JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Hemant Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sunita Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant them IInd Upward Movement in pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 pursuant to recommendation of 5th Pay Commission dated 1.1.1995 and also pay arrears of salary and consequential benefits. 3. The petitioners No. 1 to 4 are working as Semi Professional, M.A. Library, Aligarh Muslim University (hereinafter referred to as the “University”) and the petitioner No. 5 is working as Technical Assistant in the University. Ist Upward Movement was allowed to non-teaching, teaching and library staff of the University vide circular dated 24.3.1986 pursuant to the recommendation of Joint Committee of Cadre Review Committee of Central University and the same was granted to petitioners w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Thereafter the restructuring of pay scale was approved by the respondent No. 1 vide memo dated 7.1.1997 and it was decided to implement the second upward movement to the staff of the University which included the petitioners’ cadre also. Pursuant to the said decision the petitioners submitted their application for IInd Upward Movement in February, 1997 but it appears that later on pursuant to some direction from University Grants Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “UGC”) the IInd Upward Movement was stopped vide circular dated 10.10.1997. 4. The contention of the petitioners is that most of the staff of the University were granted IInd Upward Movement and it is only the petitioners who have been singled out. In para 9 of the writ petition it has been specifically said that the respondents-University granted IInd Upward Movement to the most of the employees to have applied. 5. The reply contained in para 9 of the counter affidavit is that the IInd Upward Movement was awarded to those candidates whose cases were processed before the direction of the UGC and since the case of petitioners could not be processed by that time as such the same was kept in abeyance and ultimately denied. Therefore, the only defence justifying denial of IInd Upward Movement to the petitioners is that their applications could not be processed by the University for almost 7 or 8 months and for that delay the petitioners had to suffer though the delay is directly attributable to the University. Therefore, the only defence justifying denial of IInd Upward Movement to the petitioners is that their applications could not be processed by the University for almost 7 or 8 months and for that delay the petitioners had to suffer though the delay is directly attributable to the University. In other words, the defence appears to be that the University since could not process the petitioners’ application expeditiously and with due diligence though forms/applications were submitted as long back in February 1997 and, therefore, for the inaction of the University, the petitioners had to suffer. The fortunate ones whose applications could be processed by the University speedily before the UGC could communicate its decision for stopping the same, they were lucky enough to get and retain it. It is not the case of the respondents that the grant of IInd Upward Movement is irregular and illegal and those who were already granted the same, were granted wrongly and the same has been cancelled besides recovery of the payment already made to them. The distinction between the petitioners and those who have been granted IInd Upward Movement is contingent and sought to be justified only on the exigency of the University authorities in processing their applications expeditiously or by deliberate selection or election. It means that if a person has submitted application much later in point of time than the petitioners but if could manage the processing of his application with due diligence and could get it before the circular dated 10.10.1997 was issued, he was entitled for the said benefit of IInd Upward Movement but those who believed in the proficiency and impartiality alongwith diligence of the University authorities and waited for processing in ordinary course of business would have to suffer if their application could not attract due pace to the so called processing by the University authorities. This distinction is wholly illusory and ex facie violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Besides, it also amount to permit the University to take advantage of its own wrong and continuing the benefit of IInd Upward Movement of pay to some of its employees only for a fault which is attributable to the University. It is well settled that no person can take advantage of his own wrong. The delay is on the part of University and for that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. It is well settled that no person can take advantage of his own wrong. The delay is on the part of University and for that the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. In the circumstances, in my view, denial of IInd Upward Movement to petitioners is wholly arbitrary, unreasonable, unjust and cannot sustain. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to give IInd Upward Movement of pay to the petitioners in the same manner as has been allowed to other employees forthwith from due date with all consequential benefits including arrears. There shall be no order as to costs. ———