Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Seema Sharma – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 3892 of 2022 [Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 6546 of 2017]
Decided On : 12-05-2022
UGC Pay Scale - Dispute over Applicability of Rules - 1990 Rules - 1987 Rules - 2013 Rules - Court's Interpretation of Rules and Eligibility Criteria
Fact of the Case:
The respondent was appointed as Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant at a specific pay scale. After 8 years of service, she claimed the UGC scale of pay, which was not acceded to by the appellants. The respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Bench and upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, directing the appellants to grant the UGC scale of pay from the date of her initial appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the 1990 Rules were not applicable to the respondent, and her appointment was governed by the 1987 Rules. The Court also considered the 2013 Rules and the eligibility criteria for different posts under these rules. It emphasized that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way.
Issues: The main issues involved the applicability of different sets of rules (1990, 1987, and 2013) to the respondent's appointment and the claim for UGC scale of pay. The Court also addressed the eligibility criteria and the parity in pay scales for different posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by its interpretation of the various rules and the eligibility criteria for different posts. It emphasized that mere similarity of designation or quantum of work was not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. The Court also highlighted the importance of the eligibility criteria and the value of work in determining the applicability of pay scales.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and disposing of pending applications.
JUDGMENT
Indira Banerjee, J. - Leave granted.
This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench) dismissing Writ Appeal No. 301/2016 and upholding the order dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Single Bench allowing Writ Petition No. 14027/2010 filed by the respondent and directing the Appellants to grant the Respondent-Writ Petitioner the benefit of the University Grants Commission scale of pay from the date of her initial appointment.
2. By an order No./EXT/91 Order No.480 dated 27.03.1991, the Respondent was appointed to the post of Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant, Government Dhanvantri Ayurvedic College, Ujjain, in the pay scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 along with prevailing dearness allowance from the date of joining. The basic pay of the Respondent-Writ Petitioner was fixed at Rs.950/-.
3. The Respondent-Writ Petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of one year. The respondent successfully completed her probation and was duly confirmed in service.
4. After completion of 8 years of service, the Respondent-Writ Petitioner claimed the UGC scale of pay as paid to the persons in the senior scale of Librarian in colleges under the Higher Education Department, as per the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate Branch), Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 1990 Rules').
5. The request of the Respondent-Writ Petitioners for the higher UGC scale of pay was not acceded to. The Respondent-Writ Petitioner, therefore, filed the Writ Petition referred to above, which has been allowed and the Respondent-Writ Petitioner has been directed to be paid the UGC scale of pay as paid to the Librarians of colleges under the Higher Education Department. An intra court appeal filed by the Appellants has been dismissed.
6. In the High Court as also this Court, the Respondent-Writ Petitioner contended that her service conditions were governed by the 1990 Rules. The Appellants contend that the 1990 Rules were never applicable to the Respondent. The 1990 Rules were applicable to institutions under the Higher Education Department. The Government Dhanvantri Ayurvedic College, where the Respondent-Writ Petitioner was appointed was not under the Higher Education Department, but under the Ayush Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh.
7. The Appellants pointed out that at the time of appointment, the Respondent-Writ Petitioner was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class- III, Clerical and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 and not the 1990 Rules. The Appellants have made a specific averment that the State Government has made the UGC scales applicable to Colleges under the Higher Education Department, which are receiving financial aid from the UGC.
8. It is the specific contention of the Appellants that the Ayurvedic Colleges under the Ayush Department do not receive any financial aid from the UGC. The Rules applicable to institutions under the Ayush Department do not contain any provision that makes the UGC scale of pay applicable to the employees of institutions under the Ayush Department.
9. 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. 2200-75-2800- 100-4000. Significantly, there is no designated post of Librarian cum Museum Assistant in the 1990 Rules.
10. 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 di
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the applicability of pay scales is determined by the specific rules and eligibility criteria for different posts, and the doctrine of equal pa....
Homogeneous cadre of Assistant Librarians entitled to uniform pay scales including UGC benefits despite post-new rules regularization, as appointments predated prospective 2010 rules; parity prevents....
Petitioners being similarly situate and discharging similar duties and working in the same cadre could not be given different treatment.
Directly recruited university teachers are entitled to higher pay scales without a five-year service requirement, as per UGC Regulations superseding earlier rules.
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
The court emphasized the principle of equal pay for equal work, ruling that the petitioners were entitled to the same pay scale as their counterparts in other universities due to administrative error....
The appellant's right to higher pay was found to be indefeasible and could not be taken away arbitrarily.
Autonomous institutions receiving public funding must adhere to the principles of equality in pay, ensuring parity for similar job roles under constitutional mandates.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
