http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SAHIB RAM

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT19/09/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. VENKATACHALA N. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (1)  18 JT 1995 (1)    24  1994 SCALE  (4)605

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   Leave granted. 2      The  appellant was appointed in July 29,  1972  as  a Librarian in government College in the Pay-scale of  Rs.220- 550. The Haryana government accepting the recommendations of government  of  India and the University  grants  Commission upgraded  the pay-scales of Librarian with effect  from  1st January,  1973   to Rs.7001600, if they possessed a  minimum educational qualification of first or second Class M.A.,  M. Sc., M.Com plus a first or second Class B.Lib. Science or  a diploma  in  Library Science, the degree of  MLib.  being  a preferential    qualification.   Thereafter   taking    into consideration,  representation  made  by  several  Librarian appointed  prior  to  3  l st  December,  1972  and  of  the recommendations  of  the University grants  Commission,  the government of India in their proceedings of January 16, 1987 relaxed the requirement of securing first of second class in MA.,   M.Sc.,   MCom.  and  other   prescribed   educational qualifications,  by  an  order which was  in  the  following terms:               "it    has   now   been   decided,   on    the               recommendation  of the UGC, that the  existing               incumbents  of  the  post  of  Librarians   in               College who have been appointed to these posts               on  or before 3.12.1972 may be sanctioned  the               upgraded  scale of Rs. 700-1600 in  relaxation               of the qualification prescribed in  Annexure-l               referred to above without insisting on a first               or  second  class in the  degree,  diploma  or               other prescribed educational qualification." 3.     The Principal of the College, where the appellant was working as a Librarian allowed to him the revised  pay-scale of  Rs.700-1600  purporting to act under  the  above  order. However,  the  govt. of Haryana directed  the  Principal  to withdrew the pay-scale of Rs.700-1600 allowed to  appellant.

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

The  appellant had challenged their direction in C.W.P.  No. 10988 of 1993  in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.  The High  Court  by the impugned order dated September  9,  1993 dismissed  the  writ petition. Thus this appeal  by  special leave. 4.    Mr. Prom Malhotra, .learned counsel for the appellant, contended  that the previous scale of Rs. 220-559  in  which the  appellant  was  entitled became  Rs.7001600  since  the appellant  had been granted that scale of pay in  relaxation of  the  educational  qualification. The   High  Court  was, therefore, not right in dismissing the writ petition. We  do not  find any force in this contention. It is seen that  the government  in  consultation  with  the  University   grants Commission  had revised the payscale of a Librarian  working in  the Colleges to Rs. 700-1600 but they insisted upon  the minimum  educational qualification of first or second  class M.A.,., M. Com. plus a first or second class B.Lib.  Science or  a diploma in Library Science. The relaxation  given  was only as regards obtaining first class or second class in the prescribed  educational qualification but not relaxation  in the educational qualification itself. 5.     Admittedly the appellant does not 26 possess  the required educational qualifications. Under  the circumstance  the  appellant would not be  entitled  to  the relaxation.   The  Principal  erred  in   granting  him  the relaxation.  Since the date of relaxation the appellant  had been paid his salary on revised scale. However, it is not on account of any mis-representation made by the appellant that the  benefit  of higher pay-scale was given to  him  but  by wrong  construction  made  by the Principal  for  which  the appellant  cannot  be  held  to  be  at  fault.   Under  the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from  the  appellant. The Principle of equal pay  for  equal work  would  not  apply  to  the  scale  prescribed  by  the University  Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed  partly without any order as to costs. 27