A lso heard Mr. L. P. Sharma v. 2] By way of this petition

Mr. K. P. Sharma, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petition er submits that on earlier occasions, the fixed pay of the part-time Lecturers w ere equivalent to the minimum of the pay scale that was provided to the regular full time Lecturers, but that practice was not followed when the pay scale was r evised with effect from 01-01-1996. Contending that there is no qualitative or q uantitative difference in the discharge of duties between the part-time Lecturer s and the full time Lecturers, learned senior counsel submits that the demand fo r enhancement of the fixed pay from Rs. 4000/- to Rs. 8,000/- per month effectiv e from the last pay revision is fully justified. In support of his submission, learned Sr. counsel has referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in t he case of Vijay Kumar and Others Vrs. State of Punjab and others; reported in A IR 1994 SC 265. In the facts of that case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed th at the appellants who were part-time Lecturers and not gainfully employed elsewh ere should be paid according to the minimum of the pay scale prescribed for the regularly appointed Lecturers during the period of their appointment as part-ti me Lecturers. [9] On the other hand, Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned standing counsel, G auhati University submits that the petitioner’s prayer is not tenable as the nat ure of duties of part-time Lecturers and full time Lecturers were different. He further submits that to avail the pay scale of full time Lecturers, one must be appointed as full time Lecturer for which one must have the requisite UGC norms. According to him, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner had th e requisite UGC norms to be appointed as a regular full time Lecturer. In the ab sence of the same, the claim of the petitioner is not legally tenable. He furthe r submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Ku mar and Others(Supra) would not be applicable in the present case inasmuch as t he petitioner was also gainfully engaged as a professional lawyer in addition to her part-time engagement. [10] The submissions made have been duly considered. [11] The principle of equal pay for equal work is constitutionally re cognised and finds place in Article 39 of the Constitution. However, to raise a claim based on the said principle and thereafter seek enforcement of the same wo uld require fulfilment of a number of pre-conditions. One of such condition woul d naturally be the nature of the appointment. A full time regular Lecturer is se lected following a regular selection process for which one must have the minimum prescribed qualification. By it very nature, such service would be wholly and e xclusively for the college. On the other hand, part-time Lecturers are not so ap pointed at least after 1979 as has been pleaded by the Gauhati University and no t denied by the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that there is str ict adherence to the prescribed norms applicable to regular and full time Lectur ers in the appointment of part-time Lecturers. By the very nature of such appoin tment, the service is part-time as opposed to full time engagement with the furt her relaxation that such part-time Lecturer may also be gainfully engaged elsewh ere. [12] The doctrine of equal pay for equal work implies equal pay for e qual work for those who are equally placed in all respects. In the case of State of Punjab and another Vrs. Surjit Singh and Others; reported in (2009) 9 SCC 51 4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined in detail the aforesaid doctrine and notic ed that the applicability of the doctrine has undergone a sea change in recent t imes. Grant of the benefit of the doctrine of (cid:28)equal pay for equal work (cid:29) would d epend upon a large number of factors including equal work, equal value, source a nd manner of appointment, equal identity of group and wholesale or complete iden tity. [13] In the opinion of the Court, the two engagements do not stand on the same footing. In a given case, a part-time Lecturer may discharge his duty in a more dedicated manner than a full time Lecturer and may also take more numb er of classes than a full time Lecturer but that would not make out a case for e xtending the pay of the full time Lecturers to the part-time Lecturers as a whol e. As rightly pointed by Mr. L. P. Sharma, learned standing counsel, Gauhati Uni versity, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar an d Others(Supra) would not be applicable in the facts of the present case as bes ides other factors, the petitioner continued to be gainfully engaged as a profes sional lawyer. [14] It is true that the petitioner had rendered 24 years of dedicate d service to the Law College and perhaps on a fair assessment of her individual case, her claim may be deserving. But the consideration of her claim has to be o n the basis of established legal principles. No departure can be made from such principles based on the merit of an individual case. [15] he relief as prayed for by the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to grant t [16] [17] Writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. No cost.