Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking to challenge an order dated 03.11.2009 issued by the first respondent University and to set aside the same in so far as the fitment in the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-400-18,300 and consequently to grant fitment in the scale of pay of Rs.16,400-450-22,400 with all consequential benefits with effect from 15.11.2001. 2. The petitioner thereafter filed an application to implead the second respondent University Grants Commission (UGC) as party respondent to the writ petition. The writ petition was admitted on 24.11.2009. Pending the writ petition, this Court declined to grant any interim direction. 3. On notice from this Court, the first respondent University has filed a counter affidavit dated 23.04.2010. 4. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was working as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department of the Government of Puducherry. He was appointed as Executive Engineer by the first respondent University in the year 1988. The pay scales of staff engaged in Engineering Section of the University was as prescribed by the UGC from time to time. The post of Superintending Engineer was in existence in the initial stage of the University. The incumbent of that post was a person who came on deputation from the CPWD of the Government of India. He held the post for a period of 5 years from 1985 to 1990. After his repatriation to his parent department, the post was not fulfilled. A high-level manpower committee was appointed which studied the man power requirements for the various departments of the University and it recommended the abolition of the post of Superintending Engineer. Hence, the post was abolished. Therefore, the request of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer was not considered. 5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.No.17883 of 2003 to consider his representation. This Court directed the petitioner's representation to be considered. Pursuant to the direction, the first respondent University on 28.07.2003 disposed of his representation and informed him that the post of Superintending Engineer was abolished. The petitioner once again filed W.P.No.200 of 2004 seeking to set aside the said order. Once again, this Court by an order dated 23.10.2008 held that though the high-level Manpower Committee had recommended abolition of the post of Superintending Engineer, the same was not abolished. The petitioner once again filed W.P.No.200 of 2004 seeking to set aside the said order. Once again, this Court by an order dated 23.10.2008 held that though the high-level Manpower Committee had recommended abolition of the post of Superintending Engineer, the same was not abolished. Infact, the University had called for applications to fill up the post from the retired employees to appoint them on contract basis. Therefore, the stand of the University was perverse and not reasonable and hence after setting aside the order dated 28.07.2003, the University was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer. 6. The matter was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) on 26.06.2009. Subsequently, the Executive Council of the University by Resolution No.2009.100.123 approved the promotion of the petitioner for the post of Superintending Engineer on a regular basis for the year 2001-2002. It was stated that the said promotion was given pursuant to the direction issued by this Court. Consequent upon the resolution of the Executive Council, by an order dated 02.07.2009, the petitioner was given the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-400-18300 (pre-revised) with effect from 15.11.2001 on notional basis and with monetary benefit from the date of actual assumption of duty. It was thereafter, the petitioner sent a further representation dated 05.11.2009 stating that he should be given the scale equivalent to that of a Finance Officer/ Registrar/Controller of Examination/Professor and he must be fitted in the scale of pay of Rs.16,400-450-22,400. Since he did not get a favourable reply, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. The petitioner has submitted that he had secured certain information with reference to the salary paid to the then Superintending Engineer R.A.Arumugam. At the time of his joining, the said Arumugam was paid salary equivalent to that of Reader and it is only the Assistant Engineer in the Engineering Division was paid salary equivalent to that of Lecturer. It is on this basis, he contended that he should be paid salary on par with the Finance Officer/ Registrar/Controller of Examination/Professor. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it was contended that the UGC is the appropriate authority to prescribe pay scale for the post sanctioned to the University and the UGC had approved only the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-400-18,300. 8. In the counter affidavit filed by the University, it was contended that the UGC is the appropriate authority to prescribe pay scale for the post sanctioned to the University and the UGC had approved only the scale of pay of Rs.14,300-400-18,300. The petitioner's claim based upon UGC Scales of pay given to teaching staff has got no relevance to the post held by the petitioner. Even as per the existing hierarchy, the petitioner has to report to the Registrar who is having the scale of pay of Rs.16,400-22400. It was also stated that when the University wrote to UGC, they have also sent a communication dated 21.05.2009 stating that the pay scale for the post of Superintending Engineer is only Rs.14300-400-18300 (Pre-revised). A copy of the said communication is also produced. The communication dated 21.05.2009 reads as follows:- "With reference to your letter No.PU/Regr/2009/163 dated 26th March 2009 on the subject mentioned above, I am directed to inform that the core pay scale for the post of Superintending Engineer is Rs.14300-400-18300 (pre-revised)" 9. In the light of the UGC's communication, the petitioner's claim for higher scale can never be countenanced by this Court. Further, it is not for this Court to determine the Scales of Pay of a non-teaching staff of the University and the first respondent University stand cannot be found fault with. 10. In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in S.C.Chandra v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279 . In paragraphs 35 to 37, it was held as follows:- "35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay). 36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. 36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy. 37. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. the principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in great detail. In paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body. The courts must realise that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse consequences vide Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey" 11. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.