http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4

PETITIONER:

SHER SINGH & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/10/1995

BENCH:

FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

BENCH:

FAIZAN UDDIN (J)

BHARUCHA S.P. (J)

MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

CITATION:

1995 SCC (6) 515 JT 1995 (8) 323

1995 SCALE (6)4

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

Faizan Uddin, J.

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4

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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4

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

Corporation & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Ismail & Ors. [1991 (3) SCC

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.