ORDER : 1. The petitioners are applicants with the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal [for short 'the Tribunal'] in the applications in OA Nos.77- 148/2024, which the Tribunal has disposed of on 18.01.2024. Some of the co-applicants with the petitioners have preferred the writ petition in WP No.9712/2025, and this Court has disposed of this petition on 31.10.2025 restoring the application for reconsideration stipulating that those petitioners and the respondents shall appear before the Tribunal on 15.12.2025. 2. This Court must observe that the Tribunal has rejected the applications essentially on the ground that the petitioners, who had the benefit of its earlier orders, could not have filed a representation invoking its jurisdiction once again unless they applied for contempt, and this Court has opined that in view of two determinative factors [i.e., the Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj has not considered the representations despite specific directions and the petitioners continuance in service] the Tribunal could not have dismissed the petition on such grounds. 3. This Court, for reasons of parity, must intervene even in this petition and restore the application even insofar as the present petitioners for due reconsideration by the Tribunal, stipulating that even these petitioners must appear before the Tribunal without further notice on 15.12.2025 or any other date that the Tribunal may adjourn those applications to be listed. The next question is because of the submissions by Sri Vijaya Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are paid a small part of the salary which otherwise would be paid to regular appointees. 4. The petitioners are working as 'the Assistant Teachers' with schools established for the benefit of students from the Tribal communities, and they have been so employed from the year 2000- 2001. Sri Vijaya Kumar canvasses that despite all the years of service put in by the petitioners discharging the responsibilities assigned to sanctioned posts, they are being paid only a sum of Rs.10,500/- per month [a small portion of the salary otherwise admitted to regular appointees]. 5. This Court, in the light of this submission, has called upon Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, to secure instructions from the respondents. 5. This Court, in the light of this submission, has called upon Sri Vikas Rojipura, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, to secure instructions from the respondents. Sri Vikas Rojipura, on instructions, has placed before this Court that the petitioners may not be right in asserting that they are being paid only Rs.10,500/- because his instructions are that they are being paid around Rs.16,000/- per month. 6. This Court must observe that Sri Vikas Rojipura cannot dispute that even this amount is much lower than the amount that is paid to the regular appointees to the posts. This Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal, even before the decision on the merits of the applications for regularization of appointment, must also consider whether the rule of 'equal pay for equal work' must apply or that the State, in the present circumstances, could carve out an exception to the application of this Rule. In the light of the afore, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed in part quashing the Tribunal's order dated 18.01.2024 in Application Nos. 77-148 of 2024 even as regards the present petitioners, calling upon them and the respondents to appear before the Tribunal without further notice on 15.12.2025 or such date as the Tribunal may further direct their applications to be listed. [b] The petitioners are reserved with liberty to seek interim orders on a better pay based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as aforementioned.