1. Dispute regarding eligibility for an upgraded pay scale for a college librarian following the relaxation of educational qualification requirements. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 921
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BEFORE K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.
SAHIB RAM
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
Civil Appeal No. 6868 of 1994 {From the Judgment and Order dated 9-9-1993 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in W.P. No. 10988 of 1993}
Decided on 19-9-1994
Advocates appeared:
Prem Malhotra, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms Indu Malhotra, Advocate, for the Respondents.
Important Points
Relaxation of the requirement for a first or second class in educational qualifications does not exempt an employee from possessing the basic qualification itself. Additionally, payments made due to an employer's error, without misrepresentation by the employee, are not recoverable.
Subject
Employment Law - Pay and Benefits
Headnote
Librarian - Pay Scale - Relaxation In Educational Qualification - Principal of College, where appellant was working as a Librarian allowed him revised pay scale of Rs 700-1600 purporting to act - However, Government of Haryana directed Principal to withdraw pay scale of Rs 700-1600 allowed to appellant - Appellant had challenged their direction – Held, It is seen that Government in consultation with University Grants Commission had revised pay scale of a Librarian working in colleges to Rs 700-1600 but they insisted upon 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 - Relaxation given was only as regards obtaining first or second class in prescribed educational qualification but not relaxation in educational qualification itself – Admittedly appellant does not possess required educational qualifications - Under circumstances appellant would not be entitled to relaxation - Principal erred in granting him relaxation - Since date of relaxation appellant had been paid his salary on revised scale - However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by appellant that benefit of higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by Principal for which appellant cannot be held to be at fault - Under circumstances amount paid till date may not be recovered from appellant - Principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to scales prescribed by University Grants Commission – Appeal Partly Allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
Indu Malhotra, PREM MALHOTRA
Indu Malhotra, PREM MALHOTRA
Table of Contents
2. Whether the relaxation of the requirement for a first or second class degree entitled the appellant to the upgraded pay scale. (Para 4 )
3. The relaxation applied only to the class of the degree obtained and not to the basic educational qualification requirement itself. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Relaxation of the class of a degree does not constitute a relaxation of the basic educational qualification required for a post. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal partly allowed; upgraded pay scale denied, but recovery of erroneously paid salary waived. (Para 5 )
6. Does relaxation of the requirement for a first or second class in a degree imply relaxation of the basic educational qualification itself?
No, the relaxation given as regards obtaining a first or second class in the prescribed educational qualification does not constitute a relaxation in the educational qualification itself. (Para 4 )
7. Can the government recover salary paid on a higher scale if the grant was due to an administrative error without misrepresentation by the employee?
No, if the benefit of a higher pay scale was given due to a wrong construction by the authority and not because of any misrepresentation by the employee, the amount paid may not be recovered. (Para 5 )
8. Does the principle of equal pay for equal work apply to pay scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission?
No, the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. (Para 5 )
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant was appointed on 29-7-1972 as a Librarian in Government College in the pay scale of Rs 220-550. The Haryana Government accepting the recommendations of the Government of India and the University Grants Commission upgraded the pay scales of librarians with effect from 1-1-1973 to Rs 700-1600, if they possessed 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. Science being a preferential qualification. Thereafter taking into consideration, representations made by several librarians appointed prior to 31-12-1972 and the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, the Government of India in its proceedings of 16-1-1987 relaxed the requirement of securing first or second class in M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. and other prescribed educational qualifications, by an order which was in the following terms:
"It has now been decided, on the recommendation of the UGC, that the existing incumbents of the posts of Librarians in colleges who have been appointed to these posts on or before 3-12-1972 may be sanctioned the upgraded scale of Rs 700-1600 in relaxation of the qualification prescribed in Annexure-I referred to above without insisting on a first or second class in the degree, diploma or other prescribed educational qualification."
3. The Principal of the College, where the appellant was working as a Librarian allowed him the revised pay scale of Rs 700-1600 purporting to act under the above order. However, the Government of Haryana directed the Principal to withdraw the pay scale of Rs 700-1600 allowed to the appellant. The appellant had challenged their direction in CWP No. 10988 of 1993 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court by the impugned order dated 9-9-1993 dismissed the writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.
4. Mr Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the previous scale of Rs 220-550 to which the appellant was entitled became Rs 700-1600 since the appellant had been granted that scale of pay in relaxation of the educational qualification. The High Court was, therefore, not right in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any force in 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 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 relaxation given was only as regards obtaining first or second class in the prescribed educational qualification but not relaxation in the educational qualification itself.
5. Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principal erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on the revised scale. However, it is not on account of any misrepresentation made by the appellant that the benefit of the higher pay scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered from the appellant. The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs.
For Citation: 1995 Supp(1) SCC 18
