms of the pay scales admitted to academic staff of the University. Should it be noticed that the Academy is not a University. We are told that the Telugu academy is a Society registered under the societies Registration Act. Therefore, it cannot be equated to an autonomous entity like the University which is governed by the regulations framed by the University Grants commission under the University Grants commission Act and also by the Rules, regulations, Ordinances and Statutes framed under the A. P. Universities Act. Therefore, it cannot be equated to an autonomous entity like the University which is governed by the regulations framed by the University Grants commission under the University Grants commission Act and also by the Rules, regulations, Ordinances and Statutes framed under the A. P. Universities Act. ( 13 ) THE Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. J. P. Chourasia and Umesh Chander Gupta v. O. N. G. C. ando thers has opined that a claim of parity of pay scales in two different cadres or departments merely on the ground that the duties and functions performed by the concerned staff in the two cadres or departments or organizations are similar. In the instant case, the Employer is not the government as regards the employees of the telugu University or the employees of the telugu Academy. Therefore, the charge of discrimination would not lie against the government. In the light of the binding judgments of the Apex Court in Randhir singh v. Union of India, federation of All India customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) v. Union of India, Mevaram kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical sciences, Harbanslal and others v. State of himachal Pradesh, State of West Bengal and others v. Madan Molwn Sen and others, State of madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bharatiya, State of west Bengal v. Harinarayan Bhozval, State of haryana and others v. Jasmer Singh, shivakumar Datta and others v. Union of India and others, State of Tamil Nadu and another v. Alagappan and others, Garahawal Jalsanthan karmachari Union v. State of UP. and Union of India v. Rajender Singh Rajput, we are of the considered opinion that there is absolutely no ground made out for granting the relief sought for by the writ petitioner-society. ( 14 ) SIMILARLY the judgment of this Court in W. P. No. 3436 of 1987 as affirmed by a division Bench of this Court in W. A. No. 724 of 1990 is also not helpful to the writ petitioner to claim the relief in the writ petition. In W. P. No. 3436 of 1987, mandamus was sought to extend the revised D. A. merged pay scales to the petitioners therein on par with the lecturers/junior Lecturers in the government Colleges. The learned Judge having noticed the conditions incorporated in G. O. Ms. No. 173 Education dated 1-2-1969 by the Government while granting a sum of rs. 13. In W. P. No. 3436 of 1987, mandamus was sought to extend the revised D. A. merged pay scales to the petitioners therein on par with the lecturers/junior Lecturers in the government Colleges. The learned Judge having noticed the conditions incorporated in G. O. Ms. No. 173 Education dated 1-2-1969 by the Government while granting a sum of rs. 13. 3 lakhs to the Telugu Academy, thought it appropriate to direct the Telugu academy to. fix the D. A. merged scales of 1986 to Research Assistants on par with the scales granted to the Lecturers in the directorate of Education. That was a clear case where, the Court had every justification to grant the relief, because, the Academy having received a sum of Rs. 13. 3 lakhs from the Government agreeing to the conditions that the officers and the staff of the Academy should be paid in terms of the pay scales applicable to the officers and staff of the government, with its eyes wide open, was bound to implement. In that case, as already pointed out supra, the question whether the duties and functions performed by the academic staff of Telugu Academy are similar to the duties and functions performed by the University did not arise specifically for consideration. Therefore, reliance on that judgment by the learned single Judge is not justified in granting the relief. ( 15 ) IN the result, and for the foregoing reasons, we allow this Writ Appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 6-11-1993 and dismiss writ petition w. P. No. 3111 of 1993. No order as to costs.