JUDGMENT : JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J. 1. Petitioners have approached this Court seeking the following relief: “.....action of the respondents not paying the Revised Pay Scales of 2015 to the petitioners from June, 2014 till August, 2018 in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 46, Finance Department dated 30.4.2015 read with G.O.Ms. No. 142, Finance Department dated 27.8.2018 as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional, violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and further declare the orders of the Hon'ble Tribunal dated 12.9.2017 in O.A. No. 3855/2017 insofar it relates to not considering the second part of the relief sought in the O.A. with regard to payment of Revised Pay Scales of 2015 is concerned is equally arbitrary, illegal and erroneous and issue consequential direction directing the respondents to forthwith pay the Revised Pay Scales of 2015 to the petitioners from June, 2014 to August, 2018 in pursuance of G.O.Ms. No. 46, Finance Department dated 30.4.2015 read with G.O.Ms. No. 142, Finance Department dated 27.8.2018 and pass such other orders as the Hon'ble High Court deems fit and proper.” 2. Facts of the case are to the effect that the petitioners were appointed as part-time Lecturers and awarded minimum time scale pay on and from 1992. On revision of the pay scale of lecturers, the minimum time scale of pay to part-time lecturers was also revised in 1993 and 2010. Pay scale was again revised in 2015 vide G.O.Ms. No. 46 dated 30.4.2015. Initially the benefit of such pay revision was extended to the petitioners for the period from 1.7.2015 till 31.3.2016. However, the same was sought to be recovered by issuing order dated 12.9.2016 by the Principal of the concerned College on the direction of the Commissioner. At that stage, the petitioners approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3855 of 2016 seeking the following reliefs: “....declaring the proceedings Rc. However, the same was sought to be recovered by issuing order dated 12.9.2016 by the Principal of the concerned College on the direction of the Commissioner. At that stage, the petitioners approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 3855 of 2016 seeking the following reliefs: “....declaring the proceedings Rc. No. 10/A/PRC/2015 dated 12.9.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India as well as violating principles of natural justice and set aside the same insofar as the applicants are concerned and further declare the action of the respondents in not paying the salary to the applicant in the Minimum Time Scale as per the revised pay scales of 2015 from June, 2016 onwards as equally arbitrary, unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to pay the salary to the applicants from June, 2016 in the Minimum Time Scale as per the revised pay scales of 2015.” 3. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the findings as follows: “6. As per the averments and also the admitted facts, the applicants are paid minimum in the time scale of pay attached to the posts of Junior Lecturers for the past more than two decades. Even as per G.O.Ms. No. 166, dated 8.6.1994, the Government itself has decided and extended the benefit of minimum in the time scale of pay to the part-time Lecturers as per the time to time revised scales of 1986 and 1993. Even subsequently, when there was a revision in the year 2010, the same was also extended to the applicants and as a policy whenever there is a revision of pay scales, part-time Lecturers are given minimum in the time scale of pay attached to the posts in the respective categories. Therefore, when the pay scales were revised in the year 2015, the applicants who are working as part-time Lecturers are eligible to draw minimum in the time scale of pay as per the revised pay scales. This Tribunal in similar cases when the part-time Lecturers have prayed for extension of benefit of 2015 scales had allowed the Original Applications directing the respondents to consider and apply revised pay scales of 2015....” 4. This Tribunal in similar cases when the part-time Lecturers have prayed for extension of benefit of 2015 scales had allowed the Original Applications directing the respondents to consider and apply revised pay scales of 2015....” 4. In light of the aforesaid findings and relying on the well established principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ the Tribunal quashed the proceedings dated 12.9.2016 and directed refund of amounts already recovered. Being aggrieved that the other prayers, namely, direction upon the respondents to pay minimum time scale as per the revised pay scale of 2015 from June, 2016 onwards have not expressly granted, the petitioners have approached this Court. 5. Sri. P.V. Krishnaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits the petitioners, who have part-time lecturers, are rendering equal work as the permanent lecturers. Accordingly, they have been extended the benefit of pay revisions in earlier years. No rational basis has been made out by the respondents to deny similar relief in case of pay revision in 2015. 6. In reply, Sri. Bheema Rao, learned Government Pleader for Services submits that Pay Revision, 2015 does not include part-time lecturers and is applicable only to permanent employees. The petitioners had given an undertaking that they are agreeable to refund the excess salary and on such undertaking the benefits of Pay Revision, 2015 had been temporarily extended to them. Hence, they are not entitled to any relief. 7. It is pertinent to note that the respondents have not challenged the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, one can safely conclude that the respondents have accepted the findings of the Tribunal that the petitioners as part-time lecturers have been extended the benefit of pay revisions in earlier years, namely, 1993 and 2010. In light of the principle of ‘equal work for equal pay’ they were entitled to the benefit of pay revision in 2015. Based on such reasoning, the Tribunal quashed the order of recovery of additional salary paid to petitioners as per revised pay scale for the period from 1.7.2015 till 31.3.2016. 8. In light of the aforesaid, there is no escape from the conclusion the petitioners are entitled to revised pay scale 2015 from June, 2016, as prayed for. Nowhere in the pleadings before the Tribunal did the department disclose the reasons why the revised pay scale of 2015 would be denied to part-time lecturers. 8. In light of the aforesaid, there is no escape from the conclusion the petitioners are entitled to revised pay scale 2015 from June, 2016, as prayed for. Nowhere in the pleadings before the Tribunal did the department disclose the reasons why the revised pay scale of 2015 would be denied to part-time lecturers. It is not their case that part-time employees had not been extended similar relief in earlier years nor that they performed different nature of work from the permanent employees. Furthermore, they have not assailed the order of refund made in light of the findings as discussed above. Hence, there is no justification in denying the petitioners the continuing benefit of revised pay scale 2015. 9. In light of the aforesaid, we allow the writ petition and direct that the petitioners shall be paid the minimum in the time scale of pay as revised by G.O.Ms. No. 46 dated 30.4.2015 on and from July, 2016. Arrears, if any, shall be liquidated within six months, failing which, they shall carry interest at 8% per annum till date of payment. No order as to costs. 10. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.