Briefly stated the petitioners case is that he was initially appointed as Library Assistant in 1972 in the grade of 75-150 and promoted to the post of Junior Librarian in 1985 in (pre revised) grade of 220-430, even though holding a degree of M.A, B. Lib, due to which he was qualified for promotion to the post of Chief Librarian to which post he was ultimately promoted in 1986 in the pre-revised grade of 825-1240, while the scale after promotion as such should have been 875-1400, because under SRO 91 of 1982 he was entitled to, two advance increments in view of his academic qualification. Complaining that this not only resulted in pecuniary loss to him but also diminished his chances of promotion, the petitioner pleads that it also paved way for undue promotion of his junior over him depriving him of the UGC grade also. Aggrieved thereby he filed writ petition SWP no. 1553 of 1998 to seek, redressal of his aforesaid grievance along with benefit of higher grade as released by Government in favour of number of Chief Librarians in relaxation of rules, during pendency whereof the official respondents offered him settlement of grievance out of court, whereupon he got the writ petition disposed of by a consent order in accordance with assurance extended by respondents that petitioners grievance would be redressed in terms of Government order no. 41-HE of 1998 dated 31.07.1998. Vide order passed in review petition being no. 7/2000, the reference to government order was however modified as having been made to communication no. Edu-Coll/Coord-10/GN/89 dated 09.07.1998. 2. Despite that as per petitioner, his grievance was not redressed which prompted him to institute this petition for issuance of a direction to official respondents for releasing the grade of 470-850 in his favour w.e.f 1985 when he was promoted as junior Librarian as prescribed under SRO 291 of 1978 and grade of 875-1400 from year 1986 when he was promoted as Chief Librarian as also for giving him the benefit of SRO 234 of 1991 dated 30th July, 1991 for providing him the benefit of the UGC grade of 2200-4000 and release of consequential benefits in his favour. 3. 3. Grounds pleaded are that all the benefits as sought were due to him in terms of different SROs holding the field at relevant times particularly SRO 291 of 1987 dated 01.06.1978 which in terms of sub para 13 (viii) (b) provided that as and when a librarian improves his qualification and completes five years as such with Diploma/Degree in Library Science and his basic academic qualification is graduation he may be placed in higher scale of 470-850 from the date he is declared fit for such placement by concerned Committee and in case the post held by him is in lower grade he be deemed to have been up-graded to the scale of 475-850 from that date, which would be personal to him and after his vacation from the post it would revert to its original grade unless occupied by a similarly situated person. It is also pleaded that on his promotion as Chief Librarian on 22.10.1986 the petitioner was placed in the lower scale of 850-1240 which was contrary to the pay rules of 1978 where under he was to be placed in the grade of 875-1400 which was released to many of his counter parts. Despite that a differential treatment was given to him and he was discriminated against, even while under order 1713-Edu of 1998 issued on 18.12.1998 as many 14 Librarians of school Education were granted the benefit of higher grade without reference to any Committee whatsoever. Another ground urged is that under SRO 234 of 1991 benefit of UGC pay sale was allowed in favour of the employees of Degree Colleges w.e.f 1st Jan. 1986 including Chief Librarians with Masters Degree plus B. Lib., which directly covered petitioner also because he was originally entitled to the grade of 875-1400 under SRO 91 aforesaid and as such qualified for the UGC scale but still then the benefit was denied to him even though his case was recommended by Pr. Degree College Anantnag under his communication no. 1034 of 21.10.1991 to the first respondent etc. 4. The respondents have not filed any objection despite repeated opportunities granted for the purpose with the last one given on 11th August 2005, consequent whereupon their right to file the same stands closed and the matter is accordingly taken up for consideration. Degree College Anantnag under his communication no. 1034 of 21.10.1991 to the first respondent etc. 4. The respondents have not filed any objection despite repeated opportunities granted for the purpose with the last one given on 11th August 2005, consequent whereupon their right to file the same stands closed and the matter is accordingly taken up for consideration. During course of his submissions petitioners counsel while reiterating the contents of petition has also contended that the expression Librarian as used in the SRO 291 of 1978 includes Chief Librarian also and as such having requisite experience and qualification in terms thereof on the appointed date the petitioner was eligible for promotion as Chief Librarian in the scale of 475-850 while under revised pay rules of 1982 which are effective from 01.01.1982 the Chief Librarians were classified in two groups one holding the grade of 875-1400 and the other that of 825-1240, the classification being based on their respective qualifications with the grade of 875-1400 allowed to the Chief Librarian having Masters degree with diploma or B. Lib and the petitioner having requisite qualification was entitled to benefit of said rules also which was however not given to him. During submissions the counsel has referred to certain judgments passed by this court in similar cases which would be discussed, if necessary, in due course. As already said neither objections have been filed by respondents nor is any body present on their behalf to be heard in the matter, with the result that petitioners pleadings as well as arguments are virtually un-rebutted. 5. I have heard petitioners counsel and considered the matter. Before proceeding ahead it would be appropriate to notice that under court order dated 11.05.2000 passed in earlier writ petition as aforementioned the respondents were under an obligation to consider petitioners case in light of communication referred to therein which does not appear to have been done. This coupled with their continuous default in filing their reply to the present writ petition and other circumstances is ordinarily sufficient to direct their adherence to the aforesaid order and consider petitioners case in terms thereof. 6. In addition thereto, the petitioner has brought on record copies of government order no. 41-HE/98 where under 17 Chief Librarians of the Higher Education Department were placed into the higher grade of 2200-4000 in relaxation of rules, and order no. 6. In addition thereto, the petitioner has brought on record copies of government order no. 41-HE/98 where under 17 Chief Librarians of the Higher Education Department were placed into the higher grade of 2200-4000 in relaxation of rules, and order no. 17/3-Edu of 1998 dated 18.12.1998 whereunder 14 Librarians of School Education have been placed in the pre-revised grade of 2000-3400 while giving them the benefit of SRO 291 dated 1.6.1978. Under government orders no. 30 Edu of 1994 dated 1.6.1994 and 239 of 2001 dated 24.03.2001 again 11 Librarians have under SRO 291 of 1978 been placed in the grade of 475-850 ( pre-revised ) on the ground that they had improved their academic qualification to the point of Masters Degree/Graduation with B. Lib. Under all these orders the benefit of higher grade has been given to the Librarian/Chief Librarians on the ground of having secured better qualification of M.A. plus B. Lib etc, which as per his un-rebutted pleadings the petitioner was holding even at the time of his initial appointment. Not only the requisite qualification but he also performed duties similar to those of his counter parts and as such had a claim of parity with them in terms of the principle of equal pay for equal work which has repeatedly been held by Honble Apex court to be a substantial principle of law and not only an abstract doctrine with emphasizes on nature and quality of the work rather than the status of worker. In the instant case also reasonable similarity of the nature of work, its quality and the requisite qualification between petitioner and those given the benefit of higher grade being same, the petitioners claim appears to be well founded. 7. Petitioners counsel has brought on record the copy of a judgment from Jammu Wing of this court passed in swp no. 1051/98 dated 5.3.2004 wherein petitioners like present petitioner were working as Chief Librarians and claimed benefit of SRO 291 of 1978 aforesaid on parity with one Kamlesh Koul and Zahida Gulam whose scale was raised from 825-1240 to 870-1400. Petitioners counsel has brought on record the copy of a judgment from Jammu Wing of this court passed in swp no. 1051/98 dated 5.3.2004 wherein petitioners like present petitioner were working as Chief Librarians and claimed benefit of SRO 291 of 1978 aforesaid on parity with one Kamlesh Koul and Zahida Gulam whose scale was raised from 825-1240 to 870-1400. The court while observing that petitioners having been working as Chief Librarians on the date of issuance of SRO 77 of 3.4.1995 which provided the benefit of higher grade to them, they would be deemed to have been the members of service in terms thereof in accordance with sub section (3) of Section 3 governing constitution of service where under persons holding any post included in the cadre of service in the presented scale of pay would be deemed to have been appointed to the service under those rules, if he is qualified to hold post. As already observed and evident in light of the un-rebutted record, the petitioner was holding the requisite education qualification in terms of SRO 77 of 1995 even at the time of his entry in service and having been working as Chief Librarian at relevant point of time was entitled to be assessed for benefit in terms thereof which does not appear to have been done due to which, coupled with what has been stated above, he has been deprived of his rightful claim. 8. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents to consider his case in terms of SROs 291 of 1978 and 77 of 1995 for grant of benefits to him there under in accordance with the requirements thereof. Consideration as such be accorded within a period of three months from now. 9. The matter stands accordingly disposed of along with all CMPs.