Service Law – Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate Branch), Recruitment Rules, 1990 – Madhya Pradesh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clerical and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 – Librariancum-Museum Assistant – UGC Scale of Pay – Respondent was appointed to the post of Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 – After completion of 8 years of service, the respondent claimed the UGC scale of pay as paid to the persons in the senior scale of Librarian as per the 1990 Rules – The request was rejected – Writ petition in the High Court – Single Judge allowed the petition and the respondent was directed to be paid the UGC scale of pay as paid to the librarians of colleges under the Higher Education Department – Intra-Court appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed – On appeal, held: The scale of pay of a Librarian is specified in Schedule 1 to the said 1990 Rules but there is no designated post of Librarian cum Museum Assistant in the 1990 Rules – There is a post of Museum Assistantcum-Librarian under the 1987 Rules – In the instant case, it would be pertinent to note that the eligibility criteria for appointment of Museum Assistant-cum- Librarian under the 1987 Rules was different from the eligibility criteria of appointment of Librarian under the 1990 Rules – It is patently clear that the 1990 Rules, were not applicable to the respondent – Hence, the appeal is allowed and the impugned orders of the High Court are set-aside – Madhya Pradesh Ayush Department (Clerical and Non-Clerical), Class-III, Service Recruitment Rules, 2013.
Service Law – Fixation of scales of pay – Interference of Courts – Held: The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the duties are identical in every aspect.
Allowing the appeal, this Court
HELD: 1. It is patently clear that the 1990 Rules, were not applicable to the Respondent. The 1990 Rules have been annexed to the Rejoinder filed by the appellants. The scale of pay of a Librarian is specified in Schedule 1 to the said 1990 Rules. The scale of pay of a Librarian, as specified in Schedule-I is Rs. 220075-2800- 100-4000. Significantly, there is no designated post of Librarian cum Museum Assistant in the 1990 Rules. The appointment letter of the respondent clearly shows that she was appointed Librarian cum Museum Assistant at a pay of Rs. 950 in the pay scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 along with the prevailing dearness allowance from the date of joining. Even after completion of probation, and for a period of more than 8 years, the respondent-writ petitioner did not raise any dispute with regard to her scale of pay. Under the 1990 Rules, the senior scale of Librarian is Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000. The respondent-writ petitioner started claiming the aforesaid scale of pay of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000/- after completion of 8 years of service. [Paras 9-11][802-F-H; 803-A-B]
2. On the other hand, under the Madhya Pradesh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clerical and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987, the scale of pay of the Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian, being the post to which the respondent was appointed was Rs. 515-10-57515-800-20-840. That scale was revised. The Respondent-Writ Petitioner was granted the revised pay scale. Significantly, as observed above, there was no post of Museum Assistant-cumLibrarian under the 1990 Rules, but there was a post of Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian under the 1987 Rules. It appears that the Division Bench as also the Single Bench of the High Court followed the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No. 5438/2000 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. M.K. Verma & four Ors.) heard with other writ petitions. The judgment in the case of M.K. Verma pertained to librarians of Engineering Colleges and Medical Colleges and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. [Paras 12 & 13][803-C-E]
3. In the instant case, it would be pertinent to note that the eligibility criteria for appointment of Museum Assistant-cumLibrarian under the 1987 Rules was different from the eligibility criteria of appointment of Librarian under the 1990 Rules. Under the 1987 Rules, the minimum qualification for the post of Museum Assistant cum Librarian was graduate but under the 1990 Rules, the minimum qualification was post graduate degree. It is also well settled that there can be no equality to a wrong and/or illegality. Just because a librarian may have been erroneously granted the UGC pay scale, that would not entitle others to claim the UGC pay scale, if not applicable under the Rules. The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same and the duties are identical in every aspect. [Paras 19, 20 & 23][805D-E; 806-A-B]
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai reported in (2009) 13 SCC 635 : [2009] 12 SCR
23 – relied on.
State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti & Others (C.A.No.2661 of 2015 decided by the Supreme Court); State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Anadolan reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 : [2011] 6 SCR 443 – referred to.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. M.K. Verma & four Ors. (W.P.(C)No. 5438 of 2000) – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.