JUDGMENT P.K. Musahary, J. 1. The writ Petitioners, numbering 04, challenge the Order No. DSYA/PTI/CC/05 dated 31st March, 2006 passed by the Secretary (Education), Government of Arunachal Pradesh whereby their claim for parity in pay scale at par with Junior Teachers has been rejected as being not justified. 2. The material facts, in short campus, are that the Petitioner No. 1 was initially appointed as Physical Training Instructor (for short, 'PTI') on 4.9.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 380-13-420-15=560-20-600/- p.m. The nomenclature of PTI was changed to Physical Education Teacher (for short, 'PET'). The other Petitioner Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were appointed so on 01.06.1985, 04.02.1993 and 22.07.1996 respectively. The pay scale of PET ought to have been Rs. 425-640/- p.m. as because during the relevant period the PET (then called PTI under the Govt. of India were given the pay scale of Rs. 425-640/- p.m.) by a Circular dated 27.03.1992 (Annexure-p/1 to the writ petition) whereby the Ministry of Education and Culture, Department of Education, Govt. of India upgraded the scale of pay of Junior Teachers in Language, Music, Dance, Physical Education and Domestic Sciences from Rs. 425-750/- p.m. 3. As the scale of pay of Rs. 425-640/- p.m. was not given to the writ Petitioners, as PET, the corresponding pay scale of Rs. 440-750/- p.m. was not allowed to them. In the 4th Pay Commission, the pay scale of Rs. 440-750/- p.m. in respect of Junior Teachers was revised to Rs. 1400-2600/- p.m. while the scale of pay in respect of the Petitioners was revised to Rs. 1350-2200/- p.m. only. Similarly, in the 5th Pay Commission, the pay scale of Junior Teacher was revised to Rs. 5000-8000/- p.m. and the pay scale of the Petitioners, as PET, was revised to Rs. 4500-7000/- p.m. only. 4. Heard Mr. P.K. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and also heard Mr. R.H. Nabam, learned Senior Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 5. It is submitted by Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioners that as per the Circular dated 27th March, 1982, the posts of Junior Teachers in the pay scale of Rs. 425-750/- p.m. include the Junior Physical Education Teacher i.e. the posts held by the Petitioners but while revising the Junior Teachers' pay scale from Rs. 425-640/- to Rs. 440-750/- p.m. the Petitioners were not paid the revised scale of Rs. 440-750/-. 425-750/- p.m. include the Junior Physical Education Teacher i.e. the posts held by the Petitioners but while revising the Junior Teachers' pay scale from Rs. 425-640/- to Rs. 440-750/- p.m. the Petitioners were not paid the revised scale of Rs. 440-750/-. This was an administrative wrong on the part of the Respondent authorities. As this administrative wrong was not cured and/or corrected, the Petitioners have been denied similar pay scale corresponding to the pay scale of Junior Teachers. It was not intended or provided by the Ministry of Education and Culture, Govt. of India, to deny the said pay scale to the PET and there was in fact, no disparity in the pay scale of Junior Teacher and PET but such disparity has been created by the State Respondents in the following manner as summarized in Para-13 of the writ petition, which are quoted below: (i) Before the Forth Pay Commission in the then Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh, Physical Education Teachers were wrongly given the pay scale of Rs. 380-640/- though they ought to have been given the pay scale of Rs. 425-640/- as this was the pay scale which was being given to the Physical Education Teachers under the Government of India and under all other Union Territories. (ii) When by the Circular of the Government of India dated 27.3.1982 the pay scale of Physical Education Teachers and of Junior Teachers belonging to various disciplines was enhanced from Rs. 425-640/- to Rs. 440-750/-, the Physical Education Teachers of Arunachal Pradesh were not given the benefit of these enhancements. (iii) Pursuant to Fourth Pay Commission Report, pay scale of Rs. 380-640/- was revised to Rs. 1350-2200/- and they pay scale of Rs. 440-750 was revised to Rs. 1400-2600/-. The administrative wrong committed against Physical Education Teachers was perpetuated and instead of giving the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- the Physical Education Teachers were given a scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- on the basis of its pre-revised scale of Rs. 380-640/-. (iv) In terms of Part-A of Fifth Pay Commission Report, which was made effective from 1.1.1996, the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200/- was revised to Rs. 4500-7000/-. Likewise, the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- was revised to Rs. 5000-8000/-. Consequently, the Physical Education Teachers were given the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- and the Junior Teachers of various disciplines were given to pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. 1350-2200/- was revised to Rs. 4500-7000/-. Likewise, the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2600/- was revised to Rs. 5000-8000/-. Consequently, the Physical Education Teachers were given the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- and the Junior Teachers of various disciplines were given to pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/-. Hence the administrative wrong committed earlier was perpetuated. (v) By order dated 27.3.2000 the Education Department of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh enhanced the existing pay scales of teachers serving in the Government Schools of Arunachal Pradesh w.e.f. 1.4.1998 and the benefit of enhanced pay scale, was given as per Part-B of the Fifth Pay Commission Report w.e.f. 1.4.1998. In this order the existing pay scale of Physical Education Teachers as per Part-A of Fifth Pay Commission Report was wrongly shown as Rs. 4000-6000/- whereas it ought to have been Rs. 4500-7000/-. By wrongly showing the existing pay scale of Physical Education Teachers as per Part-A of the Fifth Pay Commission Report as Rs. 4000-6000/-. The Physical Education Teachers were supposedly given the enhanced pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-. However, in real terms there was no enhancement because at the relevant point of time the existing pay scale of the Physical Education Teacher as per Part-A of Fifth Pay Commission Report was Rs. 4500-7000/- and not Rs. 4000-6000/-. 6. According to Mr. Tiwari, this is a case of continuing administrative wrong against the Petitioners which have given rise to a recurring cause of action and in such case, the Petitioners' claim cannot be rejected as time barred one. In this respect, he has cited the case of M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and Ors. reported in (1995) 5 SCC 628 . In that case, the Appellant approached the Administrative Tribunal after about 11 years seeking/claiming proper pay fixation and it was held to be not time barred. The Petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing writ petition namely, W.P.(C) No. 686 (AP)/2001 and after hearing the same, a judgment and order dated 23.12.2004 was passed disposing the said writ petition with a direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners consistently with the observations made therein and to take a decision in the matter within a period of three months. 7. In pursuance of the said direction, the Secretary (Education) to the Govt. 7. In pursuance of the said direction, the Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh considered the Petitioners' case and passed the impugned order dated 31st March, 2006 holding the Petitioners' claim as not justified mainly on the following grounds: (1) The Petitioners are governed by a different set of Recruitment Rules notified vide Order No. SEDN. 12/72 dated 29.12.73, which is not at par with the provisions of Recruitment Rules of Junior Teachers. (2) While the minimum qualification of Junior Teachers includes Bachelor Degree and Professional Degree namely B. Ed. the Physical Education Teachers does not have the qualification equivalent to the Junior Teachers. (3) The Selection Board by which Junior Teachers and Physical Education Teachers are selected are different from the point of view of their qualifications and temperament as the Board meant for selection of Junior Teachers attached academic importance which plays vital role in shaping the future of the students. (4) The nature of job of the Junior Teachers and the Physical Education Teachers is completely different on the ground that the Junior Teachers pursue regular academic classes for a longer period coupled with correcting the home works for the growth of students intellect, the Physical Education Teachers concentrate comparatively for a shorter period of time on the students physical growth and therefore the burden on the Junior Teacher is much grater then that of the Physical Education Teachers. (5) The degree of responsibility of the Junior Teachers are different from that of the Physical Education Teachers on the ground that the primary objected of the Department of Education is the academic achievement of the students. (6) The Physical Education Teachers had accepted the appointment initially even though on a lower scale of pay after having known the lower scale of pay and the status from the advertisement followed by their joining in the posts. 8. According to Mr. Tiwari, the Secretary (Education) committed serious error by treating the case of the Petitioners as one of disparity in the pay scale between the PET and Junior Teachers basically on the ground of minimum educational qualification required for entry in the service as PET and the nature of job and responsibilities attached to the said post. The Respondent authorities, according to Mr. The Respondent authorities, according to Mr. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, have committed the same administrative error in not granting the scale of pay at par with the Junior Teachers on complete misreading of the Govt. Circular dated 27th March, 1982 aforementioned and the reports of the Fourth and Fifth Pay Commissions and as such, this Court, in exercise of its judicial review, may interfere with the wrong administrative decision so far taken by the Respondent authorities and issue appropriate direction for correcting the error committed by them. Relying on the decision in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation v. G.S. Uppal reported in (2008) 7 SCC 375 , Mr. Tiwari urges upon this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 31st March, 2006 inasmuch as the administrative decision as taken by the Respondent authorities in regard to pay fixation and pay parity, is clearly found to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. 9. Mr. Nabam, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, on the contrary, submits that Respondent authorities have already considered the Petitioners' case and settled the same vide impugned order dated 31st March, 2006 and if they are not satisfied with and aggrieved by the same, the matter should be placed before the high level standing committee constituted by the Govt. to examine and consider the question of up-gradation of pay scale or pay anomalies. Mr. Nabam has produced a copy of the Govt. Order No. FIN/E-II/08/2005 dated 13th December, 2007 constituting a high level standing committee headed by the Chief Secretary as Chairman, Dev. Commissioner (Finance), as Member Secretary and Commissioner (PWD), Secretary (Admn. Reforms) and Secretary of the concerned Department as its Members. It is stated that the said committee has already taken up a number of cases of pay parties/pay anomalies pertaining to various categories of State Govt. employees. The Petitioners may approach the said committee or a direction may be issued by this Court to the Respondent authorities to place the Petitioners' case before the said committee for its examination and taking final decision. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. employees. The Petitioners may approach the said committee or a direction may be issued by this Court to the Respondent authorities to place the Petitioners' case before the said committee for its examination and taking final decision. 10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. This Court in the judgment and order dated 23.12.2004 passed in W.P.(C) 686 (AP)/2001, while issuing direction to consider the case of the Petitioners, made an observation that in the matter of removal of pay anomaly, host of consideration are required to be given and it would not be wise and prudent to issue any mandamus to the Respondent authorities to provide a particular pay scale to the Petitioners. 11. Going by the aforesaid observation, I am also disinclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 31st March, 2006 and issue any mandamus commanding the Respondents to allow the pay scale as claimed by the writ Petitioners. I am also of the considered view that the matter requires examination by an expert committee/body for coming to a correct decision and settlement. This Court cannot turn itself to an expert body/committee to examine and review the pay anomalies or disparities and give a final decision to it. The decision in G.S. Uppal (supra)'s case is not similar to this case. It was a case, where the employees of the Corporation, since its inception in 1970, had been getting the same pay scale as that of the employees of the Haryana Government and the Board of Directors having already equated the pay scale of the Engineers of the Corporation commensurate to the pay scales of the Government employees, but the State Government did not concur with the decision of the Board of Directors and the corporation was running into losses and therefore, it was not in a position to grant higher scales which were introduced for the purpose of removing anomaly. To provide similar pay scale, the principle enunciated in the aforesaid case would be made applicable only when it is found that the administrative decision pertaining to pay fixation and the pay parity are found to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. To provide similar pay scale, the principle enunciated in the aforesaid case would be made applicable only when it is found that the administrative decision pertaining to pay fixation and the pay parity are found to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. That stage is yet to reach as because the matter is yet to be examined by the expert body/committee like the 'high level standing committee' constituted by the Govt. as aforesaid. 12. Since the matter was admittedly examined by the Secretary (Education) alone without associating any expert body/committee, it cannot be said that the impugned order dated 31st March, 2006 has been passed after due consideration by an expert committee/body taking into view the various aspects in regard to granting or non-granting similar scale of pay to the Petitioners and as such the same cannot be allowed to stand. The impugned order dated 31.03.2006 is, therefore, liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is hereby quashed. Since the expert committee like 'high level standing committee' has been constituted by the Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh and the said Committee is taking up the cases of up-gradation/pay anomalies of various categories of employees, as submitted by Mr. Nabam, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, it is in the fitness of things and for the interest of all that a direction may be issued to the Respondent authorities to place the Petitioners' case before the said Committee. 13. Accordingly, it is directed that the writ Petitioners shall furnish a copy of this writ petition along with all annexures thereto and other relevant documents to the Secretary (Education) and the Secretary (Education), on receipt of the same, shall place the same before the Chairman of the 'high level standing committee' within a period of 2 weeks therefrom and thereafter, the Chairman of the aforesaid Committee shall hold the meeting and consider the grievances of the Petitioners and pass a reasoned speaking order within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of such documents from the Secretary (Education). 14. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost.