Delhi High Court
Smt. Sudha Bedi vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 18 May, 2002
Author: S Sinha
Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, C.J.
1. Whether an 'Assistant Librarian' working in the College of
Arts is entitled to the same scale of pay paid to the
'Assistant Librarian' working in the Polytechnics is the
question involved in this writ petition.
2. The applicant was employed as 'Assistant Librarian' in the
College of Arts. The Human Resource Development of the
Government of India created various posts from time to time
in terms whereof posts of 'Assistant Librarian' had been
upgraded to the post of 'Librarian' and placed in higher scale
of pay. The petitioner prayed that he be placed in the scale
of pay of Rs. 1,400/- -- Rs. 2,600/-.
3. It is not in dispute that the Fourth Central Pay Commission
(in short, 'IV CPC') did not consider the matter.
4. The learned Tribunal by reason of the impugned judgment
declined to grant any relief to the petitioner only on the
ground that the fixation of pay-scale of 'Assistant Librarians'
would depend upon the size of library of the College of Arts
or in the Polytechnic.
The IV CPC in para 11.63 stated as under:-
"11.63 There are difficulties in reclassifying
the posts of librarians and
specifying their qualifications and recruitment
levels. The pay scales, qualifications and
recruitment levels of responsibility will really
depend on several factors, mainly on the size of
the library, its character and importance. To
draw up suitable proposals in this regard a
committee may be constituted to undertake
this work. Pending such a review by the
Committee, we recommend that librarians and
library staff may be given the revised scales of
pay proposed in Chapter 8."
5. Mr. Venkataramani, the learned senior counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the relevant
documents, although were directed to be produced, had not
been produced before the Tribunal.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said
findings are wrong that the Report of the Committee had not
been produced.
7. The learned Tribunal in its impugned judgment held that
the petitioner would be entitled to the scale of pay, as
recommended by the Committee, which was constituted
pursuant to the direction of the IV CPC.
8. From the Order Sheets dated 16.10.2000 and 30.10.2000
passed by the learned Tribunal and as contained in
Annexure 'P-16' and 'P-17', it does not appear that the
recommendations of the Committee constituted by the IV
CPC were produced before the learned Tribunal.
9. The applicant inter alia contended in the said original
application by filing two Miscellaneous Applications that
pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee, the
scales of pay had been revised as regard counterparts of the
applicants working in similar organisations.
10. Recommendations as regards pay-scale of 'Librarians' are as under:-
Existing designation (as given by Review Committee
Pity scale (as suggested By Review Committee) (Rs.)
Revised designation
Pay Scale
Qualification
Library Semi-Professional Grade I
1320-2040
By promotion
Library and Information
1400-2600
Library & Information Assistant
1600-2660
50% by DR of Graduates
Assistant
With B.Lib. 50% by promotion
Senior Library and Information Assistant
1640-2900
Senior Library and Information Assistant
1640-2900
By Promotion
Asstt. Library & Information Officer
2000-3500
Asstt. Lib & Information Officer
2000-3500
50% by DR of PG + B.Lib or B.A. with M. Lib. 50% by
promotion
Lib. & Information Officer Grade II
2200-4000
2200-4000
Library &Information. Officer
3000-4500
Lib. & Information Officer Grade I
3000-4500
Promotion
Senior Library & Information Officer
3700-5000
Library & Information Officer
3700-5000
Promotion
Principal Lib. And information Officer/Director
4500-5700
Principal Library & Information Officer
4500-5700
Promotion
5900-6700
Director
5900-6700
7300-7600
Director-General
7300-7600
11. It is not dispute that the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' in terms of Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the
Constitution of India (in short, 'the Constitution') would be
attracted provided the concerned employees are similarly
situated.
12. Furthermore, it appears that the learned Tribunal proceeded
on the basis that the case for grant of the said scale of pay
was not recommended by the IV CPC. However, in para 4(ii)
of their counter affidavit, it was stated as under:-
"4(ii) In reply to this para it is submitted that
the applicant is a Graduate with Diploma in
Library Science. The post of Asstt. Librarian in
College of Arts was not dealt with by IIIrd Pay
Commission or by IVth Pay Commission and
hence, the applicant cannot claim the scale of
Rs. 1400-2600 on the basis of recommendation
because replacement scale of Rs. 1200-2050
has already been given as per recommendation
of the IIIrd Pay Commission."
13. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal must be
held to be wrong inasmuch as it proceeded on a wrong
premise, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner in
his reply to the preliminary objections categorically stated
that the qualifications of 'Assistant Librarian' of the
Polytechnics as also the qualification of 'Assistant Librarian'
in the College of Arts are similar.
14. It has further been stated that the petitioner had been
working in the Library of Post-Graduate College, which has
international recognisition and is affiliated to the University of
Delhi. The said Library consists of thousands of rare books,
which are not only costly, but also technical in nature.
15. According to the petitioner, her duties and functions are
much arduous than the 'Assistant Librarian' of a
Polytechnic. Keeping in view the fact that the Report of the
Committee had not been produced before the learned
Tribunal and furthermore as admittedly the case of the
petitioner had not been considered either by the Third
Central Pay Commission or the IV CPC, we are of the
opinion that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in
dismissing the said original application.
It may be that it could not have decided the matter itself,
but, it ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the
respondents herein for non-production of the Report of the
Committee, which was constituted in terms of the directions
of the IV CPC. The Report of the Committee was very
relevant. The respondents being a model employer could
not have withheld the same.
16. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the
impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained,
which is set aside accordingly. This writ petition is allowed.
17. The respondents are thereby directed to make the necessary
job of evaluation of the 'Assistant Librarian' in College of
Arts vis-a-vis 'Assistant Librarian' in the Polytechnic and
take an appropriate decision. Such decision must be taken
at an early date and not later than three months from the
date of the communication of this order.
Keeping in view the fact that the respondent had not
produced the relevant records before the Tribunal, we are of
the opinion that the petitioner herein is also entitled to
costs, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.
This writ petition is accordingly allowed.
