K. RAMAMOORTHY. J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs :- " (A) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the pay-scale granted to respondents 3 to 6 to the petitioners herein also who aredoing the same and identical work: (b) Issue a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents No. 1 from redesignating respondents 3 to 6 or any other person amongst professionalassistants though all the professional Assistants including the petitionersherein and the said respondents are functioning in identical and interchangeable posts, doing identical work, merely on the basis of qualifications. " ( 2 ) THE petitioners and the respondents 3 to 6 on the date of the writ petition wereworking as Professional Assistant Juniors (Assistant Librarians ). From the post ofprofessional Assistant Junior the next avenue of promotion is Professional Assistantsenior (Dy. Librarian) and thereafter the incumbents can claim to be considered forthe post of Librarian. The scale of pay then was Rs. 550-900 for the post ofprofessional Assistant Junior (Asstt. Librarian ). BY 28. 11/9. 12. 85 the Universitydecided to put the Professional Assistant Juniors on the scale of Rs. 700-1600 inrespect of those who had secured first or second class in B. A. , B. Sc. or B. Com. orfirst or second class Master of Library Science Degree or those who had securedfirst or second in M. A. MSc. , M. Com. arid first or second class in Bach. of Libraryscience or post Graduate Diploma in Library Science. ( 3 ) THE case of the petitioners is that at the time they were recruited there was noqualification prescribed that the candidates should have secured first or secondclass in the qualifying examination and their scale of pay was fixed reckoning the dutyassigned to the post. Revision of pay scales was done in all Departments ofgovernments and at the instance of the employees revision was effected and whilemaking the revision the University or the University Grants Commission cannotprovide qualification with retrospective effect affecting the rights of the petitionerswho are functioning in the cadire. The petitioners would state that the condition withreference to the securing first or second class could be applied only to the candidateswho would be recruited and not those who are already functioning in the posts. The petitioners would state that the condition withreference to the securing first or second class could be applied only to the candidateswho would be recruited and not those who are already functioning in the posts. ( 4 ) THE stand of the respondents 1 and 2 is that while revising the pay scales it isopen to them to prescribe a qualification having regard to the increase in scale of payand it was done in public interest and the petitioners cannot have any grievance inlaw. ( 5 ) IT is in the above back drop the facts of the case are to be noticed. ( 6 ) ON 12. 1. 1983 Delhi University Professional Assistants Association wrote to theuniversity Grants Commission the following:- WE whole heartedly welcome the recent decision of the Government regardingthe revision of pay scales of librarians working in the University and collegelibraries and bringing them at par with the University and College teachers. No doubt it is an appreciable step which restored the post-ante status quowhich the academic librarians had prevailed for nearly two decades, it is amatter of regret that one category of Professional librarians i. e. , Professionalassistants which too had been prevailing the parity with one category ofuniversity and college teachers nearly Assistant Lecturers had been left outof consideration. The-category of Assistant Lecturer was merged with theposition of lecturer in the university and college, the status quo was maintainedin respect of Professional Assistants. Since the Ministry has taken thewelcome decision to up grade three senior categories of librarians, justiceshould have been done to the Professional Assistants simultaneously. The Library Advisory Committee of the University Grant Commission (1959),headed by Dr. S. R. Ranganathan recommended the following pattern oforganisation at professional level for college and university libraries paralleledin positions in academic fields. Academic Position Library Positionprofessor Professional Senior (librarian)University Librarianreader/associated Professional Senior/deputylibrarianlecturer/assistant Professional Juniorprofessorassistant Lecturer Professional Assistantthe case of Professional Assistant can also be justified on several othergrounds. The nature of their responsibility fully justified it. Incidentally, theminimum qualifications for the position of professional Assistants are at parwith those of Assistant Librarian. Several Agricultural Universities, and particularly the Punjab Agriculturaluniversity, Ludhiana, have up graded the pension recently vide their letterno. CAG-B (1)/27/13 dated 20. 2. 1979. It may be mentioned in this connection that a large number of Collegelibrarians who are to present placed in the pay scale of Professional Assistant (i. e. Rs. Several Agricultural Universities, and particularly the Punjab Agriculturaluniversity, Ludhiana, have up graded the pension recently vide their letterno. CAG-B (1)/27/13 dated 20. 2. 1979. It may be mentioned in this connection that a large number of Collegelibrarians who are to present placed in the pay scale of Professional Assistant (i. e. Rs. 550-900) are placed in the scale of Rs. 700-1600 with recentdecision. A favourable decision in respect of Professional Assistant shall undoubtedlyimprove the working atmosphere in college and Universe Libraries. The following concrete suggestions are made for your kind consideration. 1. The position of Professional Assistants and equivalent positions incollege and University Librarians be upgraded so as to be on par with that ofassistant Librarians by placing them in the scale of pay of Rs. 700-1600. 2. The necessary orders to implement the same with immediate effect maybe issued immediately. In view of the sympathetic view taken by you towards restoration of theprinciple of parity for academic librarians, this is to request you to considerthe above suggestions sympathetically. Thanking you in anticipation. " ( 7 ) ON 1. 12. 1984 the Executive Council of the Delhi University passed a resolution No. 411 regarding rationalisation of pay scales of academic/technical/scientific in Computer Centres etc. In that it was decided:- "the Vice-Chancellor further suggested that pending receipt of revisedqualifications and other details regarding the posts involved from the Universitygrants Commission, the revised scales now received could be made effectivein respect of existing incumbents working against these posts on regular/permanent basis. The revise qualifications and other details to be receiverfrom the University Grants Commission, if any, would be applicable for futurerecruitment to these posts in case the Council decided to adopt such revisedqualifications etc. The Council agreed with the Vice-Chancellor and resolvedthat the revised scales now intimated by the University Grants Commissionbe made effective in respect of incumbents working already against theseposts on regular/permanent basis immediately. It was further resolved that he revised qualifications if and when prescribedand adopted consequent to the revision of the scales of pay, be madeapplicable to future recruitments against the posts concerned. " ( 8 ) THEREFORE, it is clear that which reference to the scales of pay the incumbents working would be paid the same and the qualification ualifications will be insisted for thecandidates who are to be recruited in future. On 23. 2. " ( 8 ) THEREFORE, it is clear that which reference to the scales of pay the incumbents working would be paid the same and the qualification ualifications will be insisted for thecandidates who are to be recruited in future. On 23. 2. 1985 (second respondent) theuniversity Grants Commission recommended the rationalisation of pay scales ofprofessor Assistants. On 8. 3. 1985 the Executive Council of the University in itsresolution 688-689 decided to implead the upgraded scales to all the incumbents. On 16/25. 3. 1985 the University Grants Commission (second respondent) wrote tothe Vice Chancellor the following:- "the Commission has considered the question of rationalisation of scale ofpay of Professional Assistants of the Libraries in Central Universities in thescale of 550-900 subsequent to the up gradation of the pay scales of thelibrary staff in the Universities and colleges as per orders of the Governmentof India. 2. The Commission has agreed that the Professional Assistants in thecentral Universities in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 fulfilling the qualificationsprescribed for the post of Assistant Librarian as indicated in the annexure inthe pay scale of Rs. 700-1600 with effect from 1/04/1985. 3. With regard to the remaining staff of this category not fulfilling the abovequalifications, the matter is under the consideration of the commission. 4. The above decision of the Commission (para No. 2) will be governed bythe same conditions with regard to pay fixation etc. as already been conveyedby the commission to the Universities while considering the question ofrationalisation of scales of pay of library staff. " ( 9 ) ON 1. 5. 1985 the Delhi University Library System (Office of the Chairman Librarycommittee) University of Delhi wrote to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor the following:-"the Library Committee at its meeting held on 17/03/1986 decided thefollowing:"the Committee re-examined the question of providing new grades to such ofthe Professional Assistants also who do not possess required qualifications (Item No. 16 of the minutes of the meeting No. 1 held on 18. 1. 86 ). The matterwas discussed in detail and the Library Committee decided that as a matter ofpolicy it should be recommended to the University that all those who hold theposition of Professional Assistant should be given the benefit of the revisedsalary grade immediately. 1. 86 ). The matterwas discussed in detail and the Library Committee decided that as a matter ofpolicy it should be recommended to the University that all those who hold theposition of Professional Assistant should be given the benefit of the revisedsalary grade immediately. In the same context it was further recommendedthat the same condition of revision of salary scale should be made applicablein case of Professional Juniors and Professional Seniors, who had beendenied this revision because they are not fulfilling the condition of qualifications. It was further recommended that the condition of revised qualificationsshould be made applicable only in the case of recruitments to be made infuture and not for the existing incumbents. While making this recommendationthe Library Committee also learned that the revision of scales had alreadybeer] applied in case of other categories of staff (such as those forking in thecomputer Centre, and the administration of the University such as Deputyregistrars and Assistant Registrars), irrespective of their qualifications. "i, therefore, request you to kindly look into the matter and get therecommendation of the Library Committee approved so that the necessarybenefits could be given to all concerned. " ( 10 ) ON 14. 10. 1985 the Executive Council passed the following resolution:- "considered the letter No. D. O. No. F. 22-4/85 (AS), dated the 25/03/1985 from the Secretary, University Grants Commission intimating revision ofscale of pay from Rs. 550-900 to Rs. 700-1600 for those Professionalassistants who fulfilled the qualification prescribed for the post of Assistantlibrarian as indicated in Appendix XI ). a. Resolved that the scale of pay in respect of all such Professionalassistants who fulfilled the following qualifications prescribed for the post ofassistant Librarian, be revised from Rs. 550-900 to Rs. 700-1600 w. e. f. 1. 4. 85:"first or second class B. A. /b. Sc. /b. Com plus first or second class M. Lib. Scdegreeorfirst or second class M. A. /m. Sc. /m. Com. degree and first or second class B. Lib. Sc. or post-graduate diploma in Library Science. "b. Noted that the University Grants Commission had stated that with regardto remaining staff of this category who did not possess the above qualificationprescribed for the post of Assistant Librarian, the matter was underconsideration. Resolved that the University Grants Commission be requestedto expedite a final and sympathetic decision in the matter. Sc. or post-graduate diploma in Library Science. "b. Noted that the University Grants Commission had stated that with regardto remaining staff of this category who did not possess the above qualificationprescribed for the post of Assistant Librarian, the matter was underconsideration. Resolved that the University Grants Commission be requestedto expedite a final and sympathetic decision in the matter. c. Further resolved that the revised qualifications prescribed for recruitmentto the post of Assistant Librarian be followed in future. " ( 11 ) ON 20/27. 10. 1985 the Registrar addressed a Letter to the University Librarianthe following :- "as you know the University Grants Commission vide its letter No. F. 1-4/75 (D. Sc/15-1, dated the 1st Feb. 1983 and communicated the upgraded payscales in respect of the Librarian, Professional Senior, Professional Junior,documentation Officer etc. w. e. f. 1. 4. 1980 in respect of those who fulfilledthe qualifications as communicated by the University Grants Commissionalongwith the upgraded scales. You also know that we have been correspondence with the University Grantscommission to the effect that the present incumbents working against theabove positions be given the upgraded scales of pay and they be exemptedfrom operation of the revised qualifications and that the revised qualificationsmay be applicable in respect of future recruitments. This matter has been finally considered by the Executive Council at itsmeeting held on 9. 10. 86 and I am glad to inform you that the Council hasdecided that upgraded pay scales in respect of above staff communicated bythe commission vide its letter of 1. 2. 83 operative from 1. 4. 80 be given to allthe existing incumbents as on 1. 4. 86 irrespective of the qualifications producedby them and that the revised qualifications communicated alongwith theupgraded scales of pay be made applicable for future recruitments to theseposts. The above decision would also apply in the case of Assistant Librariansworking in the College Libraries. I am, therefore, to request you kindly to take further action in the matteraccordingly. Thanking you"( 12 ) THIS would show that whenever upgradation of pay scales was done and withreference to higher qualifications prescribed that would be made applicable only tothe future recruits. On 16. 12. 1985 a representation was sent on behalf of the Professorassistant Juniors. On 17. 3. 1986 Delhi University Library Committee recommendedthe revision of pay irrespective of securing of first or second class prescribed. On 1/6. 5. On 16. 12. 1985 a representation was sent on behalf of the Professorassistant Juniors. On 17. 3. 1986 Delhi University Library Committee recommendedthe revision of pay irrespective of securing of first or second class prescribed. On 1/6. 5. 1986 Delhi University Library System again wrote to the Pro-Vice-Chancellor thefollowing :- "the Library Committee at its meeting held on 17/03/1986 decided thefollowing:"the Committee re-examined the question of providing new grades to such ofthe Professional Assistants also who do not possess required qualifications (Item No. 16 of the minutes of meeting No. 1 held on 18. 1. 1986 ). The matterwas discussed in detail and the Library Committee decided that as a matter ofpolicy it should be recommended to the University that all those who hold theposition of Professional Assistant should be given the benefit of the revisedsalary grade immediately. In the same context it was further recommendedthat the same condition of provision of salary scale should be made applicablein case of Professional Juniors and professional Seniors, who had beendenied this revision because they are not fulfilling the condition of qualifications. It was further recommended that the condition of revised qualificationsshould be made applicable only in case of recruitments to be made in futureand not for the existing incumbents. While making this recommendation thelibrary Committee also learned that the revision of scales had already beenapplied in case of other categories of staff (such as those working in thecomputer Centre, and the administration of the University such as Deputyregistrars and Assistant Registrars), irrespective of their qualifications. " (Resolution No. 7)I, therefore, request you to kindly look into the matter and get theirrecommendation of the Library Committee approved so that the necessarybenefits could be given to all concerned. with regards," ( 13 ) ON 6. 5. 1986 the University Grants Commission wrote to the Registrar, Delhiuniversity the following:-The Commission has considered the recommendations made by the Jointcadre Review Committees of the Central Universities in their meetings heldrecently at Delhi University, Banaras Hindu University, Aligarh Muslim Universityand Jawaharlal Nehru University and has taken certain decisions as indicatedbelow on the recommendations made by the Joint Cadre Review Committeein these meetings: 1_ Staffing Pattern of Cadre Review Cells. It has been agreed that Aligarh Muslim University, Delhi University, Banarashindu University and Jawaharlal Nehru University may have a post of Deputyregistrar and that the University of Hyderabad, North-Eastern Hill Universityand Vishwa Bharati and Assistant Registrar with supporting stenographicfacilities to meet the needs of the cells of cadre review committees in theseuniversities. This is subject to the condition that the expenditure involved inthis regard will be found out by the Universities from their own funds and thatno additional funds will be asked either from the UGC or from the Governmentof India. 2. Nursing staff in the hospitals of Aligarh Muslim University,. Banarashhindu University and in the Health Centres of Central Universities:the nursing staff in the Central Universities may be in the following rationalisedscales of pay:489. htmthis has been accepted so as to bring the Nursing Staff within fold of scalesof pay as meant for Laboratory/technical services in all the Central Universitiesto avoid disparities in future. 3. Library Staffit has been agreed that. till such time the question of Cadre is still we may giveone upward movement to the library staff on the basis of the existing scales ofpay as indicated below:4891. htmacceptance of the Commission is subject to the following:a. The rationalisation in scales of pay and removal of disparities is ameasure to promote uniformity in scales of pay, designations, duties, andresponsibilities etc. for the different categories of staff in the Centraluniversities and is not intended for the purpose of promotion. b. The Universities in future will not take any steps which may lead to thecreation of scales of pay outside the 13 core scales of pay as accepted bythe Commission either with any change in designation or duties, etc. It will be ensured that no post will be created with higher scales of payand with lower duties with change in designations. c. The pay fixation will be done in accordance with the fundamental rulesand no adhoc increase or, advance increments will be allowed. d. The financial liability arising out of the implementation of the rationalisedscales of pay will be met by the Universities from within their normal maintenancegrant and that no additional funds will be provided by the University Grantscommission to the Universities in this regard. e. All cases having scales of pay will be than the core Scales prescribed forthe post of pay will be personal to the existing incumbents. e. All cases having scales of pay will be than the core Scales prescribed forthe post of pay will be personal to the existing incumbents. The Universities are requested to kindly ensure that further disparities arenot created while implementing the above decisions of the Commission. Incase, if any such issue comes to the notice of the University, the same maybe brought to the notice of the Commission. The Commission feels very much concerned to remove the disparities inscales of pay and designations, etc. Cases still pending with the University, if any, may be brought to the notice ofthe Commission alongwith the recommendations of the Cadre Reviewcommittees of your University for the consideration of the Commission. This will however be subject to the followings:1. Proposals of the Universities in this regard will not create further disparitieswithin the Universities or in between the Universities or between the variouscategories if different streams of staff in a University or different cadres/grade/structures. This is to be ensured. 2. One upward movement will be personal to the present incumbents andthey will continue to held their present designations. 3. This will be applicable to posts maximum of which will not go beyondrs. 650-1200 including one upward movement. 4. The upward movement will be counted against the time bound promotionscheme if it is implemented. 5. No additional funds be provided by the UGC OR Govt. to Universities inthis regard. 6. Pay fixation will be in accordance with the fundamental Rules and no adhoc increases or advance increments will be allowed. 7. Universities will ensure that in future no step will be taken by them, whichmay lead to the creation of disparities of scales of pay either within auniversity or between Central Universities. 8. Urgent. steps are taken by the Joint Cadre Review Committee to proposeunifrom recruitment and promotional rules for all the Central Universities. The scale of Rs. 700-160. 0 from Rs. 550-900 in respect of certain categoriesof Professional Assistants fulfilling qualifications in this regard is personal tothe present incumbents. The recommendations of the Cadre Review Committees to abolish theselection grade isunder the consideration of the Commission and till suchtime a further communication is received, no fresh selection grades be givenfor any categories of posts in Central Universities. The receipt of this letter may kindly be acknowledged. " ( 14 ) IT is stated that the Scale of Rs. 700-1600 from Rs. 550-900 is personal to thepresent incumbents. The receipt of this letter may kindly be acknowledged. " ( 14 ) IT is stated that the Scale of Rs. 700-1600 from Rs. 550-900 is personal to thepresent incumbents. It has not been explained as to what University Grantscommission was trying to convey. On 4. 7. 1986 the Delhi University Professionalassistants Association wrote to the Chairman, Library Committee, Delhi Universitylibrary the following:- "please refer to your letter No. CO/51 dated 1/ 6/05/1986 addressed topro-vice Chancellor. We are thankful to you for recommending our case regarding theimplementation of upgraded scale to all existing incumbents irrespective ofthe newly revised qualifications. Sir, as you are aware the Executive Council vide its resolution No. 411 dated11. 12. 94 has made a policy to implement the upgraded scale to all existingincumbenits irrespective of their qualifications and to impose revisedqualifications for future recruitments. Further again the executive Council vide its resolution No. 688 and 689 dated8. 3. 1985 quoting the above resolutions implemented the upgraded scale toall existing incumbents irrespective of their qualifications and expenses. Sir, we urge that you may please take personal interest to bring our case inthe agenda of Executive Council can get this scale implemented at theearliest possible to all existing professional Assistants. Thanking you. " ( 15 ) ON 17/21. 7. 1986 the Chairman, Library Committee wrote to the Pro-Vicechancellor a detailed letter which reads as under: -. "kindly refer to my D. O. letter No. CO/51 dated 1/ 6/05/1986 (Copyenclosed Flag A) Sending therein the recommendation of the Librarycommittee for providing new grades (Rs. 700-1600. 00) to such Professionalassistants also who do not possess required qualifications. We have heard nothing from the University in this regard and there is a greatdeal of resentment in the cadre, I have also received a representation dated4. 7. 1986 from Delhi University Professional Assistants Association (DUPAA) (Copy enclosed, Flag "b" ). The DUPAA has given the following weightyarguments in support of the claim of Professional Assistants for the revisedgrades of Rs. 700-1600. 1. E. C. Resolution No. 411 dated 1. 12. 84 has made it a policy to implementthe upgraded scale to all existing incumbents irrespective of their qualificationsand to impose revised qualifications for future recruitments. 2. Keeping in view the above E. C. Resolution the E. C. Vide kits Resolutionno. 688 and 689 dated 8. 3. 85 implemented the upgraded sale to all existingincumbents irrespective of their qualifications and experience. 84 has made it a policy to implementthe upgraded scale to all existing incumbents irrespective of their qualificationsand to impose revised qualifications for future recruitments. 2. Keeping in view the above E. C. Resolution the E. C. Vide kits Resolutionno. 688 and 689 dated 8. 3. 85 implemented the upgraded sale to all existingincumbents irrespective of their qualifications and experience. (Copies of E. C. resolution No. 411 dated 1. 12. 84, 688 and 689 dated 8. 3. 85enclosed Flag C. D and E ). The Secretary, University Grants Commission vide his letter No. F. 1-159/84 (NP-1) dated 15th Feb. , 1985 (copy enclosed Flag F) conveyed the decisionof the Commission with regard to the rationalisation of pay scales subject tothe following:"1. In case of staff who fulfil the qualifications as prescribed by the Universitygrants Commission for these posts and have been selected through propertyconstituted selection committee, they may be placed in the rationalised scaleof pay as indicated above. 2. In case of staff who do not fulfil the qualifications as prescribed by theugc, they may be given the rationalised sales of pay only after the prescribedqualifications have been acquired by the incumbents and till such time theymay retain present scales of pay. "the above letter of the UGC was placed before the Executive Council at itsmeeting held on 8. 3. 1985 vide Appendix VIII and the E. C. decided thefollowing vide resolution No. 689 (Copy enclosed Flag e ):1. "the earlier letter from the Commission dated 12. 11. 1984 conveying therevised scales in respect of the above staff was reported to the E. C. videresolution No. 411 dated 1. 12. 1984. The E. C. had decided that pendingreceipt of revised qualifications and other details regarding the posts involved,from the UGC, the revised scales received be made effective in respect ofexisting incumbents working against these posts on regular/permanent basisand that the revised qualifications and other revised qualifications and otherdetails to be received from the UGC. if any. be made applicable for the futurerecruitment to these posts, in case the council decided to adopt such revisedqualifications, etc. The above decision of the Concil had already beennotified and implemented. "". . if any. be made applicable for the futurerecruitment to these posts, in case the council decided to adopt such revisedqualifications, etc. The above decision of the Concil had already beennotified and implemented. "". . The Council further resolved that the UGC be informed that the revisedqualifications as may be communicated by the Commission if accepted by theuniversity would be implemented for future recruitment"in view of the above it is very clear that there should not be any difficulty inextending the facility of the revised scale to the existing Professional Assistantsirrespective of their qualifications when the same has been provided to othercategories of the staff in the University. "i, therefore, request you to kindly direct the concerned office to implementthe above E. C. resolutions to extend the same facility to the Professionalassistants and other Library Staff as decided by the E. C. Resolutions quotedbelow again. Resolution 411 dated 1. 12. 84. ". . . It was further resolved that the revised qualifications if and when prescribedand adopted consequent to the revision of the scales of pay, be madeapplicable to future recruitments against the posts concerned. "resolution No. 688 dated 8. 3. 85. ". . . The Council resolved that as per the decision taken by the Executivecouncil on 1/12/1984, in other cases, the revised scales in respectof the existing incumbents be implemented with immediate effect and that therevised qualifications as may be communicated in future by the UGC ifaccepted by the University be implemented for the future incumbents. "resolution No. 689 dated 8. 3. 85. ". . . The council resolved that as per the decision taken by the Executivecouncil on 1/12/1984, in other cases, the revised scales in respectof the existing incumbents be implemented with immediate effect and that therevised qualifications as may be communicated in future by the UGC ifaccepted by the University be implemented for the future incumbents. "resolution No. 689 dated 8. 3. 85. ". . . The earlier letter from the Commission dated 12. 11. 1984 conveying therevised scales in respect of the above staff was reported to the E. C. videresolution No. 411 dated 1. 12. 1984. "resolution No. 689 dated 8. 3. 85. ". . . The earlier letter from the Commission dated 12. 11. 1984 conveying therevised scales in respect of the above staff was reported to the E. C. videresolution No. 411 dated 1. 12. 1984. The E. C. had decided that pendingreceipt of revised qualifications and other details regarding the posts involvedfrom the UGC THE REVISED SCALES RECEIVED BE MADE EFFECTIVE INRESPECT OF EXISTING INCUMBENTS WORKING AGAINST THESE POSTSON REGULR/permanent BASIS AND THAT THE REVISED QUALIFICATIONSAND OTHER DETAILS TO BE RECEIVED FROMTHE UGC, IF ANY, BEMORE APPLICABLE FOR FUTURE RECRUITMENT TO THESE POSTS, INCASE THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO ADOPT SUCH REVISED QUALIFICATIONS,etc. THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE COUNCIL HAD ALREADY BEENNOTIFIED AND IMPLEMENTED. " ". . . The Council further resolved that the University Grants Commission beinformed that the revised qualifications as may be communicated by thecommission if accepted by the University would be implemetned for futurerecruitment. "an early action will ease the situation and will be highly apreciated. With regards" ( 16 ) ON 13. 8. 1986 representation was made by the Association on behalf of Professorassistants. Nothing was done by the respondents. Therefore, on 8. 9. 1987 the writpetition was presented in this Court. ( 17 ) THE case of the petitioners is that the petitioners and respondents 3 to 6 wereappointed on the basis of the qualifications prescribed and were selected by acommon Selecting Body. A policy decision was taken by the Executive Council on1. 12. 1984 that whenever new qualifications are prescribed that would apply only tofuture recruits and revised scales of pay would be given to the incumbents in theposts. The respondents are entitled to describe scales of pay would be given, to theincumbents in the posts. The respondents are entitled to describe a qualification toany post but that would apply only to candidates who are to be appointed after theprescription of the qualification and with reference to the revision of scales of pay theincumbents would be entitled. The petitioners have stated that revision of scales ofpay had been done by the Central and State Governments in respect of theiremployees and the petitioners were on the scales of pay Rs. 550-900 fora long time. The petitioners have stated that applying the concept of equal pay for equal work there can be no discrimination in the pay scales between the petitioners andrespondents 3 to 6. On 23. 2. 550-900 fora long time. The petitioners have stated that applying the concept of equal pay for equal work there can be no discrimination in the pay scales between the petitioners andrespondents 3 to 6. On 23. 2. 1985 the second respondent University Grantscommission while recommending rationalisation of scales of pay stated that thescales of pay Rs. 700-1600 with reference to Professional Assistats would apply tothose possessing aditional qualifications which is violative of Articles 14 and 39 ofthe Constitution of India. When there had been common seniority of all the incumbentsin the posts and when all of them are fused into one category of clause grant them ahigher scales on the basis of securing first or second class is violative of thefundamental Rights of the petitioners. No doubt, it would be open to the respondentsto insist on qualifications for the future recruits. ( 18 ) ON 2. 2. 1989 the university filed its reply/counter to the writ petition. The Universitywas aware of the fact that with regard to putting the petitioenrs on higher scales wasunder the consideration of the Commission when the rationalisation of the pay scaleswas done. The University denied the claim of the petitioners that there has beenviolative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is stated in paragraph4 (vii) of the reply that the University Grants Commission had expressed the view thatthose of the Professional Assistants who were working in the pay scales of Rs. 550-900 who had completed 10 years of service could be put on the scales of Rs. 700-1600. It is stated in para 7:- "para 7 is denied. It is denied that the petitioners have been discriminated. Itis denied that the petitioners have been able to make out a case for the grantof the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition on the grounds set out in paras (A)to (E ). It is denied that to grant a pay scale personal to anyone is whollydiscriminatory, undemocratic of unreasonable. It is incorrect that the action ofrespondent No. 1 in giving effect to the recommendations of respondent No. 2 is capricious or violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thewrit petition is not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to any ofthe reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. " ( 19 ) ON 23. 4. It is incorrect that the action ofrespondent No. 1 in giving effect to the recommendations of respondent No. 2 is capricious or violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thewrit petition is not maintainable and the petitioners are not entitled to any ofthe reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. " ( 19 ) ON 23. 4. 1991 the petitioners filed an additional affidavit placing on record thecommunication that passed between the University Grants Commission and Universitythe resolution of the Executive Council passed in 1984. ( 20 ) ON 16. 5. 1991 the University Grants Commission (respondent No. 2) filed replyto the writ petition. In para 5, it is stated:- "as regards paragraph 5, the detailed facts leading to the filing of the saidwrit petition, peculiar to the petitioners, are not admitted for want of knowledge. It is submitted that the following is the history of how exactly the disputearose:the pay scales for University teaching staff are recommended from time totime by the UGC to the Government of India, Ministry of Human REsourcedevelopment and Government of India passed appropriate orders in regardto the pay scales applicable for different level of functionaries. For centraluniversities, of which Delhi University is one, these pay scales becomedirectly aplicable and for the Universities set up by the State Governmentsthe decision for applying the pay scales laid down by the Government of Indiais taken by each State Government concerned. The general pattern of postsin libraries in Central Universitis is that there are posts of Librarian and belowdeputy Librarian, Assistant Librarian, Professional Assistants and otherbelow them. Since the basic pay scales for the teaching faculty in a Universityis determined in the context of the formation of Professors, Readers andlecturers, equivalence of other teaching functionaries has to be determinedfor determining their pay scales within the over all framework. Accordingly,librarian in a Central University is equal to a Professor, Deputy Librarian isequal to a Reader and Assistant Librarian is equal to a Lecturer for purposesof pay scales. Professional Assistants have ben in the pay scales of Rs. 550-900 before 1980. By an order of 15. 12. 1982, the Government of Indiaprescribed the pay scale of Librarians in Colleges, including Librarians incolleges in the pay scale of 550-900 and 700-1600, which is also pay scalemade applicable to the Assistant Libarians in the Universities. Professional Assistants have ben in the pay scales of Rs. 550-900 before 1980. By an order of 15. 12. 1982, the Government of Indiaprescribed the pay scale of Librarians in Colleges, including Librarians incolleges in the pay scale of 550-900 and 700-1600, which is also pay scalemade applicable to the Assistant Libarians in the Universities. On the ground that Professional Assistants in Central universities should notbe treated below Assistant Librarians in Colleges in the pay scale 550-900, weregiven the pay soale of 700-1600, the pay scale 700-1600 was demanded forthe Professional Assistants. The UGC could not accept this because thiswould place Professional Assistants in a pay scale equal to that of Assistantlibrarian/lecturer in the University whereas Professional Assistants areclearly lower to the assistant Librarians in the Universities. On detailed consideration of the continued demands of the Library staff fromcentral Universities, the UGC decided to convey to the Unviersities on16. 3. 1985, that thoses Professional Assistants of the Central Universities inthe pay scale of 500-900 who fulfil the qualifications prescribed for the post ofassistant Librarians may be given the scale of 700-1600 w. e. f. 1. 4. 1985. While conveying this decision of the Commission, it was also conveyed thatrationalisation for those who do not have such qualifications was underconsideration of the Commission. This letter has already been annexed bythe petitioner as Annexure I of additional documents. The UGC considered this aspect on the basis of the recommendation madeby the joint meeting of the Cadre Review Committee for all the Centraluniversities andcommunicated to the Universities on 4. 6. 1987 that thoseprofessional Asistants who have put in at least 10 years of regular satisfactoryservice on 1. 4. 1985, may be given the pay scale of 700-1600 by relaxing therequirements of qualifications. The UGC further clarfied to all the Centraluniversities in 1989 that the pay scale of 700-1600 given to Professionalassistants by relaxing the norms would be personal to the persons concernedand it was clear in the circular of 16. 3. 1985 that even this dispensation was aone-time exercise. The said documet was filed in court on 8/04/1991. It is submitted that very clearly the post of Professional Assistant in a Centraluniversity is lower than that of the post of Assistant Librarian. 3. 1985 that even this dispensation was aone-time exercise. The said documet was filed in court on 8/04/1991. It is submitted that very clearly the post of Professional Assistant in a Centraluniversity is lower than that of the post of Assistant Librarian. The post ofassistant Librarian is equated for the purpose of pay scale to that of Lecturerand Tor these posts the pre-revised scales were 700-1600 which has beenrevised to 2200-4000 w. e. f. 1. 1. 1986. The Professional Assistants as acadre were clearly not entitled to this pay scale and the UGC or Governmentorders have at no stage specified the pre-revised pay scale of 700-1600 orprofessional Assistants as a cadre. It is only to alleviate the demand ofstagnation and to recognise higher attainment which is the avowed aim of theuniversity system. That benefit of 700-1600 has been extended to twocategories of Professional Assistants on wholly personal basis (a) theprofessional qualification as prescribed by the Government of India in thecontext of these pay scales (b) for those who have put in 10 years continuous,regular, satisfactory service. Also, relaxation of qualification for those whohave put in 10 years coninuous, regular, satisfactory service. Also, relaxationof qualification for those who have put in 10 years of continuous, regular,satisfactory service, is also not of a coninuous nature but only a one-timerelief given w. e. f. 1. 4. 1985. Thus, it is submitted that the UGC or Governmentof India have at no time laid down the pay scale of 700-1600 for Professionalassistants in Central Universities because this would create the impossiblesituation of their parity with their superior (Assistant Librarians/lecturers ). Itis also submitted that no specific or general representation regarding thedemands of the petitioners has been referred to the Commission or has beenunderconsideration of the Commission. " 20. The second respondent had justified its decision. ( 21 ) ON 29. 7. 1991 the University filed reply to the additional affidavit filed by thepetitioners. ( 22 ) ON 3. 4. 1991 the petitioners filed an additional affidavit placing on record a fewdocuments. ( 23 ) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioners Mr. M. N. Krishnamani submittedthat the petitioners and respondent 3 to 6 have been discharging the same functionsand they were all recruited on the basis of qualifications prescribed by the Universitygrants Commission. Applying the well settled Principles, the respondents are boundto give equal pay for equal work. ( 23 ) THE learned senior counsel for the petitioners Mr. M. N. Krishnamani submittedthat the petitioners and respondent 3 to 6 have been discharging the same functionsand they were all recruited on the basis of qualifications prescribed by the Universitygrants Commission. Applying the well settled Principles, the respondents are boundto give equal pay for equal work. The learned senior counsel submitted that it shall beopen to the respondents 1 and 2 to prescribe any qualification for the posts withreference to recruitments to be made but whatever rule that is made that cannot affectthe rights of the incumbents and it will not be open to the respondents 1 and 2 todiscriminate between the employees discharging the same duty on the ground ofsecuring first or second class in the qualification examination. That would comewithin the mischief of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Article 39 ofthe Constitution of India. The learned senior counsel submitted that on 13. 7. 1987 theuniversity of Delhi had written a letter to the Library. Delhi University Library Systemconveying the decision of the second respondent University Grants Commissionapproving of scales of pay 700-1600 for Professional Assistants who had completed10 years service as on 1. 4. 1985 despite they being not having secured first orsecond class, the qualifying examination. The second respondent had made furtherdiscrimination and this clearly shows that there had been no rationale behind thedecision taken by the University Grants Commission in respect of the Presentincumbents in the posts as on 1987. The learned senior counsel submitted that inparagraph 4 (v) the petitioners have said:-- " (V) The above discriminatory treatment is meted out only in respect of poorlibrarians. In the administrative side, for the posts of deputy Registrar etc. , thesame Commission had similarly recommended the higher qualifications viz. ,minimum of Pot Graduate qualifications. But there are deputy Registrars withmere Matriculation or degree qualifications. In their cases the additionalqualifications prescribed were treated as prospective to be applicable only tofuture appointees. Further 1st respondent University gave higher - pay scaleprescribed as in the instant case not only to those who possessed Highqualification to be appointed to those posts when they were first appointed. "( 24 ) THE learned senior counsel referred to the reply by the University wherein it isstated:- "para 4 (v) is wholly irrelevant insofar as the question of determination of theplea of the petitioners is concerned. "( 24 ) THE learned senior counsel referred to the reply by the University wherein it isstated:- "para 4 (v) is wholly irrelevant insofar as the question of determination of theplea of the petitioners is concerned. " ( 25 ) THE learned senior counsel submitted that in respect of other posts like Dy. Registrars etc. , the second respondent University Grants Commission had approvedof the payment of revised scales of pay but did not insist on in first and second classfor the incumbents. The learned senior counsel submitted that the decision of therespondents 1 to 2 to deprive the petitioners the scale of Rs. 700-1600 is clearlydiscriminatory and it runs counter to the dictum,laid down by the Supreme Court invarious rulings dealing with the aspect of equal pay for equal work . The learnedsenior counsel vehemently submitted that the University Grants Commission- hadcompletely misunderstood its decision with reference to revision of scales of pay andits power to prescribe higher qualification for the incumbents. The learned Seniorcounsel submitted bringing about a difference between the scales of pay for theincumbents putting them in two separate categories on the basis of first or secondclass secured in the qualifying examination is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 ofthe Constitution of India. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel Mr. S. K. Luthra, who appeared for the first respondentdelhi University, submitted that the decision of the respondents 1 and 2 cannot bechallenged by the petitioners. The learned counsel submitted that so long as thepetitioners are not deprived of the existing scale of pay and there is no reduction inrank or anything affecting their service conditions cannot have any grievance in law ifhigher scales is given to persons who had secured first or second class. The learnedcounsel for the parties relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported insahib Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others, 1995 0 AIR (SCW) 1780 There theappellant before the Supreme Court was a Librarian in a Government College on thepay scales of Rs. 220-550. The Haryana Government on the strength of therecommendations of the Govt. of India and University Grants Commission upgradedthe pay scales from 220-550 to 700-1600 if they possess minimum qualification offirst or second class. The Government of India by order dated 16. 1. 1987 consideringthe representations made by several Librarians relaxed the requirements of securingfirst or second class. 220-550. The Haryana Government on the strength of therecommendations of the Govt. of India and University Grants Commission upgradedthe pay scales from 220-550 to 700-1600 if they possess minimum qualification offirst or second class. The Government of India by order dated 16. 1. 1987 consideringthe representations made by several Librarians relaxed the requirements of securingfirst or second class. The order passed by the Government of India reads as under- "it has now been decided, on the recommendation of the UGC, that theexisting incumbents of the posts of Librarians in College who have beenappointed to these Posts on or before 31. 12. 1972 may be sanctioned theupgraded scale of Rs. 700-1600 in relaxation of the qualification prescribedin Annexure-I referred to above without insisting on a first or second class inthe degree, diploma or other prescribed educational qualification. " ( 27 ) THE appellant before the Supreme Court was appointed only on 29. 7. 1972. Thegovt. of India had granted the scale of Rs. 700-1600 to those who had been appointedbefore 13. 12. 1972. The Principal of the College, where the appellant before thesupreme Court was working, allowed him to be on the revised pay scale. Thegovernment of Haryana directed the Principal to withdraw the revised scale ofrs. 700-1600 on the ground that the appellant before the Supreme Court did notpossess the required educational qualifications. The Supreme Court noticing thisfact upheld the order of the Government of Haryana. The Supreme Court whiledeciding the issue held that Principal of the College Committed an error in grantingrelaxation without appreciating the scope of the orders passed by the Govt. of India. The Supreme Court made a passing reference observing "the principle of equal payfor equal work would not apply to the scales of pay prescribed by the Universitygrants Commission. " ( 28 ) THIS has to be appreciated in the context of the factual position that the appellantsdid not possess the required qualifications. Therefore, this decision is no authority forthe position that he respondent 1 and 2 could deny the revised scales of pay to thepetitioners who were appointed on the basis of their satisfying the required qualificationunder the Rules. ( 29 ) NO argument was advanced by the learned counsel of the parties with referenceto the redesignation of respondents 3 to 6 as that would have only a consequentialeffect on te revision of scales of pay. ( 29 ) NO argument was advanced by the learned counsel of the parties with referenceto the redesignation of respondents 3 to 6 as that would have only a consequentialeffect on te revision of scales of pay. ( 30 ) ON well settled principles, the decision taken by the respondents 1 and 2 indepriving the petitioners the scales of pay to Rs. 700-1600 can not at all be sustained. The petitioners were appointed when they found that they satisfied the requisitequalifications and the decision to give a higher scale of pay only to those personswho were appointed on the basis of the qualifications prescribed at the time ofissuing appointment and who had secured first or second class is contrary to theprinciples of equal pay for equal work . The respondents 1 and 2 had given higherscales of pay for those who are working as deputy Registrars and in other posts in theuniversity. Therefore, the petitioners have made out a case for issuance of mandamusand the obligations of the respondents 1 and 2 to follow the well settled principles. ( 31 ) ACCORDINGLY, the respondents are directed to grant the pay scale to the petitionersof Rs. 700-1600 w. e. f. 1. 4. 1985, as was given to respondents 3 to 6 and shall grantpay scales revised subsequently. The respondents 1 and 2 shall keep the arrears in theprovident Fund Account of the petitioners and for future w. e. f. 1. 5. 2000 the respondents1. and 2 shall pay the full pay on the present scale of pay aplicable to the posts held bythem. ( 32 ) THE writ petition stands allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order asto costs.