JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. 1. The petitioners in all these petitions have approached this Court seeking direction to the respondent authorities to implement forthwith the revision of pay-scale prescribed in the 5th Pay Commission to the petitioners by placing the petitioners in corresponding pay-scale of Rs. 6500 - 10,500 and some of the petitioners, who are in selection grade to the pay-scale of Rs. 8,000 - 13,500 from 01.01.1996. They have further challenged the order dated 12.11.2006 and 01.12.2006 passed by the State Government and the Universities, respectively, wherein their claim for parity of pay-scale with that of Assistant Engineer in the State Government has been rejected. 2. The petitioners are the employees of the respondent No. 1-University, which was initially known as Gujarat Agricultural University, but by virtue of the Act of 2004, this main Gujarat Agriculture University was bifurcated in four zones and each zone was given a separate autonomous status of University, and thereby, given a nomenclature as Junagadh Agricultural University, Junagadh. 3. The petitioners were appointed as Junior Engineers (Civil) in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in the University. The appointment letters of some of the petitioners are on the file. Later on, after coming into force of the 5th Pay Commission, their pay-scale has been revised to 5500-9000 in place of 6500-10500. It is claim of the petitioners that the nature of job and duties by the petitioners are similar to those of Assistant Engineers in the State Government and as such they were entitled to get pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200 and after coming into force of 5th Pay commission their scale was reached to Rs. 6500-10500. 4. Earlier, the petitioners approached this Court by way of Special Civil No. 1597 of 2005 which came to be disposed of by common order dated 13.02.2006 while holding that the State Government shall examine the matter for consideration of the revision of pay-scale on the scale to scale basis after taking into consideration the Anamoly Commission's Report. It seems that after the report of anomaly, the State Government has passed the impugned order dated 21.11.2006, wherein the claim of the petitioners has been rejected. Since the University in question is having 100% grant in aid from the State Government, the University while passing the aforementioned order further passed the order dated 01.12.2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 5. Since the University in question is having 100% grant in aid from the State Government, the University while passing the aforementioned order further passed the order dated 01.12.2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 5. Aggrieved from the aforesaid orders, present petition has been preferred. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that qualification, nature of job and responsibility of the Junior Engineers in the University are the same and equal to that all Assistant Executive Engineers in the State Government. Since the State of Government, after coming into force of the 5th Pay Commission, the pay-scale of Assistant Engineers in the State Government has been revised to 6500 - 10500, the petitioners are also entitled to the same scale. The action of the respondent by putting the petitioners in the pay-scale 5500-9000 was liable to be reversed. In support of the submissions, the learned advocate for the petitioners has relied upon latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2017 1 SCC 148 . 7. On the other hand, learned advocate representing the University has argued that qualification, mode of selection, nature of job and responsibility of the Assistant Engineer in the State Government are entirely different from that of the Junior Engineers appointed in the University. It has been argued that after receipt of report of the Anomaly Committee, the State Government has taken up these matters and has reached to the conclusion that the nature of job etc. of the present petitioners was entirely different from those of Assistant Engineers as a State Government and accordingly rejected the claim of the petitioners. 8. Since the University run with 100% grant in aid from the State Government and bound by the decision of the State Government, the University is left with no other option except to accept the recommendations of the Government and accordingly, passed order dated 01.12.2006 rejecting the claim of the petitioners. 9. Learned advocate for the respondents has also put reliance on the same judgment, which has been relied upon by the other side. 10. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. It will be relevant to note that some of the material facts are not stated in the petition or in the annexures attached with the petition. Initially, the petitioners have tried to canvass that they have not been given revised pay-scale, as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. 10. This Court has considered the submissions of both the sides. It will be relevant to note that some of the material facts are not stated in the petition or in the annexures attached with the petition. Initially, the petitioners have tried to canvass that they have not been given revised pay-scale, as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. They have placed on record the revised pay-scale of other posts, but deliberately suppressed the pay-scales of Junior Engineer. The chart has been placed on record by the respondent-University which is available at Annexure-R-1. The pay-scale of the Junior Engineer has produced at Item No. 32, Page No. 108. It transpires from the record that under the 4th Pay Commission, the petitioners were working in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640 - 2900 and under the 5th Pay Commission, the revised pay-scale of the petitioners Rs. 5500 - 9000 and accordingly, the petitioners are entitled for the said pay-scale. There is no corresponding post of Assistant Engineer in the University as claimed by the petitioners. It is specific stand of the respondent - University that unequals cannot be treated as equals. The petitioners cannot claim parity of pay scales with the Assistant Engineers working in the Government Departments. The respondent No. 1 - University is 100% Grant in Aid Institution. The recruitment rules of the University, selection process, nature of work, duties and functions, responsibility and service conditions etc. are not similar with the Assistant Engineer of the State Government. This Court cannot evaluate and determine the scale of the employees, but it must be left to an expert body. The Anomaly Committee has been formed, as requested by the State Government and on the basis of that, impugned order dated 21.11.2006 has been passed. 11. Section 20 of the Gujarat Agricutural University Act, 2004, gives power and function to the Board of University. The relevant clause is re-produced as under:- "......... (3) The exercise of the powers by the Board under Clause (xxii) and (xxiii) of sub-section (1) in so far as they relate to the laying down and regulating salary scales and allowances of officers, members of the teaching, other academic and non-teaching staff of the University, constituent college, affiliated college and recognized institution shall be subject to the approval of the State Government." 12. Once, the State Government vide impugned order dated 21.11.2006 has reached to the conclusion that the Junior Engineers working in the University are not entitled to the same scale as that of Assistant Engineer in the State Government, and therefore, vide order dated 01.12.2006 declined the claim of the petitioners. 13. Both the sides have relied upon the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. Versus Jagjit Singh & Ors., reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 . In this cases, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down contents required to be applied before granting principle of "equal pay for equal work. "42.1 The 'onus of proof, of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post. 42.3 The principle of 'equal pay for equal work', applies to cases of unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or irrational classification (see - the Randhir Singh easel). For equal pay, the concerned employees with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity (see - the Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) case, the Mewa Ram Kanojia case, the Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case and the S.C. Chandra case). 42.5 In determining equality of functions and responsibilities, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', it is necessary to keep in mind, that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible (see - the Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) case and the State Bank of India case). The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' (see - State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, and the Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case). 42.7 Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay-scales. Such as - 'selection grade', in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as - merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria." 14. As stated earlier, the qualification, mode of selection, nature of job and responsibility etc. and the both the grades Junior Engineers and that of Assistant Engineers in the State Government are separate and different, the same pay-scale cannot be given to the employees working on different posts. 15. Resultantly, present petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly, stands dismissed. Petition Dismissed