Supreme Court of India
SAHIB RAMversusTHE STATE OF HARAYANA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 399
- Decided
- 19 September 1994
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
The relaxation was limited to the class of marks and did not dispense with the requirement of possessing the prescribed educational qualification; consequently, the appellant was not entitled to the upgraded pay scale, but the salary already paid could not be recovered because he was not at fault.
Summary
Sahib Ram was appointed as a librarian in a government college in 1972 on a pay‑scale of Rs 220‑550. Following UGC recommendations, the Government of India upgraded the librarian pay‑scale to Rs 700‑1600, subject to a minimum educational qualification of first or second class M.A./M.Sc./M.Com. plus a first or second class B.Lib.Sc. or diploma. A later government order relaxed the requirement of first/second class marks for incumbents appointed before 3 December 1972, but did not waive the need to possess the prescribed qualifications. The college principal, relying on this order, granted the appellant the upgraded scale, which the Haryana government later directed to be withdrawn. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ petition; the Supreme Court held that the relaxation applied only to the class requirement, not to the qualification itself, so the appellant was not entitled to the higher pay. However, as the appellant was not at fault, the salary already paid could not be recovered, and the appeal was allowed in part.
Issues considered
- The scope of the relaxation order: whether it waived the requirement of possessing the prescribed educational qualification or merely the first/second class mark requirement.
- Whether the appellant, lacking the required qualifications, was entitled to the upgraded pay‑scale under the relaxation.
- Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to the UGC‑prescribed pay scales.
- Whether the amount already paid to the appellant under the upgraded scale can be recovered from him.
Subjects
service lawpay scale revisioneducational qualificationrelaxation of qualificationsequal pay for equal workgovernment orderadministrative law
Judgment
A SAHIB RAM
v.
THE STATE OF HARAYANA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 19, 1994
B (K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.)
Service Law:
Government College-Librarian-UGC recommendation-Revision of ""
pay scales subject to possessing minimum educational qualifications of first
c or second class-Relaxation in qualifications-Held Permissible only in ob-
taining first or second class in the prescribed educational qualifications but
not in the education qualifications itself-Principle of Equal Pay for Equal
work-Applicability of.
D The appellant was appointed on July 29, 1972 as a Librarian in a
Government College in the pay-scale of Rs. 220-550. Pursuant to the
recommendations of the University Grants Commission, the Government
of India upgraded the pay scales of Librarians with effect from 1.1.1973
..
to Rs. 700-1600 subject to the condition that they possesse the minimum
educational qualification of first or second class M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. plus
E
a first or second class B. Lib. Sc. or a diploma in Library Science. Later,
it was decided that the Librarians who were appointed in Colleges on or
before 3.12.1972 may be sanctioned the upgraded scale in relaxation of the
qualification prescribed without insisting on first or second class in the
degree, diploma or other prescribed educational qualification. The appel·
F lant was allowed the revised pay-scale by the principle of his college but
later the Government issued direction to the principal to withdraw the
upgraded scale allowed to him. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged
·r-
the direction before the High Court.
G In appeal to this Court, it was contended that since the appellant
was granted upgraded scale in relaxation of the educational qualifications,
the High Court erred in dismissing the petition. :"
Allowing the petition in part, this Court
H HELD : The relaxation given was only as regards obtaining first
•\
674
SAIIlB RAM v. STAIB OFHARYANA 675
class or second class in the prescribed educational qualification but not A
relaxation in the educational qualification itself. Since the appellant does
not possess the required educational qualifications, he would not be en-
titled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation.
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 B
construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held
to be at fault. Therefore, the amount paid till date may not be recovered
from him. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to
the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission.
[676-F to H, 677-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6868 of
c
1994.
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.93 of the Punjab & Haryana
Court in W.P. No. 10988 of 1993.
D
Prem Malhotra for the Appellant.
Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E
Leave granted.
The appellant was appointed in July Z9, 1972 as a Librarian in
Government College in the pay-scale of, Rs.220-550..The Haryana Govern-
ment accepting the recommendations of Government of India and tl:e F
University Grants Commission upgraded the pay-scale of Librarian with
effect from 1st January, 1973 to Rs. 700-1600, if they possesse 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 M.Lib. being a preferential qualification. Thereafter taking into
consideration, representations made by several Librarians appointed prior G
to 31st December , 1972 and of the recommendations of the University
Grants Commission, the Government of India in their proceedings of
January 16, 1987 relaxed the and requirement of securing first or second
class in M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. and other prescribed educational qualifica-
tions, by an order which was in the following terms : H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A "lt' has now been decided, on the recommendation of the U GC,
that the existing incumbents of the posts of Librarians in College
who have been appointed to these posts on or before 3.12.1972
B
may be sanctioned the upgraded scale of Rs. 700-1600 in relaxation
of the qualification prescribed in Annexure-1 referred to above
without insisting on a first or second class in the degree, diploma
or other prescribed educational qualification."
-
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
C to act under the above order. However, the Govt. of Haryana dire~ted the
Principal to withdraw the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 allowed to appellant.
The appellant had challenged their direction in C.W.P. No. 10988of1993
-
in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court by the im-
pugned order dated September 9, 1993 dismissed the writ petition. Thus
this appeal by special leave.
D
Mr. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant, contended
that the previous scale of Rs. 220-550 in which the appellant was entitled
become Rs. 700-1600 since the appellant had been granted that scale of
pay in relaxation of the educational qualification. The High Court was,
E therefore, not right in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any force
iii this contention. It is seen that the Government in consultation with the
University Grants Commission had revised the pay-scale of a Librarian
working in the Colleges to Rs. 700-1600 but they insisted upon the mini-
mum 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.
F
The relaxation given was only ~s regards obtaining first class or second
class in the prescribed educational qualification but not relaxation in the
education_al qualification itself.
Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational
G qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled
to the relaxation. The Principle 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
H construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held
SAHIBRAMv. STAIBOFHARYANA 677
to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not A
be recovered for the appellant . The principle of equal pay for equal work
would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Com-
,
.
mission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs .
T.N.A. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search