JUDGMENT Yashwant Varma,J. Heard learned counsel for parties. 2. This petition lays challenge to orders dated 12 June 1993, 12 October 1993 and 17 December 1993. The primary order which falls for consideration is dated 17 December 1993 in terms of which the claim of the petitioner for grant of higher pay scale has been accepted but made effective from 12 October 1993. The petitioner contends that higher pay scale was liable to be accorded to him from the date of his initial appointment in 1982. The salient facts which may be noted for the purposes of consideration of this petition are as follows. The respondent-University, on 29 April 1980 advertised 10 posts of Sub Station Attendants to be appointed on its establishment. The advertisement provided that the Sub Station Attendants would be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560. The petitioner along with seven others was selected pursuant to the recruitment exercise undertaken by the University and came to be appointed on 5 February 1982. It however transpires that while the petitioner was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400, the other selectees were adjusted in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560. Alleging discrimination, the petitioner represented the matter to the University and ultimately the matter travelled up to the Executive Council which in turn referred the issues raised for the initial consideration of a Grievance Redressal Committee. The Grievance Redressal Committee took into consideration the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 30 June 1992 and made the following recommendations for the consideration of the Executive Council: "Considered the appeal dated 30.6.1992 of Mr. M. Mateen Khan, Sub-Station Attendant (now redesignated as Sub-Station Operator) against the order for not allowing his placement in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560. The Committee noted that on the recommendation of a Selection Committee? seven candidates were selected for appointment as Sub-Station Attendant and the name of Mr. Mateen Khan was at the top of the list and also that the persons who were subsequently allowed their placement in the higher pay scale of Rs. 330-560 had not done better than Mr. Khan recommended that the appeal of Mr. Mateen Khan be accepted and he be placed in the higher pay scale with immediate effect." 3. Mateen Khan was at the top of the list and also that the persons who were subsequently allowed their placement in the higher pay scale of Rs. 330-560 had not done better than Mr. Khan recommended that the appeal of Mr. Mateen Khan be accepted and he be placed in the higher pay scale with immediate effect." 3. The above recommendations came to be considered by the Executive Council in its meeting held on 12 September 1993 when it passed the following resolution: "Item No. 20: To consider the recommendations of Standing Establishment-cum-Grievance Committee made at its meeting held on 12 June 1993. Considered and approved the recommendations of the Standing Establishment-cum-Grievance Committee made at its meeting held on 12.6.1993, except the recommendations made under Item No. 20 which were referred back." 4. Pursuant to the above, the order dated 17 September 1993 came to be passed and as noted above while the claim of the petitioner was accepted the grant of higher pay scale was made effective from 12 October 1993. It is aggrieved by the restriction of the grant of pay scale from 12 October 1993 that the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition. 5. Sri J.J. Munir, learned counsel appearing in support of this petition has contended that the University clearly acted arbitrarily and practised hostile discrimination inasmuch as there were no distinction which would justify the petitioner being placed in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 and other selectees being placed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560. He submits referring to the recommendations of the Committee that the petitioner was placed at the top of the select list and that the Grievance Redressal Committee clearly found that none of the other selectees had performed better than the petitioner which may have justified payment of a differential pay scale. Referring to the recommendations of the Committee and the use of the phrase "with immediate effect", Sri Munir submits that the relief granted to him by the Committee was declaratory in character and therefore has been wrongly interpreted to mean as to be given effect to only from the date of acceptance of the recommendations by the Executive Council. 6. Referring to the recommendations of the Committee and the use of the phrase "with immediate effect", Sri Munir submits that the relief granted to him by the Committee was declaratory in character and therefore has been wrongly interpreted to mean as to be given effect to only from the date of acceptance of the recommendations by the Executive Council. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University, on the other hand, has drawn the attention of the Court to the representation made by the petitioner in which it is, according to him, admitted that during the course of the interview the petitioner had agreed to be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400. He submits that in light of the above, it is not open for the petitioner to have made a claim with respect to grant of benefits from the date of initial appointment. Referring to the averments made in paragraph 7 of the Counter Affidavit, learned counsel submits that the other selectees had been working in the University right from 1970-72 and therefore, they were clearly entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 330-560. 7. The fact that the post of Sub Station Attendant was advertised to carry a pay scale of Rs. 330-560 is not in dispute. The University and the learned counsel appearing on its behalf in his submission does not dispute the fact that the other selectees who were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-56 right from 1982 came to hold the post pursuant to the same selection in which the petitioner also participated. It is also not the case of the respondent-University that the higher pay scale came to be granted to the other selectees on account of either additional qualifications or their standing higher in merit. In fact, as has been rightly pointed out the Committee itself noticed that the petitioner stood at the top of the select list and that no other selecteees have obviously therefore performed better than him. Since the advertisement itself carried a positive declaration of the pay scale which was to be paid to the Sub Station Attendants, and the other selectees were in fact placed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560, this Court clearly finds that the University has acted in breach of the principles of Article 14. 8. Since the advertisement itself carried a positive declaration of the pay scale which was to be paid to the Sub Station Attendants, and the other selectees were in fact placed in the pay scale of Rs. 330-560, this Court clearly finds that the University has acted in breach of the principles of Article 14. 8. More fundamentally, this Court finds force in the submission of Sri Munir that the decision of the Grievance Redressal Committee was declaratory in character. Obviously, the reference to the Committee was for rectification of an anomaly and discrimination which the petitioner had alleged. It's decision therefore could not have been restricted in its application to operate only post the acceptance by the Executive Council of its recommendations on 12 October 1993. If the Committee found the petitioner had been discriminated clearly therefore its recommendation was liable to operate from the date of initial appointment of the petitioner. 9. Consequently and in light of the above the orders of the respondent-University restricting the grant of relief to the petitioner from 12 October 1993 and impugned in the present writ petition cannot be sustained. Accordingly, this petition shall stand allowed. A writ shall accordingly issue quashing the orders dated 12 June 1993, 12 October 1993 and 17 December 1993. Consequently, the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits with effect from the date of his initial appointment.