JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral)-Respondent-University issued an advertisement for filling up the post of Instrumentation Technician on 13.9.1987. Petitioner was found suitable and was appointed as Instrumentation Technician in the pay scale of Rs.700-1200/-. Respondent-University issued a notification on 30th May, 1989, whereby categories of Instrumentation Technician, Technical Assistants Grade-I (Field & Laboratory) and Workshop Foremen were clubbed together and their existing pay scale of Rs.700-1200/- was revised to Rs.1640-2925/-. However, the respondent-University issued Annexure A-3, dated 11.07.1991, whereby the pay scale of Technical Assistants Grade-I was revised from Rs.700-1200/- to 2000-3500/- w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The category of the petitioner was not included in the notification dated 11.07.1991. She made representations vide Annexures A-4, A-6, A-7 and A-8. She was apprised that the matter was under consideration as per Annexures A-9, dated 3.6.1994 and A-10, dated 5th July, 1994. The matter was ultimately referred to Inter University Coordination Committee as per Annexure A16, dated 11th March, 1995. The committee met on 02.08.1995 and the following recommendation was made as per item No. 4: “4. (a) Revision of pay scale of Instrumentation Technician at par with Tech. Asstt. G-I. The case is recommended for placing the Instrumentation Technician in the scale of Rs.2000-3500/- on the analogy of initial same scale as of Tech. Asstt. G-I with which the Instrumentation Technician scale was equated initially. No other case of non revision of Rs.1640-2925/- to higher scale has been cited as evidence to support the stand taken by the University for not revising the scale of Instrumentation Technician (c.f 2-34/88-89/2769-2819, dated 30.5.89 read with Bud. 2-34/91`-1940-4890). (b) Revision of pay scale of Computer Operator from 1.1.86 instead of 1991.” 2. The stand of the respondent-University is that it had taken up the matter with the State Government, however, the same was rejected on 17th April, 1995. 3. Mrs. Ranjana Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that action of the respondent-University to deny her client the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the respondent-University has straneously argued that the category of Instrumentation Technician does not exist in Himachal Pradesh Government and thus, this post could not be included in Annexure A-3, dated 11.07.1991. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 4. Mr. Onkar Jairath, learned counsel for the respondent-University has straneously argued that the category of Instrumentation Technician does not exist in Himachal Pradesh Government and thus, this post could not be included in Annexure A-3, dated 11.07.1991. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully. 6. Petitioner has been appointed as Instrumentation Technician in sequel to advertisement dated 13.9.1987. He was placed in the pay scale of Rs.700-1200/-. The pay scale of Technical Assistants Grade-I (Field & Laboratory) and Workshop Foremen was also Rs.700-1200/-. A conscious decision had been taken vide notification dated 30th May, 1989, whereby the Technical Assistants Grade-I (Field & Laboratory) and Workshop Foremen were placed in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2925/-. However, fact of the matter is that vide Annexure A-3, dated 11th July, 1991, only the pay scale of Technical Assistants Grade-I was revised from Rs.700-1200/- to 20003500/-. The case of the petitioner, as noticed above, was favourably recommended by the Inter University Coordination Committee in its meeting held on 2.8.1995 as per item No. 4. 7. It is well settled law that it is for the employer to grant pay scales after taking into consideration the qualifications, nature of duties and functions. However, it is equally well settled that while taking such decision, there should not be any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 8. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa and others versus State of Karnatka and others, (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406 have held as under: “13. He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana V. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and Union of India V. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana V. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana V. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the Courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust or prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.” 9. In the present case, the pay scale of the petitioner was revised at par with Technical Assistants Grade-I (Field & Laboratory) and Workshop Foremen from Rs.700-1200/-to Rs.1640-2925/-, which presupposes that the respondent-University has taken into consideration the educational qualification and functionality of the post in question at the time of considering these posts for the revision of pay scale. Petitioner’s category, i.e. Instrumentation Technician ought to have been included in Annexure A-3, dated 11th July, 1991. It may be true that the post of Instrumentation Technician is not available in the State Government, however, the University has to take a conscious decision, which it had already taken when the pay scale of petitioner was revised from Rs.700-1200/- to Rs. 1640-2925/- at par with Technical Assistants Grade-I (Field & Laboratory) and Workshop Foremen. The respondent-University has not taken into consideration the recommendations made by the Inter University Coordination Committee on 02.08.1995. The case of petitioner has been favourably recommended by the Committee. The decision taken by the Committee is well reasoned. The respondent-University should have taken a decision to revise the pay scale of petitioner from Rs. 1640-2925/- to 2000-3500/-at its own level without referring the matter to the State Government. The University is an autonomous body and it should take its own decisions in accordance with law. 10. Mr. Onkar Jairath has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure R-4, dated 17th April, 1995, whereby case of petitioner was rejected. It is not a speaking order. It is clearly stipulated in this communication that the decision was to be taken only after the decision of Inter University Coordination Committee. The Committee has made its recommendations on 2.8.1995. However, the same has neither been taken into consideration by the respondent-University nor by the State Government. It is not a speaking order. It is clearly stipulated in this communication that the decision was to be taken only after the decision of Inter University Coordination Committee. The Committee has made its recommendations on 2.8.1995. However, the same has neither been taken into consideration by the respondent-University nor by the State Government. The fact that the category of petitioner had already been clubbed with Technical Assistants Grade-I (Field & Laboratory) and Workshop Foremen vide Annexure A-2, dated 30th May, 1989 has been overlooked. The respondent-University has to maintain uniformity while granting the pay scales. It has to ensure that if a particular pay scale is given to various categories, there should be uniformity at the time of further revision of pay scales of all these categories. 11. Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondent is directed to consider the case of petitioner for the release of pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986, revised from time to time with interest @9% per annum within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs.