JUDGMENT : The prayers in this writ petition are as follows: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writs directions or orders directing the 2nd respondent to issue orders stepping up of the pay of the petitioner to Rs.3700-5700 with effect from 1.1.1986, the date on which the junior officer got pay fixation in Rs.3700-5700 and disburse consequential arrears under 1996 and 2006 UGC schemes within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writs directions or orders directing the 2nd respondent to issue order implementing the direction contained in Ext.P8 forthwith. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner who was a senior hand in the post of Assistant Professor has not been given the benefit of stepping up of pay at par with his juniors. It is submitted that the petitioner had preferred representations before the respondent-University seeking the benefit of stepping up of pay. Pursuant thereto, this Court had, by judgment dated 18.10.2010 in W.P.(C) No.30474 of 2010 directed consideration of the request made by the petitioner. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner was heard on 18.11.2010 and proceedings were issued vide Ext.P8 dated 07.02.2011 stating that orders in the light of resolution of redressal committee deciding to grant 28A fixation will be issued soon. It is however stated that seniority list of teachers is in the finalisation stage and the claims put forward by the petitioner will be looked into and settled on finalisation of the seniority list. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Ext.P9 order dated 07.09.2005 whereby the Executive Committee of the University had decided to review the criteria for determining seniority and provided that seniority will be reckoned based on the cadre seniority in the directly recruited cadre at the time of induction to UGC. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner would be entitled to seniority and for stepping up of pay at par with his juniors on the strength of seniority to be finalised on the basis of Ext.P9 order. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that juniors whose cases the petitioner has mentioned are in fact persons who entered service of the University in the entry cadre on earlier dates and therefore the petitioner's claim cannot be considered. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that juniors whose cases the petitioner has mentioned are in fact persons who entered service of the University in the entry cadre on earlier dates and therefore the petitioner's claim cannot be considered. This, according to the petitioner, is clearly incorrect in view of Ext.P9 order issued by the University. 6. In the facts and circumstances of this case, since there was a specific direction by this Court to consider the claim of the petitioner and to pass orders thereon with notice to the petitioner, I am of the view that the stand taken by the University in their counter affidavit without issuing an order as directed by this Court is clearly unsustainable and unjustifiable. In the above view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent-University to consider Ext.P7 request made by the petitioner at the earliest on the strength of Ext.P9 and the applicable orders for fixing seniority and pass final orders thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The materials relied on by the petitioner including the decisions of the Apex Court in Gurcharan Singh Grewal and another vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others ((2009) 3 SCC 94) and of this Court in W.P.(C) No.16252/2012 shall also be looked into by the University while issuing orders. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-University shall make available copies of the decisions before the competent authority of the University.