Sher
Singh & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors [1995] INSC 565
(16 October 1995)
Faizan
Uddin (J) Faizan Uddin (J) Bharucha S.P. (J) Majmudar S.B. (J) Faizan Uddin, J.
CITATION:
1995 SCC (6) 515 JT 1995 (8) 323 1995 SCALE (6)4
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
1. The
short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the
appellants who are qualified Librarians employed in the University of Delhi and
its constitutent colleges in different grades are entitled to the parity in the
pay scales between the professional library staff and the teaching staff of the
University of Delhi and its colleges recognised and established sicne January,
1961.
2. The
appellants case is that in the year 1957 the University Grants Commission
constituted a Committee appointed by University Grants Commission, respondent
No. 2 under the Chairmanship of Dr. S.R. Ranganathan. The said Committee
recommended that the status and the salary scales or the library staff should
be the same as that of the teaching and research staff. Further case of the
appellants is that in the year 1961 University Grants Commission, the
respondent NO. 2 took decision to give effect to the aforesaid recommnedations
of Ranganathan Committee.
Consequently,
the respondent No. 2 conveyed its decision to the University of Delhi, respondent No. 3 by its letter dated January 18, 1961 that professionally qualified
library staff are for purposes of slalary revision to be treated as academic
staff. The respondent No. 2 revised the scales of pay of different categories
of professionally qualified library staff equating them with the corresponding
categories of the teaching staff in the University and its colleges by its
letter dated 1.5.1962. In the year 1968 when there was further revision of the
pay scales of the teaching staff as well as the professionally qualified
library staff, the parity was maintained between the two classes. The
appellants have further stated that the Third Central Pay Commission also
reiterated the principle of parity in regard to the scales of pay of school
Librarians which was accepted by the Central Government, respondent No. 1
herein.
Consequently,
the respondent No. 2 by its letter dated 11.1.1974 conveyed the decision of the
respondent No. 1 to the respondent No. 3, the University of Delhi to revise the
pay scales of teachers of the University of Delhi the pay scales of teachers of
the University of Delhi and its colleges with effect from 14.1.1973. Appellants
further case is that in the year 1974 the University of Delhi appointed two Committees
- one under the Chairmanship of the then Pro Vice Chancellor, Prof. V.P. Dutt
and the other under the Chairmanship of Prof. A.N. Kaul and both these
Committees recommended continuance of the said parity in the pay scales and
allowances of the Librarians with that of the teaching staff, consequently the
Executive Council of the University adopted these recommendations in its
resolutions dated 10.4.1974 and 23.5.1974. Again in the year 1977 on the
recommendations of respondent No. 2, Union of India, respondent No. 1
ultimately decided to revise the scales of pay of Librarians in Central
Universities and in the colleges of the University of Delhi vide its letter
dated 7.1.1977.
3. The
appellants grievance is that the respondent NO. 1 abruptly and arbitrarily
disturbed the parity of the pay scales of the teaching staff and the library
staff axcept the LIbrarian of the University of Delhi with retrospective effect
from 1.1.1973 and with a single stroke on pen the parity enjoyed by the said
categories of professonal library staff from 1961 till 1977 was done away with
retrospectively with effect from 1.1.1973. Consequently, the appellants made
several representations to the respondent No. 1 and 2 as well as to the
Minister of Education in response to which the respondnet No. 2 replied that
the matter was under consideration of the Government.
However,
the respondent no. 1 restored the parity prospectively with effect from
1.4.1980 instead of 1.1.1973. In the meanwhile in the year 1979 the respondents
and referred the question to a Committee for upgradation of the scales of the
professional library staff who possessed the qualifications prescribed by respndent
No. 1. There was no fruther response till the year 1980 from the respondents.
The appellant No. 67, therefore, made representation on 12.2.1980 to the then
Union Minister of Education and another representation on 28.4.1981 but no
response was received. The appellants ultimately filed a Civil Writ Petition
No. 2312/1981 in the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed in limine on
13.10.1981 which led to the filing of this appeal by the appellants.
4. The
respondents have opposed the claim of the appellants. The Under Secretary in
the Ministry of Education and Culture has filed Counter-Affidavit on behalf of
the Union of India, respondent No. 1 opposing the case set up by the
appellants. In the Counter-Affidavit it has been stated that the sanction of idetical
scales to the teaching staff and the library staff in the Delhi University and
its colleges were just co-incidental. The Committee for Library Staff and
Physical Education personnel had not recommended parity in their pay scale with
those of the Professors, Readers and Lecturers on account of the fact that educationsl
qualifications, nature of work, duties and work- load and responsibilities of
the two sets of employees are entirely different. It has been stated that it si
not a fact that these scales were given to library staff because there existed
some parity between them and that making the same scales avaliable tot he
library staff was not based on any scientific justification. Regarding the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission it has been stated that the
recommendation did not suggest absolute parity or proposed such parity as a
principle in determining the pay scales of the library staff not it would be
correct to say that each and every recommendation of the Third Pay Commission
was accepted by the Government. It has been further stated that the Government
subsequently reviewed the entire question and took the decision in principle to
upgrade the scales of pay of Librarians and Director of Physical Educaiton in
the Universities and colleges generlaly with effect from 1.4.1980 vide letter
of Ministry of Education & Culture (Annexure 3) dated 15.12.1982 and this decison
of the Government was implemented in all the Universities including the Delhi
University after a process of consultation with the State Governments who are respnsible
for the maintenance of most of the Universities in the country.
5. The
respondent No. 2, University Grants Commission has also opposed the claim of
the appellants by filing a separate Counter-Affidavit. The respondent No. 2 has
alos taken almost the similar stand as the one taken by the respondent No. 1.
It has been stated that the qualification is not the only criteria for
determining the scales of pay for different categories of posts but other
factors such as experience, nature of duteis and responsibilities and work-
load, etc. has to be taken into account. The respondent No.2 has taken the
stand that it cannot be said taht same qualifications are prescribed for the
posts of library staff and the teachers in Delhi University and its colleges. It has been
emphatically stated by the respondent No. 2 that the nature of work, duties and
responsibilities as well as the type of experience and the period of work of
the two sets of employees are altogether different and that both these
categories can on no accont be equated.
6.
Learned counsel for the appellants took pains in persuading us that the
Librarian and Library staff play a vital role in the development of the
institutions of higher learning and they are of real and immense help to
research work and advance studies. The educational qualifications of the two
sets of employees are also the same and, therefore, there is no reason to treat
them differently and with discrimination. He submitted that the appellants have
acquired a vested right ot have the scales of pay at par with the teaching
staff of the University and its colleges which aprity had been given to them
earlier on sound academic consideraitons and after due deliberations which they
enjoyed for over a decade and a half since 1961 and that this vested right
cannot be tgaken away except with an authority of law. Learned counsel
submitted that having retard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as
stated above, there was no justification with the Government to restore the
parity only with effect from 1.4.1980 and not retrospectively with effect from
1.1.1973 when the same was disturbed.
7.
After a serious and anxius consideraiton on the submissions made by the learneld
counsel for the apepllants, according to us there appears to be no retionale or
any justification in the claim of parity between the teaching staff and the
library staff in the Delhi University and its colleges for the simple reason
that the two sets of employees belonged to different categoeis of employees who
stand on a different footing. The nature of duties, work- load, experience and respnsibilities
of the two sets of employees in question are totally different from each other.
The
teaching staff has to do some reseach work, deep study in their respective
subjects and to make preparations for the daily lectures in the class rooms and
other academic work while this is not so in the case of library staff. The
experience of library staff is totally different from theone which is required
for the teaching staff. Working pattern of the two sets of employees cannot be
said to be identical so as to claim parity between the library staff and the
teaching staff. If the Government as a matter of plicy had euated the library
staff for the purposes of pay scales earlier for a certain period as contended
by the appellants, they should be thankful to the Government as they could not
have claimed the parity as of right. In any case that was the decision of the
Government which had allowed the equation of pay scales during the period from
1961 to January 1, 1973. Later, if the Government had taken
a policy decision to grant parity againt with effect from 1.4.1980 and not with
retrospective effect from 1.7.1973 when it was disturbed there could be no
legitimate grievance fro the same because the Government has the right ot
change its policy from time to time, according to the administrative exigencies
and demands of the relevant time. As a matter of fact the Courts would be slow
in interfering with matters of Government Policy except where it is shown that
the decision is unfair malafide or contrary to any statutory directions.
There
will be no justification for the Court to interfere with the policy of the
Government merely on the ground of change in the policy. If earlier the
Government took a policy decision to grant parity to the library staff with the
teaching staff it was the policy of the then Government and if for certain
reasons the Government took a different policy decision to withdraw the parity
and to enforce it again with effect from a certain date it will again be a
matter of policy of the Government and it is not for the Courts to interfere
with such policy decisions of the Government. Normally the Courts will not
dictate the decision of the statutory authority in exercise of its discretion
and formulation of its policies. The Court will not direct the statutory
authority to exercise the discretion in a particular manner not expressly
required by law. The Court can only command the satutory authority by a Writ of
Mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according to law.
This was also the view expressed by the Court in U.P. State Road Transport 239]. In the present case we find that there is
no judicial or quasi-judicial duty or any obligation imposed on the Government
to equate the library staff with the teaching staff, on the basis of which the
enforcement thereof could be claimed by the appellants. In such a situation it
cannot be siad that the Government did not act fairly or acted malafide so as
to call for any interference by this Court invoking the power of Judicial
Review.
8. For
the reasons stated above we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
Back