* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No. 6210/2014 Reserved on: 8th February, 2016 % Date of Decision: 19th May, 2016 PRATIBHA PRASHAR …Petitioner Through : Mr.J. M. Kalia, Advocate Versus UNION OF INDIA …Respondents Through : Mr.Rajesh Katyal, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI SANJIV KHANNA, J.

1. The petitioner, Pratibha Prashar, assails by this writ petition the final judgment and order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal, for short) dated 13th August, 2013 whereby OA.No.1678/2007 filed by her has been dismissed.

2. This is the second round of litigation, as the petitioner had earlier succeeded before the Tribunal by the order dated 16th May, 2011 with the Tribunal directing that the petitioner was entitled to upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme, 1998 („ACP Scheme‟ for short). This order was set aside with an order of remand in Writ Petition (C) No.8284/2011 vide order dated 18th July, 2012. The High Court had observed that the order of the Tribunal dated 16th May, 2011 had not adequately addressed the issues raised and in particular the impact of paragraph 4.1 of O.M. dated 24th July, 1990, and also Annexure-1 thereof. The High Court had made reference to the answer to question No.35 of O.M. dated 18th July, 2001.

3. In short, the issue and dispute pertains to grant of second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme. The petitioner claims that she is entitled to second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme as her appointment as Library and Information Officer cannot be counted as promotion. She pleads that her appointment to the said post was on account of the restructuring exercise carried out in terms of the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission read with the OM dated 24th July, 1990. Respondents plead to the contrary and have contested the claim on several grounds.

4. The impugned order accepts the contention of the respondents. As a limited issue arises for consideration, we would only refer to the relevant facts and exclude others.

5. The petitioner had joined the National Museum under the Ministry of Culture on 30th December, 1977 as an Assistant Librarian in the pay scale of Rs.1400 – 2300 (pre revised)/ Rs.5000 – 8000 (revised pursuant to the recommendation of 5th Pay Commission). The post of the Assistant Librarian was a group „C‟ non-gazetted and non- ministerial post. On 19th November, 1987, the next promotional post in the hierarchy of Senior Librarian fell vacant and the petitioner was asked to officiate on the said post and was eventually promoted. The post of Senior Librarian was in the scale of Rs.2000 - 3500 (pre-

revised)/ Rs 6500 – 10500 (revised on the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission). This was a group „B‟ non-gazetted, and non- ministerial post. To this extent there is no dispute or debate. The facts are accepted.

6. The 4th Central Pay Commission in para 11.63 of their report had recommended constitution of a Committee to undertake review of the pay scales, qualifications and recruitment of the library staff. Consequent thereto, a Review Committee was set up by the Department of Culture in September, 1987. The Review Committee submitted their report in 1990. Upon consideration, the government issued the office memorandum No.F No.19(1)IC/86 dated 24th July, 1990 which is of considerable importance and relevance and we would like to reproduce portions of the same for convenience and ready reference:-

“2.1 of OM dated 24.7.90(sic.) after careful consideration of the recommendations made by this committee and also keeping in view the overall policy, the Govt. have decided to introduce following pay structure for Library Staff.

Directory of Govt. Libraries and Pay Scales