1. P. Vijaya Das v. 1. The Strlte of Telangana

Petitiorr under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to is:;ue a writ, order or direction one rn the nature of Writ of mandamus by calling for the records relating to are connected with proceedings No. 1602lUEl201l;-3, dated 07-12-2O15 and consequertial proceedings No. 408/39i201 5- l6/Budget-Gen, dated 29-01-2016 and de(lare that the petitioner are entitled tc pay scales of 1010-1800, Rs. 1875-2750 and Rs. 3550-7150 in the Revised pay r;cales of 1986, 1993 ,1999 and accordingly tn all the future revision of pay scales respectively with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary in the category of Lab Attendents in the 1st res londent university with effect from t['e date of their initial appointment and the r pay shall be re-fixed 4 l i l I I I accordinglyandconsequentlyfurtherdirecttherespondentstore.fixthescale accordingly even in the promotion post and for pension and release arrears of all other financial benefits in the interest of justice. l.A. NO:'l OF 2017(WP MP. NO: 17098 OF 20171 . Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings No, 1602/UEl2O15'3, dated o7 -12-2015 and direct the respondents to grant the scales of pay attached to the post of Lab Attendents on par with Lab Attendents of JNTU (Ananthapur) pending disposal of the above Writ Petition. counsel for the Petitioners: sRl AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI, Sr. COUNSEL' REP. FOR SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES'I Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No-3: SRI CH.JAGANNATHA RAO, SC FOR OU WRIT PETITIO NNO i 29697 0F 2017 Between: 1. P. Venkateswara Sarma, S/o. Late P.suryaprakasha Rao, Aged about 57 . VearS. occ Retd' JUnior ASSiStant, Rio. 1-9-91/A,/11 Sal Sahara Apartments. ilamnagar. Hyderabad.

2. P. Narayana. S/o Late P Rajaiah Aged about 56 ve.9rs^Ory L-aP,ljt:ll1lt FVo. 12--5-1116, Manikeswar Nagar' Osmanla University Campus, nyoeraDao' 3. K. Madan lvlohan. S/o. Late K Gangaram, Aged-about 59 years' Occ Retd' - faU AttenOant, Rl/o, 1 2-1 1-1O52t1 , Bo'-uddanagar, Secunderabad'

4.T-SharatBabu,S/o.LateT.Krishnaiah,Agedaboqt4'!years,OccSenior Assistant, Ryo. Plot No. 129, tVlye Villas, Mallapur, Hyderabad'

5.E.Hemalatha,W/o.E.Saibaba,Agedabout36years.,OccLabAttendant' FJo. H. NO. 2-4 -665 t 24. Sudernagar. Kachiguda, Hyderabad'

6.K.Dattatreya'S/o'K.Ramakristaiah.Agedabout4Tyears,occBookKeeper, Rio. H.No. 3-1 3-85/A. Madhuranagar, Ramanthapur, Hyderaoad'

7. K. Gopal Rao, S/o. Late Vrdfasagar Rao, Aged qbolt 57 y-ears, Occ Lab ' Att"nO'rnt, RJo. rc-l-AOlEtltel Uppuguda Railway Station Road' Danaiahnagar, HYderabad. - 8.G.NarsingRao,S/o.G.Pochalah,Ageda.bout53y.ears,Occ.SeniorAssistant' nyo. r.16*"414, Osmanla University Staff Quarters, Hyderabad' I AND

1. 2 3 h{"i'iy[?li?ii.F?liI;"ffi j:;s,8"",",r:.il;3,ii;8i,.k1'.111?j1,1?ilj; Seethaphalmandi, Secunder ...PETITIONERS [[f; jPE,i:5:Ll3,s"".H,'&:,?,?lli.f,i:.,.fgorecrerarv,Financeandprannins 8S,l:T,f ;.;f8ili#flg[:SB#[#,'ji;l,...,if g,fi Osmania University, Rep by its Registrar, Hyderabad. hS..??bvitssecretary,Hisher ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of ln,jia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, thr: High Court may be pleased to iss'e a writ, order or direction one in the naturi: of writ of mandamus by calling for the records relating to are connected rvith proceedings No. 16O2lUEl2O1S-3, dated OZ_12_2015 and consequential proceedings No. 23812017 rLegai ce', dated 10-07-2017 and decrare that the petitioner are entited to pay scares of 'r010-'rg00, Rs. 18752750 and rrs. 3550-7150 in the Revised pay scares of 19g6, 1gg3 ,1ggg and accordingry in a, the future revision of pay scales respectively with all consequential benefits incruding the arrears of salary in the ciltegory of Lab Attendants in the 3rd respondent university with effect from the date of their initiar appointment and their pay sha, be re_fixed accordingly and consequently further direct the respondents to re-fix the scale accordingry everr in the promotion post and for pension and rerease arrears of a, other financial b.:nefits in the interest of justice. r.A. NO: 10F20 171WP MP. N O:3694s oF 20171 Petition urrder Section 151 CpC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to suspend the pror;eedings No. 1602/uE 12015-3, date'd 07-12 201 5 and direct the respondents to grant the scales of pay attached to the post cf Lab Attendents on par with Lab Afterdents of JNTU (Ananthapur) pending disposal of the above writ petition. l I Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent No.2: cP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH.JAGANNATHA RAO, SC FOR OU WRIT PETITION NO: 44079 OF 2018 Between: P. Babu Rao, S/o. Narsaiah, Aged 57 years, Occ. Technician Grade -1, F/o Hyderabad. AND

1. The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Finance and Planning Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. Commissioner and Director of Higher Education, Rep by its Secretary, Higher Education Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

3. Osmania University, Rep by its Registrar, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direclion one in the nature of Writ of mandamus by calling for the records relating to are connected with proceedings No.1602/UE/2015-3, dated 07-12-2O15 and consequential proceedings No. 40813912015-16/8udget-Gen, dated 29-01-2016 and declare that the petitioner is entitled to pay scales of 10'10-1800, Rs. 1875-2750 and Rs. 3550-7150 in the Revised pay scales of 1986,'1993, 1999 and accordingly in all the future revision of pay scales respectively with all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary in the category of Lab Attendents in the 1st respondent university with effect form the date of their initial appointment and their pay shall be re-fixed accordingly and consequently further direct the respondents to re-fix the scale accordingly even in the promotion post and for pension and release arrears of all other financial benefits in the interest of justice. IA NO: 1 OF i1018 Petitiorr under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidav t filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend pror;eedings No. '1 602/UE/201 5-3, dated 07 -12-2015 and direct the respondents 1o grant the scales of pay attached to the pcst of Lab Attendents on par with Lab r\ttendents of JNTU (Ananthapur) pending disposal of the above writ petition- Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI AVADESH NARAYAN SANGHI, Sr. COUNSEL, REP. FOR SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR SERVICES-I Counsel for the Respondent No.2: GP FOR HIGHER EOLTCATION Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI CH.JAGANNATHA RAO, SC FOR OU The Court rnade the following: COMMON ORDER I 1 wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and wp_44079 2Ot8 N8(. I THE HON'BLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION Nos.l37El and 29697 of 2Ol7 AND WRIT PETITION No.44079 of 2018 COMM N RDER: The petitioners in these writ petitions are Lab Attendants of Osmania University. Their case is that they are equivalent to the Lab Attendants of the Oil Technology Research Institute (OTRI), JNTU, Ananthapur, and are therefore entitled to the same pay scale as that of the Lab Attendants of OTRI (JNTU). However, they have been given the pay scale of Lab Attenders of JNTU under the 'Common Cadre', which they claim is discriminatory, arbitrary and illegal. In view of the commonality of the issues and grievances, the writ petitions have been heard analogously and are being disposed olby way of this common order. For the sake of relerencc. the averments in W.P. No. 13781 of 2017 are taken into consideration. The case of the petitioners, as set out in the writ atfidavit in W.P. No.

2. I3781 of 2017, is that they are Lab Attendants in Osmania University, and that there exists an anomaly in their pay scale vis-d-vis the pay scale of their counterparts in the JawaharlaI Nchru Technological University (Oil Technology Research Institute), Ananthapur. I'he genesis of this dispute regarding the alleged anomaly in pay' sr:ales dates back to the year 1988 with W.P. No. 4013 of 1988. ln the said wlit petition, the grievance of the petitioners was that they were drawing pay in the scale ol Rs. 3 50-550, whereas their juniors were dran,ing a higher pay scale olRs. 410-625. This .'t \ i , t I I 2 wp 13781& 29697 2017, and wp 44079-2018 NB(. J Court, by crder dated 21.09.1992, allowed the writ petition, observing that the anomal-l \r,as apparent on the face of the record, as the juniors-namely, A.S. Subhani (oined on 01.10.1984), P. Venkat,rswarlu (oined on 16. 10.1986), etc.-were drawing a higher pay scale. 'fhereafter, similarly situated persons filed W.P. No. 21341 of 1999, and this {)ourt, by order dated

07.08.2009. allowed the writ petition by directing the respondents ro granr the pay sca c of Rs. 410--{.25 as per the Revised Pay Scales, [978.

3. The petitioners herein, aggrieved by G.O. Ms.No. 287 dated 03.12.1991 C.O. Ms. No.347 dated 01.10.1993, anc G.O. Ms. No. 155 dated 15.0'). [999, wherein they were awarded the pay scale of "Lab Attcnder ot' JNI'U" instead of "Lab Attendant of JIrlTtJ," and claiming entitlernent to the pay scales ofRs. 1010-1800, Rs. t875 2750, and Rs. 3550 7150 under the Revised Pay Scales of l98ti. 1993. and 1999 respectivel), liled W.P. No. 2607 of 2003. This Court, by order dated

21.06.20 11. allorved the writ petition by observing as firllows. "Consequently, the writ petition is alloyed detluring thut tha pclitioners are entitled to the Pay Scales ('l 10lt )- !8()(). R.; lti.'/5-)750 and Rs.3550-7150 in the Revised ,oar.stolt's of l9;16. 1993 and 1999 respectively with all utrt.requcntktl ht't'r'./irs including the arrears of salary in the coregor.r. tll Lulr ,|rt ,ndants in the first respondent University with ellt,t t.lntn th,, lart' ol tlrcir initial appointment and their poy sfu ll he re-.lixetl rtttordingly. The entire exercise shall be compl(t((l tithin u 1tt,r iod of lhree monlhs from the date of receipt 6/ rlrc topl ol thi: rtrdcr. There sholl beno order as to costs. The I li.sc'ellunaou: ['ttitiotts pending if any shall stand closed."

4. Chall:neing the order passed in W.P. No. 2607 ot'100i, dated 2i.06,10 14. thc responflent--{smania University-file,J an appeal. namely i I i I ] I iI !F 3 wp_1378r & 29697_2017, and wp 4{079 2018 NB(, J W.A. No. 300 of 2015, and the Hon'ble Division Bench, vide judgment dated, 16.04.2015, observed and directed as follows: " Learned cowtsel appearing for the appe\Iants-University, on instructions, submits that the appellants are prepored to implement the order dated 23.06.2014, passed by the leaned Single Judge, impugned in the present writ appeal. He submils lhat the appellants have already addressed a communication to the Government for seeking permission to award the palt scale as per the impugned order Learned Government Pleader appearing Jbr the State submits that they will consider the case of the respondents in the instant appeal on pr with petitioners in W P.No.2 I 3.1 I of 1999 and shall extend the similar benefits to them. His stalenent is recorded and accepted. In the circunstances, we do not find a4, reason lo keep this writ appeal pending ony further We, therefore. dispose of the writ appeal with direction to the State ofTelangana to take appropriate decision on the request made by the Universilt' vide their communication, dated 02.12.2014, ot the earliesl. and in anv case within a period of three months from today. Consequentl.r'. tlrc time granted by the learned Single Judge for implementing the order is also extendedfor a period of three months.t'i'om toda.t'. '

5. Consequent to the order dated 16.04.20 l5 passed in W.A. No. 300 of 2015, the respondent--Osmania University-addressed a letter dated

08.06.2015 to the lst respondent, requesting pennission as fbllorvs: "ln the obove circumstances, I requcst vou to kitull.r' clariJt' whether they can be extended the desired pay scales. itt uccttrtktnce with the direction of the Hon'ble High Court If the above request is possible. kindlv accttrd pcrnissiott to award the Pty Scale ofRs.l0l0-1800. Rs. 1875-2750 and Rs 3550- 7150 in the revised poy scales ol 1986. l99l and 1999 tespectivelv. to the Lab. Attendants working in our [Jni't'ersit]'. rts per the Orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Judic'ature ut l{yrlerubatl /br the State of Tblangana and the Slate ofAndhra Pradesh. ..,- 4 wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and wp-44079_2OB NBK, ]

6. In r,:sponse to the letter dated 08.06.2015, addressed by the respondent University, rhe lst respondent issued a lefler dated 07.l2.zol5 stating as [<rllows: "6. ln this regard, you are informed tlut the pay Scales assigned to the post of Loboratory Attendant in Osmania Unh,ersity frim RSP ' 99J ro RSP l0 t5 are as follows: G.O.No. & Dt. FISP P Scale S.No. 1( 93 G O. (P) No 347, or 1-10-1993 1999 2A 05 2010 2015 G o (P) No.1s5, ot.15-09-1999 G O (P) No.236, Dt.14-08-2006 G O Ms. No.137, Dt.28-04-2010 G O.Ms.No..t 02, Dt 23-07 -20't 5 S.No. of Schedule 273 247 251 252 252 236 Pre-revised Revised 740-1150 780-1275 1475-267a 27fi-515C 4050-9050 7100-21250 1475 - 2675 2750 - 5100 4050 - 9050 7100 - 21250 13480 - 42490

7. Fu,tlrcr. thc Pa.v Scales assigned to the Osmanio Llniversity and .luxtthtrltl Technological University, Hyderabad as per G.O.tp1 No.3J'. l;inunce and Plonning (FW.?CJ) Departmenr.'dt.I_t0_I99 j us.f olltt\'! Name of University qll9!4!e Pre-revised Designation PRC G.O SI. No. of Schedule i Revised Osmar ra Unrver;rty G O (P) No.347, Dr 1-10- 1993 Laboratory Attendant JNIU Hyderabad G O (P) No 347, Dt 1-10-1993 Laboratory Attendanl (oTRt, Ananthapur) Laboratory Attender 273 247 83 124 740-1150 1475-2675 780-1275 1 010- 1800 1875-3750 780-1275 1475-267- I 8 Buse I on tlrc ubove. it is clear that the Lab Attendants of-O.smanio (,rtir,'t,r: itr. ur( getting the same scales as Lab .4ttendt,rs ol Juvulu,rlul .\'chru Tbchnological University. Ont). thc Luh Attetuktnt.r o/ ()il Technologt Research Institute Aru.nthapur. art, kcpt. ut tt .\(t\trot(./boting by the pRC due to their ,liLleienr und .-, higlter tltrulrlications. exBerience required and dutie.s ulso suclt trs 1 2 3 4 5 I sl. l"o iIr I 2 l 5 wp 13781& 29697 2017, and wp_!4079-2018 N8K, ' preparation of Laboratory reagents etc. Moreover, Sranting any parity in Poy-Scales k a subject matler of the PRC. 9. Therefore, the Petitioners are eligible for the Pay Scales as mentioned at para (6) above only. You are requested to lake further action in the matter accordingly. " [n pursuance of the letter dated 07.12.2015 addressed by the lst

7. respondent, the respondent-Osmania University-passed orders vide letter dared 29.01 .2016, wherein it is stated as follows: "5. The Government, through its letter No.I602/UE/201 5-2' Dt.18' 08-20 t 5 Oth Cikd) sought information u)ith regard tu the Qualfications and nature of duties of the Lab Atlendants working in the [Jniversity, with a direction to address JNTU, Ananthapur, and ascertain in writing the qualfications required for recruilment and duties/responsibilities attached to the post of Laboratory Altendants of Oit Technologt Research Institute of Jawaharlal Nehru Te c hno logical University, Ananthapur

6. As per the information obtained from the JNTU. Ananthapur' the Qualifications required for the post Lab Attendants of OTRI, JNTU are higher than those prevailing in this University and tlrc natttre oJ' dulies / responsibilities also vary, as detailed below: Sl.No University Pay Scale Qualification 1 2 Osmania University 780-1275 (RSP 1986) A Pass rn Old Vlll or New lX JNTU (oTRr) Ananthapur 1010-1800 (RSP 1986) Pass in SSLC or 'l0h Class OR its equivabnt. Must have ONE year experience in reoognized laboratory Outies & Res onsibilities 1) Keeprng the rnstruments / Machrnery clean and supply rng them to students rn ac{rcal lab ) ln charge of the 'l concerned Laboratory 2) Preparahon of Laboralory reagents 3) Marntenance Laboratory records I ___l

7. The information/clarification was forwarded to the Covernnenl. through University letter No.MR-199/39/20 I 5- I 6. Dt. I 9- I 0-20 I 5 1Re.{. 6't' c ited). . I i , I l I I i I i I i I I I t I I I I I I ! I I i I l i I I I 6 utp-137a1 & 2989j -2O7j , and wp_44o79 2018 NB(, J

8.-lle fioyrnm,ent. rhrough its tetter No.l602/LrE/20t.r-3, Dt.07_ 12 2015 (Ref 7,h cited, his informed that the lab- )'uenaants of Ot ?::h Universiry and.INT'{J are gerting *" sarr" ioi" oJ R,s.7g0 - '275 (RSp 1986) under ,.Comlmon Z*"goj:. Or)y ,n" Ut At ?ndants of Oit Tbchnologv Research tnititu," oy'la*alrartat Nenru Technologicat Univeriity, Ananthapur, ori trpi oi o ,"prror" foo,ing bv the palt Revision Cn,n^ission'clue i" iii{iiyTerenr and ltig\er qualtfications. experience required ona aai'i also viz., prcparotion of Laboratorl, re-agenfs erc-,

9. "*+ 10. The Lab Attendanrs working in Osmania Ltniversity have alretdt. hecn a.s-signed the pay Siles, as *"niioura above, from time to timc. The petitioners in ty.pNo.2607/2003 hoe alreadv been exta,tded y,ith rhe . benefirs on par *lri ;";;;;;;;"';; ll/. P \o.2 I -ll t/ I 999. rhe ,o." is ,econsidered ana cor\rmed.,, 8. Heard leamed Senior Counsel Mr. Avadesh Narayan Sanghi, appearing rbr the petitioners; leamed Government preader for Services-I for the lst respondenr; and Mr. Ch. Jagannatha Rao, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent. Osrnania [.tniversity. perused the record. 9. At rlre ourscr. thc petitioners, who are Laboratory Attendants in Osmania [_ niversitv. contend that they are equivalent in cadre to the Laborato* A*encranrs or'JNTU (orRI) and are therefore entitled to the same pay as rhar ol'rhe [.aboratory Aftendants of JNTL.(OTRI). However, they have been assigned thc pay scale oflaboratory Attender ofJNTU under the "Comm<,n Cadre."

10. In this contcxt, it is relevant to refer to the judgm,:n t in punjab State Power Corp,tra!ion Lttl Ruje;^h Kumar Jindal, whrcrein the Hon,ble Supreme ('.Lrrt. rc'[L'rri.g to various precedents on the issre, herd as foflows: l'.7 7 wp_13761 & 29697-2017, and wp 44079_2018 NBK, ] I 4. Ordinarity. the courts will not enter upon the task ofjob evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies likc the Pay Commission etc. The aggrieved employees claiming parity must establish that they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated. In Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bankv. D.B. Sharma and Others (2001) I SCC 353, this Court held as under: "7. The next question that arkes for consideration is, as to what extent the High Court would be iwtified in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the findings of an expert body like the Equation Committee. In Snte of U.P. ard Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) I SCC I 21, this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation of posts or equttion of pay, the same should be left to the Executive Government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and such expert body would be the best judge lo evaluale the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts and when such delermination by a commission or committee is made, the court should normally accept it and should not try lo tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown thal it was made with extraneous consideration ... . "

22. After referring to P.K. Roy b case, this Courl, in SAIL' hetcl us Ltndcr "25. In State of Maharashtra and Another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others(198I) I .S('(' 130 and Vice-Chancellor L.N. Mithila Llniversity v. Dayanand Jha (i,986) 3 SCC 7, a similar viett' has been reiterated observing that equal stalus uni nature and responsibilities of the duties atlached lo lhe two posts have to be talcen into consideration /ir equivalence of the post. Similar view hrts been rt,iterated in E.P Royappa v. State of T.N. and Another (1971) 1 SCC 3 and Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Another v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary', Dethi and Others (2000) I SCC 644, wherein this Court.following the earlier judgment in PK. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 held that the salary of the post alone may not be a determining faclor, the other three crilerion .slroukl also be fulfilled. " 8 wp_13781 & 29697_2017, and wp _44079 _2018 N8K, ]

25. It is thus well sctlled thot it is the dat^ of an emplovee seeking parity of scule qf pay to prove that the educ'ational qualiJ'cations required for both the posts, mode of rtcruitment and the nalure ofwork performed by them are one and tl,e same. There are neither pleodings nor any, material produced by the respondents lo pro )e that the nature ofwork performed by the lnternal Auditors is similar u,ith thot of the Head Clerks. In the writ pelition, respordents have claimed parity of pay scale only on the ground that they were categorised in Group Xll along with the Head Clerks. Merefi, en tlrc growtd that the cadre of Internal Auditors are placed in Grcup XII along u,ith the Head Clerks, cannot br a ground for seekin.T parii, of pay scole.

11. In tigt t of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Couftin Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. (supra), atier considering several precedent judgments, i. is to bc noted that claims regarding parity of pay with juniors in the same organization stand on a dit-ferent footing from claims seeking pay parity with allegedly "sirnilarly situated employees" in other departments. Furthcr. the nomenclaturc ol the post/designation cannot by itself form the basis or solc ground fbr claiming parity 01'pay scale. Persons claiming pay parity nrust dernonstrate that the qualificati,)ns for recruitment and the natu re of the u,ork are thc salne. Moreover, the purport of the judgments of the Hon'ble Suprenre Court is that insofar l)arity of pay scales is concemed, this lalls rvithin the domain of the Executire Government and the Pay Revision (lornmissions have to examine such claims. The Courts, under Article 2f(r. cannot take up the task of job evaluation for determinatiorr of claims of' pay parity, fbr such parity depends on a variety of factors, orre which is the nature of duties and responsibilities and the qualifications requircd to pcrlornt theiob; and as perthe law through various precedents of Hon'hle Suprerne ('ourt, the clairn of pay tarity is better left 9 wp 13781& 29697-2017, and w9 ,14079_2018 NAK, J to the Expert Committees and Pay Revision Committees, unless there is a glaring pay disparity on the face of the record, all other things relating to qualifications and nature of duties and responsibilities being the same. t2. In the instant case, the record shows that the Lab Attendants of respondent-Osmania University were initially under two different schedules (i.e.,273 and247). The Revised Pay Scales (RPS), 1993 merged them under a single pay scale, i.e., Rs. 1475 2675,and such parity continued in the RPS of 1999, 2005, 2010, and 2015. The grievance ofthe petitioners is that their designation is "Lab Attendants," and there has been continued parity in pay scale throughout, but now they have been equated with "Lab Attenders" of JNTU, whereas the respondent authorities ought to have equated them with the "Lab Attendants of JNTU (OTRI)" and ought to have granted the higher pay scale as was granted to the "Lab Attendants of JNTU (OTRI)."

13. In the context of this specific grievance, it is to be noted that the recruitment qualitrcation lor Lab Attendant of Osmania University is a "Pass in Old l,'lll <tr New IX. " whereas forLabAttendantof OTRI (JNTU)' the qualitication is a Pass in SSLC/|1th Class or its equivalent, with one year of axperiente in a recttgnized laborator!'. Further, the nature of duties of the Lab Attendant of Osmania University is "keeping the instrttmenrs/mac.hincn clean and supplying them to students in the practical /ab ", whereas the Lab Attendant of OTRI (INTU) is "in charge of the concerned loh<truorl'. prepares laboratory reagents, and maintains laboratorv recortls".ln view of higher recruitment qualifications and more advanced nature of duties prescribed for the [,ab Attendants of JNTU (OTRI), the argument of pay parity being pleaded by the petitioners herein based solely on the nomenclature oi the post, i.e., "Lab Attendant,", and on 10 wp 13747 & 29697 _2017, and wp_MO79 2O1A NB( J the basis of parity that once existed in earlier pay Revi:;ion Commission, is a misconceived grievance.

14. In this connection, it may not be out ofplace to refer to page 76 ofthe material papers of the writ petition, wherein various posts and their respective pay-scales are lndicated under G.O. (p) No. 347. A bare perusal at Serial N<,.272, pertaining ro the post of Boiler Anendant. would show that the exi jting Pre-Revised Scale of Boiler Attendant is Rs. 740-ll5O; however, in the Revised Pay Scale, intemal categorization has been done, wherein Boiler Attendants without academic educational qualification or experience are placed at Rs. 1375-2175, and the Boiler l.ttendants who have SSC qualifrr:ation as well as Boiler Attendant certificate are placed at Rs. 1665-3200 p'ay scale. It is ro be noted rhar rhough, ar one point oftime, there used to be p:rity of pay for all Boiler Attendants in the pre-Revised Scale of Rs.740-l l5(t, but in the Revised Pay Scale, they have bet:n segregated based on their acaiemic education/experience qualifications, and were assigned different pay scales. Therefbrc. the parity. rhat once existed could the pay Revision subsequentl5 get disrupred due ro Commissions/Government takinq uote ol thc diff'erent a,:ademic education/ experience rlualifications in a parlicular post/cadrc: and parity may be granted for certain posts/employees by rner_eing into conrmon category.

15. In that view of the matter, therc being substantial diff'erence in respect of the educat.onal and experience qualilications fbr recrurtment. and also the nature of duties performed by the t-ab Attendanrs ol'Osmania University vis-d-vis the Lab Attendants of JNTLI (orRI). and in liqht of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in punjab Srttc f,ower Corporation (supra) and several other precedcnrs. the purport ol u,hich is that the -f 11 wp-137B1 & 29697 -2017 . and wP_44O79-2O r8 N8X, J nomenclature of a post alone cannot be the sole deciding factor for claiming/granting parity of pay scale with other employees allegedly working in similar or analogous posts, the argument of the petitioners herein cannot be countenanced. There must be simitarity in both recruitment qualifications and also the nature of duties performed, to lay a claim for parity ol pay. In view ol the disparity in recruitment qualifications and nature of duties perfbrmed by the petitioners and the Lab Attendants of OTRI (JNTU), the petitioners cannot be granted the relief prayed for, and hence the writ petition is liabte to be dismissed for lack of merit'

16. Accordingty, the writ petition is dismissed. W'P' Nos' 29697 of 2017 and 44079 0f 2018 are also dismissed lbr reasons alike. No costs. This court, however, is inctined to obsen'e that in view of the policy stand taken by the 1st respondent in the irnpugned order dated 07.12.2015, stating that granting parity in pay scales is thc subject matter of the Pay Revision commissions (pRC), it is made clcar that this order shall not preclude the petitioners from making appropriate representation befbre the Pay Revision Commission' if so advised. Miscellanct-rus pctitions pending, if any, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 One CC to SRI PRATAP NARAYAN SANGHI' Ad 2. One CC to SRI CH JAGANNATHA RAO' SC FOR OU [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to GP FoR SERVICES-|, High Court for the $ate of Telangana at te [oPUC] Hyderabad [OUTI TwoCCstoGPFoRHIGHEREDUCATIoN,HighCourtfortheStateof Telangana at HYderabad [OUT] To, 4 5 BSR GJP Two CD CoPies (k HIGH CCIURT DATED:11410712025 D I ( COMMOIII ORDER WP.Nos.13781 and 2969 And WP.No.44079 of 2018 Z of 2017'i.,.( 10 )EP 20?5 .: .'j ,.. r Cat *o J .q'- DISMISSING ALL THE WRIT PETITIONS, WITHOUT COSTS PA- ;th C 1)