UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHERversusP. SATHIKUMARNA NAIR AND OTHERS

A                    UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER
                                        v.
                 P. SATHIKUMARNA NAIR AND OTHERS

                                 APRIL 29, 1997

B          [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.]

         Service Law :

          Pay Sca/e-Parity--Claim by Junior Lecturers of pre-degree college in
C Union Territory of Lakshadweep affiliated to Calicut University-High Court
    allowingpari~eld: junior Lecturers in pre-degree colleges in geographical
    area of kerala drawing scale of Lecturers in degree colleges-Claim sus-
    tainable.

          The respondents were teaching classes XI and XII in a Senior Higher
D   Secondary School in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. These two
    classes were converted into a Junior College known as the Jawaharlal
    Nehru College w.e.f.15th July 1972. Though these teachers were designated
    and appointed as lecturers, they were given the pay scale of post-graduate
    teachers in the Secondary High School. There is another such Junior
E   College, the Mahatma Gandhi College, in the said Union Territory. Both
    these Colleges are affiliated to the Calicut University, Kerala. The Ad-
    ministrator of the Union Territory by its order dated 1st April 1976
    sought to redesignate the Lecturers of these two colleges as Junior Lec-
    turers, equating their pay scale to that of post-graduate teachers in the
    Secondary High School.
F
           Respondents challenged the order of the Administrator before the
    High Court. Single Judge of the High Court held that they could not be
    equated with post-graduate teachers in the Secondary High School and
    that they were entitled to the scale applicable to Lecturers under the Union
G   of India. He directed the Union of India to consider the claim of
    petitioners in accordance with law. A writ appeal against the said judgment
    was dismissed by the Division Beuch. It directed the Union of India to take
    a decision within six months, in the light of the directions of the Single
    Judge. Hence this appeal by Union of India.

H         Meanwhile, the Union of India by its order dated 11th August 1986
                                     1076
                           U.O.l. v. P.S. NAIR                         1077.

rejected the claim or writ petitioners holding that their duties and respon·   A
sibilities were comparable with those or teachers in classes XI and XII of
Senior Secondary School, and that they could not be ec1uated with the
Lecturers working in degree colleges run by Union Government. However,
pursuant to orders in a Contempt petition, the Union of India, by its
subsec1uent order dated 24th December 1986 redesignated the respondent
writ petitioners as Lecturers and granted them the Lecturer grade.
                                                                               B

       However, the Government did not designate the other junior lee·
turers as lecturers nor were they granted lecturer grade. The fourteen
lecturers of the said two Junior Colleges, similarly placed, when the Union
of India proposed to and sought to implement its order dated 11th August       C
1986 to them, applied to the Central Administrative Tribunal for similar
relief as granted by the High Court to the above respondents. The Tribunal
rejected the claim holding that the duties and responsibilities of those
persons who were teaching pre-degree classes were not comparable with
those of Lecturers in Degree Colleges, against which the teachers have
preferred appeals before this Court. Six similarly situated teachers of the    D
two colleges have approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitu·
ti on.

      It was contended for the Union or India that the responsibilities of
teachers teaching in pre-degree colleges were qualitatively different from     E
those in degree colleges and as such, they were neither entitled to be
designated as Lecturers nor to the same pay scale. On behalf of the
Lecturers it was submitted that no such plea was taken before the High
Court; that these two colleges being affiliated to the Calicut University,
and in the said University there being no distinction between the pay scale    F
applicable to junior Lecturers teaching pre-degree classes and Lecturer
teaching degree classes, they were also entitled to same; that in the State
of Kerala in government colleges and private colleges Junior lecturers
teaching pre· degree classes are drawing the same pay scale as the Lee·
turers teaching degree classes.
                                                                               G
      Disposing of the matters, the Court

      HELD : 1. It is not a fit case to exercise the Court's discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution and to interfere with the
findings given by the Single Judge or the High Court and affirmed by the       H
    1078                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   I1997] 3 S.C.R.
A Division Bench, that the pay scales of the junior lecturers in Union
    Territory of Lakshadweep are to be on par with the pay scales of lecturers
    in degree colleges under the Union of India. [1085-C; 1086-B]

           2. It is stated in the judgments of the High Court that the Union of
B   India in its counter aflidavit did not take the stand that the nature, status
    or functions attributable to the post of Junior Lecturers in the pre-degree
    colleges were different from those of Lecturers in degree colleges. The High
    Court found that there was nothing on record to indicate that the lecturers
    in pre-degree colleges did not perform similar functions as compared to
    lecturers working in degree colleges in the Delhi area. That finding has
C   become final. Further in the Calicut University to which the two colleges in
    the Union Territory are afiiliated, the pay scale of Junior Lecturers teach-
    ing pre-degree classes is one and the same. Besides, the State of Kerala vide
    its order dated 21st November, 1970 had equalised the pay scales of Junior
    Lecturers in private aided colleges with those of Lecturers in government
D   colleges. Therefore, geographically, the pay scales of Junior Lecturers and
    Lecturers are same in Kerala and in the Calicut University, with the sole
    exception of the colleges in the said !Jnion Territory, which are also af·
    filiated to the Calicut University. Then, there is the recommendation dated
    3rd February, 1995 hy the Administrator of that Union Territory, to the
    Government of India that the Junior Lecturers in the said two colleges be
E   paid the same scale of pay as Lecturer~ in the degree colleges of the Union
    Territory. It is, therefore, not proper to interfere with the scale payable to
    these Junior lecturers with effect from July 15, 1972. [1085-D; E-F; 1086-C]


          State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar, [1995] 1 SCR 599 and
F   Shri Ram Krima Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Ors., [1959] SCR
    279, cited.


         3. The 11ay scale attributable to the 1>ost of Lecturers in degree
  colleges under the Union of India will be applicable to these Junior
G Lecturers, now designated as Lecturers, from their respective dates of
  appointment, in respective junior colleges in the Union Territory of Lak-
  shadweep. The petitioners who approached the Central Administrative
  Tribunal must also be treated likewise. They are also granted the same
  relief. The writ petitioners, who are in identical situation, are also entitled
H to the same pay scale of Lecturers. [1086-E-F)
•
                 U.O.l. v. P.S. NAIR [JAGANNADHA RAO, J.)              1079

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 913 of               A
    1987 Etc.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 17.8.84 of the Kerala High
    Court in W.A. No. 736 of 1982.
                                                                               B
         P.A. Choudhary, S. Sukumaran, K. John Mathew, Y.P. Mahajan,
    Sushma Suri, C.V.S. Rao, Rajeev Sharma, Rakesh K. Sharma, N. Sud-
    hakaran and Ms. Baby Krishnan for the appearing parties.

         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                               c
           JAGANNADHA RAO, J. The Civil Appeal No. 913 of 1987, Special
    Leave petitions Nos. 648 of 1990 & 6894 of 1994 and the Writ Petition No.
    277 of 1994 are all connected and can be disposed of together. In the two
    Special Leave Petitions, we grant leave as the same questions arise which
    arise in the Civil Appeal. The Civil Appeal is filed by the Union of India D
    represented by Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of India and
    the Administrator, Unio.n Territory of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti. There are
    four respondents in the said appeal and they were writ petitioners in O.P.
    No. 2062/80(A) filed before Kerala High Court. They claimed that the
    proceedings issued by the Administrator dated 1.4.1976 re-designating E
    them as Junior Lecturers against their original designation as Lecturers in
    the Jawaharlal Nehru College at Kavaratti was illegal and that they were
    entitled lo the scale of Rs. 400-800 applicable to Lecturers rather than the
    scale of Rs. 350-700 which was applicable to Junior Lecturers and which
    scale was applicable to the Post- graduate teachers in the Secondary High
    School. It may be noted that the scale of Rs. 350-700 was revised by the F
    Third Pay Commission as Rs. 550-900 w.c.f. 1.1.1973 while the scale of Rs.
    400-800 was revised as Rs. 700-1300 w.c.f. 1.1.1973. The said O.P. No.
    2062/80(A) filed by the said four writ petitioners was allowed by the
    learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court on 10.8.1982 holding that
    the petitioners therein could not be equated with Post-graduate teachers G
    in the Secondary High School (who were to be re-designated as Junior
    lecturers) and that they were entitled to the scale of Rs. 400-800 applicable
    to lecturers. After holding so, the learned Single Judge, however, directed
    the Union of India to "consider" the claims of the four writ petitioners in
    regard to the pay scales in accordance with law. Against the said judgment H
    1080                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A   of the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeal No. 736 of 1982 was preferred
    by the Union of India and the Administrator of the Union Territory of
    Lakshadweep. The said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of the
    Kerala High Court on 17.8.1984. ll was directed that the Union of India
    should take a decision on a consideration of the material before it, in the
B   light of the directions contained in the judgment in O.P. No. 2062/80(A)
    and that the said decision should be given within six months from the date
    of the receipt of the copy of the judgment. Against the said judgment of
    the Division Bench, Special Leave Petition was preferred by the Union of
    India and the Administrator. Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Leave was
    granted and the appeal has been registered as Civil Appeal No. 913 of
c   1987.

          Certain events took place subsequent to the disposal of the Writ
    Appeal above-mentioned. In compliance with the directions of the learned
    Single Judge of the Kerala High Court, the Union of India passed orders
D   on 11.8.1986 rejecting the contentions of the said writ petitioners and
    holding that they were only entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 350-700 (which
    was revised as Rs. 550-900 w.e.f. 1.1.1973) applicable to Post-graduate
    teachers and not to pay scale of Rs. 400-800 applicable to lecturers (revised
    as Rs. 700-1300 w.e.f. 1.1.1973). The Union government held that the duties
    and responsibilities of the writ petitioners are comparable with those of
E   counter-parts in Class XI & XII of the Senior Secondary School and that
    they could not be equated with the duties and responsibilities of lecturers
    working in the degree college run by the Union Government.

            On the ground that Union of India in its order dated 11.8.1986 could
F   not have gone against the findings given by the learned single Judge of the
    Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 2062/80(A) and by the Division Bench in
    Writ Appeal No. 736 of 1982 as to the equation of the duties and respon-
    sibilities of the writ petitioners, namely, that they were similar to those of
    lecturers in degree colleges; Contempt Petition No. O.P. (Contempt) No.
    3730 of 1986 was filed by the said Writ Petitioners in the Kerala High
G   Court. By judgment dated 29.9.1986 a Division Bench of the Kerala High
    Court while noting that the Special Leave Petition was granted against the
    judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 736 of 1982 observed
    inasmuch as no stay was granted by the Supreme Court of India, it was
    incumbent on the Union of India to implement the judgment of the Kerala
H   High Court in the light of the findings given by the learned Single Judge
              U.O.I. v. P.S. NAIR [JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]                  1081

and the Division Bench and that it was not open to the Union of India to        A
pass the orders dated 11.8.1986 refusing to restore the designation of the
Writ Petitioners as Lecturers and that it was also not open to Union of
India to refuse to grant the scale of Rs. 400-800.

       Consequent to the directions given in the above-said contempt peti-      B
ti on by the Division Bench of the Ker ala High Court, the Union of India
passed a subsequent order dated 24.12.1986 re-designating the writ
petitioners as lecturers and granting the scale of Rs. 400-800 w.c.f.
15.7.1972 (the date of establishment of the Junior College at Kavaratti) and
the further revised scale of Rs. 700- 1300 w.e.f. 1.1.1973. A consequential
order was issued by the Administrator on 10.2.1987. The four writ               C
petitioners apprehended tha·l in the event of the Civil Appeal being allowed
by the Supreme Court, they might be compelled to refund the arrears as
well as current salary that might be paid to them in the scale of Rs. 400-800
or the revised scale of Rs. 700-1300 (or such subsequent revised scale), as
 the case may be. They, therefore, moved this Court in the Civil Appeal for     D
suitable orders. This Court passed an order on 2.4.1987 after hearing both
 sides that in the event of Civil Appeal going against writ petitioners, it
 would not be necessary for them to refund any salary paid to them in the
 scale of Rs. 400-800 or in the revised scale of Rs. 700- 1300 or any further
 revised scales.
                                                                                E
       We shall now mention how the two Special leave petitions and the
Writ P.etition have come to be filed. The Union of India and the Ad-
ministrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep proposed to apply the
original order dated 11.8.1986 granting only the scale of Rs. 350-700 (or
the revised scale of Rs. 550-900) to the remaining lecturers in the Jawahar-    F
lal Nehru College, Kavaratti and also to two lecturers in the Mahatma
Gandhi College, Androth, rather than the scale of Rs. 400-800 (or the
revised scale of Rs. 700-1300). In fact, these personnel continued to be
treated as junior lecturers and not as lecturers. They, therefore, moved the
Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. K-274/87. The application was       G
filed by 14 persons of whom two were from the Mahatma Gandhi College,
Androth and remaining 12 were from the Jawaharlal Nehru college,
Kavaratti, we have already noticed that the four other lecturers of the
Jawaharlal Nehru college, Kavaratti succeeded before the High Court and
were getting the higher scale of pay. But the Central Administrative            H
    1082                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A   Tribunal in its judgment dated 31.10.1989 came to a conclusion different
    from the one arrived by the Kerala High Court. It held that the duties and
    responsibilities of those 14 persons who were .teaching pre-degree classes
    were not comparable to those of lecturers in degree colleges. Both the
    Jawaharlal Nehru college, Kavaratti and Mahatma Gandhi college,
B   Androth were pre-degree colleges. The Tribunal, in fact, followed an
    earlier judgment rendered by it in O.A. No. K-335/87 filed by a lecturer of
    the Jawaharlal Nehru college by name Dr. Ramachandran (who we arc
    informed is no more) wherein it had come to the conclusion that the duties
    and responsibilities of the lecturers in pre-degree colleges were different
    from the duties and responsibilities of those teaching degree classes par-
C   ticularly in the Union Territory of Delhi. The Tribunal noticed that there
    was no degree college in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and that
    there was only a degree college and no jnnior college in the Union territory
    of Delhi. The attention of the Central Administrallve Tribunal was invited
    to another judgment of the Kcrala High Court in O.P. No. 497 of 1980 filed
D   by certain other lecturers (which, we are told later went in Appeal · Writ
    Appeal No. 772 of 1982). In that case also, it was held by the Kerala High
    Court that the staff teaching 11th and 12th classes in the Senior Secondary
    School and who were employed in the junior college w.c.L 15.7.1972 could
    not be treated as junior lecturers but should be treated as lecturers and be
E   given the higher scale, applicable to lecturers. However, the Central Ad- ·
    ministrative Tribunal did not feel pasnaded lo follow the judgment of the
    Kerala High Court in the said O.P. No. 497/80. The result was that the
    application O.A. No. K· 274/87 filed by the 14 applicants, was dismissed.
    Petitioners 1 lo 4 and 7 to 14 before the Central Administrative Tribunal
F   then moved this Court in Special leave petition No. 648 of 1990 against the
    judgment of the said Tribunal dated 31.10.1989 while petitioners 5 & 6 before
    the said Tribunal filed S.L.P. No. 6894 of 1994 against the said judgment. We
    have already granted leave in these two special leave petitions.

          Writ Petition (C) No. 277 of 1994 has been filed in this Court by 6
G other petitioners of whom 3 arc working in the J awaharl~I Nehru College
    Kavaratti and 3 are working in the Mahatma Gandhi college Androth. They
    arc aggrieved by the fact that so far they were concerned the Union of
    India and the Administrator were treating them as junior lecturers and not
  · granting them the pay scale of Rs. 400-800 (revised scale of Rs. 700-1300
H w.e.f. 1.1.1973 or the fm ther revised scale of Rs. 2200-4000 w.e.f. 1.1.1986).
             U.O.I. v. P.S. NAIR (JAGANNADHA RAO, J.)              1083

They approached this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of        A
India on the ground that in view of the judgment of the Tribunal dated
31.10,1989 rendered in the case of persons similarly situated, there
was no point in approaching the said Tribunal once against particular-
ly when notice had been issued in the Special leave petitions Nos.
648/90 and 6894/94 against the Judgment of the Tribunal. In view of       B
the said Judgment, notice Was ordered in the writ petition and it was
tagged alongwith Civil appeal No. 913/87 and the two Special Leave
Petitions.

        Learned senior counsel for the Union of India and the Ad-
ministrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep Shri P.A. Choudhary sub-
                                                                          c
mitted before us that the four petitioners filed O.P. No. 2062/80(A) and
four others were initially working in the Senior Higher Secondary
School, Kavaratti and were teaching classes 11 & 12 that later w.e.f.
•15.7.1972 the said two classes were converted into a junior college at
 Kavaratti. Initially these teachers were no doubt designated and ap-
                                                                            D
 pointed as lecturers in the scale of Rs. 350-700 which was the scale of
 Post-graduate teachers in the school. Taking advantage of their desig-
 nation as lecturers the said writ petitioners claimed the scale of lec-
 turers namely Rs. 400-800 that was being paid to lecturers in degree
 colleges at Delhi. In order to rectify the position orders were passed on E
 1.4.1976 re-designating personnel as junior lecturers w.e.f. 20.5.1975 and
 reiterating that they were only entitled to the scale of Rs. 350-700 and
 not to the scale of Rs. 400-800. Rules were also issued in that behalf
 w.e.f. l.4.1976. Learned senior counsel contended that while it was true
 that these eight teachers who were employed in the junior college F
 satisfied the minimum requirement of 2nd Class M.A., applicable to
 lecturers in degree colleges of the Union Government, but that it could
 not be denied that the duties and responsibilities of the teaching staff
 who teach in pre-degree colleges were certainly different from the
 duties and responsibilities of teachers teaching in degree colleges G
 whether at Delhi or at any other place. He contended that qualitatively
 the level of teaching was different and on that basis, there could be a
 valid difference in the scale of pay. He, therefore, contended that these
 personnel whether they were designated as lcct urers or junior lecturers
 were not entitled to the scale of Rs. 400-800 which was applicable only H
 to those teaching students in the degree classes.
    1084                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A       On the other hand, it was contended by learned senior counsel Shri
  K. John Mathew & Sri K. Sukumaran that the judgment of the learned
  Single Judge in O.P. No. 2062/80-(A) and of the Division Bench in Writ
  Appeal No. 736/82 showed that it was not disputed by Union of India and
  the Administrator, Union Territory of Lakshadweep before the Kerala
B High Court that the duties and responsibilities of these personnel were the
  same as those or lecturers teaching in degree colleges. It is also pointed
  out that these two colleges J awaharlal Nehru college, Kavaratti and Mahat-
  ma Gandhi College, Androth were both affiliated to Calicut University and
  that in the said university, there is no distinction between the pay-scales
C applicable to junior lecturers teaching pre-degree classes and junior lec-
  turers teaching degree classes. Learned counsel also referred to the
  Government's order in the State of Kcrala wherein junior lecturers teach-
  ing pre-degree classes and lecturers teaching degree classes were to draw
  the same pay scale. In fact, the Government of Kerala passed an order
D extending the said benefit to all the Junior Lecturers working in aided
  private junior colleges, thereby entitling the latter to draw the same pay
  scale of lecturers. From a geographical point of view the position was that
  in the entire State of Kerala in government colleges and private colleges
  and in particular under the Calicut University to which these two colleges
  were affiliated, junior lecturers teaching pre-degree classes were drawing
E the same scale of pay as lecturers teaching degree classes. Therefore, there
  was no justification in not extending the same benefit to those working.as
  Junior Lecturers in these two colleges which were affiliated to the Calicut
  University. In reply, the learned senior counsel for the Union of India and
  the Administrator, Union territory of Lakshadwecp Shri P.A. Choudhary
F contended that assuming that junior lec.turcrs teaching pre-degree classes
  and lecturers teaching degree classes were being given the same scale of
  pay by the government of Kerala and by the aided private colleges in the
  State of Kerala and also in the Calicut University, it is not permissible to
  issue a direction to the Union Government and the Administrator, Union
G Territory of Lakshadweep to equate the pay scales of junior lecturers and
  lecturers so far as Union Territory was concerned. The reason was that the
  employers in the two situations were different, that is, the State of Kerala or
  Calicut University on the one hand and the Union Territory of Lakshadweep
  on the other. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court
H in The State of Madhya Pradesh v. G.C. Mandawar, [1955) 1 SCR 599 to
               U.O.l. v. P.S. NAIR (JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]                  1085

say that the Court would not direct equation of pay scales of personnel of       A
different employers, namely those of the Central Government and those of a
State Government. Learned senior counsel also invited our attention lo certain
general principles concerning Article 14 laid down in Shri Ram Krishna
Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar & Others, [1959] SCR 279.

        We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions raised
                                                                                 B
 by the learned senior counsel on both sides. We have come to the
 conclusion that in exercise of our discretionary jurisdiction under Article
 136 of the Constitution of India we would not interfere with the findings
 given in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High
  Court in O.P. No. 2062/SO(A) dated 10.8.1982 as affirmed by the Divisiob       c
  Bench in Writ Appeal No. 736/82 dated 17.8.1984. We note that in the
  said judgments it was stated that the Union of India in its counter affidavit
  filed in the Kerala High Court did not take the stand that the "nature,
  status or functions" attributable to the post of Junior Lecturer in the
  Pre-degree Colleges were different from those of Lecturer in a Degree D
  College. We also note that against the other judgment of the Kerala High
  Court in O.P. No. 497/80 (referred to in the judgment of the Central
  Administrative Tribunal and which was affirmed in Writ Appeal NO.
  772/82), no Special leave petition has been filed by the Union of India in
  this Court. In the said judgment of the Kerala High Court also there is a E
  finding that there was nothing on record to indicate that these persons
  (Junior lecturers in pre-degree college) did not perform similar functions
  as compared to lecturers working in Degree Colleges in the Delhi area.
  That finding has become final. It is also not disputed before us that in the
  Calicut University to which these two colleges in the Union Territory of F
· Lakshadweep are affiliated, the pay scales of Junior lecturers teaching
  pre- degree classes and the pay scale of lecturers teaching degree classes
  is one and the same. In this connection, we may also refer to the order of
  the Government of Kerala in G.O.Ms. 487170/Edn. (F) Deptt. dated
  21.11.1970 equalizing the pay scales of junior lecturers in private aided G
  colleges with those of lecturers in government colleges. In Government
  Colleges in Kerala the pay scale of junior lecturers teaching pre-degree
  classes and lecturers teaching degree classes is again one and the same.
· In other words, speaking from a geographical angle the pay scale of junior
  lecturers and lecturers are the same in Kerala and in the Calicut University, H
    1086                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A with the sole exception of these two colleges in Union Territory of Lak-
    shadweep which are also affiliated to the Calicut University. In the light
    of the above factual position, we are of the view that, in exercise of our
    discretion, we would not interfere with the findings arrived at in O.P.
    No. 2062/SO(A) by the Kerala High Court as affirmed in Writ Appeal
B   No. 736 of 1982 holding that the pay scales of the junior lecturers in
    Union Territory of Lakshadweep arc to be on par with the pay scales
    of lecturers in degree colleges under the Union of India.

           In addition, our attention has been invited by the learned counsel for
    the writ petitioners to a recent communication of the Administrator of
C   Union Territory of Lakshadweep dated 3.2.1995 wherein he has recom-
    mended to the Government of India that the junior lecturers in these two
    colleges in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep be paid the same scale of
    pay as lecturers in the colleges of the Union Territory and he has stated
    that the additional financial burden would be around thirty thousand per
D   year which could be borne by the Union Territory. He has also stated that
    there are only 34 lecturers who have to be given this scale attributable to
    the post of lcct urers in degree colleges, the present revised scale being Rs.
    2200-4000 w.e.f. l.l.1986. In view of these facts, we do not deem it proper
    to interfere with the scale of Rs. 400-800 as being payable to these junior
    lecturers w.e.f. 15.7.1972 and Rs. 700-1300 w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and Rs. 2200-4000
E   w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The said pay scale will be applicable to these junior lec-
    turers now designated as lecturers from their respective dates of appoint-_
    ment in the respective junior colleges in the Union Territory of
    Lakshadweep. The Civil Appeal is dismissed.

F          In view of our decision in the Civil Appeal, the consequence must
    necessarily be that the 14 petitioners who have approached the Central
    Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. K-274/87 must also be treated likewise
    as the writ petitioners-respondents in C.A. No. 913 of 1987. Therefore, .
    Civil Appeals arising out of Special leave petition Nos. 648/90 & 6894/94
    are also allowed granting the appellant therein the same relief, as to pay
G   scales above-mentioned. Coming to Writ Petition (C) No. 277/94 the six
    writ petitioners therein are in identical situation and are also entitled to
    the same treatment as the writ petitioners whose cases have been decided
    in C.A. No. 913 of 1987. Otherwise, it would be discriminatory. We hold
    t~at they arc also entitled to the same pay scale of lecturers above referred
H   to.
             U.O.l. v. P.S. NAIR [JAGANNADHA RAO, J.]              1087

      In the result C.A. No. 913 of 1987 is dismissed. Civil Appeals ansmg A
out of Special Leave Petitions No. 648/1990 and 6864/1994 are allowed.
Writ Petition No. 277/94 is also allowed in the manner mentioned above.
There shall be no order as to costs. We should not be understood as having
decided any of the issues of law raised by the learned senior counsel on
both sides.
                                                                           B
V.K.S.                                       C.A. No. 913/87 dismissed.
                                             C.A. Nos. 3108 and 3109/97
                                                  with W.P. No. 277/94
                                                       are also allowed.