JUDGMENT Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner was appointed as Carpenter in the respondent-University on 31.12.1983. He was granted the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. He was paid the revised pay scale of Rs. 950-1800. One Sh. Padam Singh, appointed as Carpenter on 30.6.1987, was placed in the higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100. Petitioner made a representation seeking parity of pay scale with Sh. Padam Singh on 17.4.2002. Representation made by the petitioner was rejected by the respondent-University on 27.5.2002. Petitioner filed O.A. No. 1601/2002 for the rederessal of his grievance before the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The same was transferred to this Court and assigned CWP (T) No. 8618/2008. It was withdrawn by the petitioner on 1.11.2010 with liberty to make a detailed and exhaustive representation to the respondent. Petitioner made a detailed representation on 18.11.2010. The same was rejected by the respondent on 15.2.2011. 2. Mr. L.N. Sharma has vehemently argued that the action of the respondent-University not to grant revised pay scale to the petitioner at par with Sh. Padam Singh is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, thus, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He also contended that the duties being discharged by the Carpenters in the construction wing are same and similar, which are being discharged by the Carpenters working in the workshop of the respondent-University. 3. Mr. Onkar Jairath has vehemently argued that the duties being discharged by the petitioner as Carpenter in construction wing are not same and similar as discharged by the Carpenter in the workshop of the respondent-University. He also contended that the petitioner cannot rely upon the principles of “equal pay for equal work”. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings meticulously. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed prior to the appointment of Sh. Padam Singh on 31.12.1983. Petitioner has been granted the pay scale of Rs. 400-600, which was revised to ` 950-1800. However, anomaly started when Sh. Padam Singh was released the pay scale of ` 1200-2100. The Financial Committee of the respondent-University has approved the pay scales of the Laboratory staff of the respondent-University at par with the Himachal Pradesh University pattern and of the staff working in the workshop also at par with the Himachal Pradesh University on 7.8.1998. However, anomaly started when Sh. Padam Singh was released the pay scale of ` 1200-2100. The Financial Committee of the respondent-University has approved the pay scales of the Laboratory staff of the respondent-University at par with the Himachal Pradesh University pattern and of the staff working in the workshop also at par with the Himachal Pradesh University on 7.8.1998. This proposal of the Finance Committee was approved by the Board of Management on 3.7.1999. It was sent for approval of the Hon’ble Chancellor. The respondent-University issued notification on 23.7.1999 after the Board of Management accorded the approval on 3.7.1999 to release the pay scales to the workshop staff at par with the H.P.U./H.R.T.C. pattern. The approval to amendment in Statute 5.6 (1) was also accorded by the Hon’ble Chancellor on 20.8.1999. The amendment to the Statute was also duly notified on 6.9.1999. It is evident from the Statute 5.6 (1) that the respondent-University has adopted the pay scales corresponding to the Secretariat Staff of the Himachal Pradesh as far as ministerial staff is concerned and for the scales of posts in the Estate Cell with the Public Works Department and for technical staff with the Department of Agriculture/Horticulture/Forest/ Fisheries/Animal Husbandry/Education. However, as per the amended provisions of the Statute 5.6 (1), the pay scales of the ministerial staff now correspond with the Secretariat staff of the Himachal Pradesh Government and for the scales and Recruitment and Promotion Rules of posts in the Estate Cell with the Public Works Department, except workshop staff in whose case the H.P.U./H.R.T.C. pattern of pay scales and Recruitment and Promotion Rules will be applicable and for technical staff other than Laboratory staff with the Department of Agriculture /Horticulture/Forest/ Fisheries / Animal Husbandry/Education. According to the proviso to Statute 5.6 (1) if the University adopts the pay scales in respect of some category of employees from some other organization in view of anomalies of pay scales, working conditions etc. then the corresponding Recruitment and Promotion Rules of that organization will automatically apply in the case of the category of University employees. However, if upon adoption of a pay scale from some organization, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for that category of employees are non-existent in that organization, the University will make its own Recruitment and Promotion Rules in respect of that category of employees. 6. However, if upon adoption of a pay scale from some organization, the Recruitment and Promotion Rules for that category of employees are non-existent in that organization, the University will make its own Recruitment and Promotion Rules in respect of that category of employees. 6. The respondent-University has maintained parity of the pay scales till the issuance of notification dated 23.7.1999 between the Carpenters working in the Estate Cell vis-à-vis Carpenters working in the workshop. The minimum essential qualification for filling up the post of Technician Grade-III (Carpenter) is Matric pass from recognized Board with ITI Certificate in the trade with three years experience in the line and on the basis of qualifying trade test/interview. The minimum essential qualification for filling up the post of Carpenter Grade-II, as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, is middle pass or its equivalent from a recognized Board and must possess ITI certificate in the trade of Carpenter from a recognized Institution. Thus, it is evident that the technical qualification required for both the posts is the same, i.e., ITI certificate in the trade of Carpenter. The only difference is with regard to academic qualification for filling up the post of Carpenter in Workshop and Carpenter in Estate Cell. The respondent-University has failed to substantiate that the duties being discharged by the petitioner are different from the duties being discharged by the Carpenter in the Workshop. The only stand taken by the respondent-University is that the Carpenter working in the construction Division carries Carpenter job, such as repair/work of joinery in wood/timber in various building at the campus as per HPPWD work manual and the Carpenter working in the University Workshop is assigned the duties of body repair work of University buses, repair of window panes and doors, cladding sheets, repair of seat covers. These works cannot be termed as skilled/specialized works. These duties can also be discharged by the petitioner. 7. It would be apt at this stage to take note of one additional fact that the petitioner has been designated as Junior Technician (Carpenter) and Sh. Padam Singh has been designated as Technician Grade-III (Carpenter). Petitioner is senior to Sh. Padam Singh. However, Sh. Padam Singh is drawing higher pay scale vis-à-vis petitioner. 7. It would be apt at this stage to take note of one additional fact that the petitioner has been designated as Junior Technician (Carpenter) and Sh. Padam Singh has been designated as Technician Grade-III (Carpenter). Petitioner is senior to Sh. Padam Singh. However, Sh. Padam Singh is drawing higher pay scale vis-à-vis petitioner. Respondent-State has released the higher pay scale to the Carpenters working in the University workshop on H.R.T.C./H.P.U. pattern with effect from 3.11.1989 to 31.3.1998 on notional basis with actual benefits with effect from 1.4.1998. 8. In order to claim the principles of “equal pay for equal work”, petitioner is required to establish that the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, qualifications, duties and responsibilities while working as Carpenter in the Construction Wing are same and similar vis-à-vis the Carpenters working in the workshop of the respondent-University. Petitioner has established that he is discharging the same and similar duties as a Carpenter at par with the Carpenters working in the workshop of the respondent-University. The qualifications and mode of Recruitment and Promotion Rules are the same. Ordinarily, there should not be two pay scales for the same post. 9. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tube Wells Corporation and others versus G.S. Uppal and others, (2008) 7 SCC 375 have held that in matters of fixation of pay and determination of parity scope of judiciary is limited, however, Courts can interfere in the matter if the pay fixation is unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant facts. Their Lordships have held as under: “21. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court 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 the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. [see K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406].” 10. [see K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406].” 10. Accordingly, in view of the observations and analysis made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. Respondent-University is directed to release the revised pay scale to the petitioner as per notification dated 23.7.1999 and further revised from time to time within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of copy of this judgment by the petitioner to the respondent-University. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order to costs.