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.