1. Dispute regarding pay scale parity between professional library staff and teaching staff in a university and its constituent colleges. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 1029
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Faizan Uddin : S.B.Majmudar : S.P.Bharucha
Shersingh
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : .
Date of Decision : 10/16/95
Advocates Appeared: Garg Satya Mitra : Kapur Ajay : Lahiri K.L. : Mariarputham A. : Mathur Aruna : Padmanabhan R.Anand : Prasad B.K. : Rawat Avtar Singh : Venkataramani R.
Important Points
The court held that pay parity between different categories of employees is a matter of government policy, not a vested right. Courts will not interfere with policy decisions unless they are unfair, mala fide, or contrary to statutory directions, particularly when duties and responsibilities differ.
Subject
Service Law - Pay Parity
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 - Claim of parity between teaching staff and library staff - Corresponding categories of teaching staff - Appellants case that in year University Grants Commission constituted Committee appointed by University Grants Commission Respondent Chairmanship - Committee recommended that status and salary scales of library staff should be same as that teaching and research staff - Further case of appellants is that in year University Grants Commission Respondent took decision give effect to aforesaid recommendations Committee - Consequently Respondent conveyed its decision to University of Delhi Respondent by its letter that professionally qualified library staff are for purposes of salary revision to be treated as academic staff – Held, After serious and anxious consideration on submissions made by counsel for appellants according US there appears to be no rationale or any justification in claim parity between teaching staff and library staff in Delhi University and its colleges for simple reason that two sets employees belonged to different categories of employees who stand on different footing - Nature duties workload experience and responsibilities of two sets employees in question are totally different from each other - Teaching staff has to do some research work deep study in their respective subjects and to make preparations for the daily lectures in the classrooms and other academic work while this is not so in the case of library staff - Experience of library staff is totally different from the one which is required for 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 government as matter of policy had equated library staff for purposes of pay scales earlier for a certain period as contended by appellants they should be thankful to government as they could not have claimed parity as of right – Appeal dismissed
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
A.MARIAPUTHAM, Ajay Kapur, ARUNA MATHUR, AVTAR SINGH, B.K.PRASAD, K.L.LAHIRI, R.ANAND PADMANABHAN, R.VENKATARAMANA, SATYA MITRA GARG
A.MARIAPUTHAM, Ajay Kapur, ARUNA MATHUR, AVTAR SINGH, B.K.PRASAD, K.L.LAHIRI, R.ANAND PADMANABHAN, R.VENKATARAMANA, SATYA MITRA GARG
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim a vested right to pay parity based on qualifications and historical policy; Respondents argue distinct duties and workloads preclude such parity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. Library and teaching staff perform fundamentally different duties and possess different workloads, making pay parity a matter of government policy rather than a legal right. (Para 7 )
4. Courts will not interfere with government policy decisions regarding pay scales unless the decision is unfair, mala fide, or contrary to statutory directions. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed. (Para 8 )
6. Can employees claim a vested right to pay parity if it was previously granted by government policy?
No. If the government equates pay scales as a matter of policy, it is not a right. The government retains the authority to change its policy from time to time according to administrative exigencies and demands. (Para 7 )
7. Under what circumstances will courts interfere with government policy decisions?
Courts are generally slow to interfere with government policy unless it is demonstrated that the decision is unfair, mala fide, or contrary to any statutory directions. (Para 7 )
8. Does identical educational qualification automatically entitle different categories of employees to the same pay scale?
No. Qualification is not the sole criterion for determining pay scales; other factors such as nature of duties, workload, experience, and responsibilities must be taken into account. (Para 4 , 5 , 7 )
JUDGMENT
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 constituent colleges in different grades are entitled to 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 since 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 2 under the Chairmanship of Dr S.R. Ranganathan. The said Committee recommended that the status and the salary scales of 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, Respondent 2 took decision to give effect to the aforesaid recommendations of Ranganathan Committee. Consequently, Respondent 2 conveyed its decision to the University of Delhi, Respondent 3 by its letter dated 18/1/1961 that professionally qualified library staff are for purposes of salary revision to be treated as academic staff. Respondent 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 to the scales of pay of school librarians which was accepted by the central government. Respondent 1 herein. Consequently, Respondent 2 by its letter dated 11/1/1974 conveyed the decision of Respondent 1 to Respondent 3, the University of Delhi to revise the pay scales of teachers of the University of Delhi and its colleges with effect from 1/1/1973. 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 a adopted these recommendations in its resolutions dated 10/4/1974 and 23/5/1974. Again in the year 1977 on the recommendations of Respondent 2, Union of India, Respondent 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 Respondent 1 abruptly and arbitrarily disturbed the parity of the pay scales of the teaching staff and the library staff except the Librarian of the University of Delhi with retrospective effect from 1/1/1973 and with a single stroke of pen the parity enjoyed by the said categories of professional library staff from 1961 till 1977 was done away with retrospectively with effect from 1/1/1973. Consequently, the appellants made several representations to Respondents 1 and 2 as well as to the Minister of Education in response to which Respondent 2 replied that the matter was under consideration of the government. However, Respondent 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 had referred the question to a Committee for upgradation of the scales of the professional library staff who possessed the qualifications prescribed by Respondent I. There was no further response till the year 1980 from the respondents. Appellant 67, therefore,
