Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 746 (DEL)

SUDHA BEDI v. UNION OF INDIA

2002-05-18

A.K.SIKRI, S.B.SINHA

body2002
S. B. SINHA ( 1 ) WHETHER an assistant Librarian working in the College of arts is entitled to the same scale of pay paid to the assistant Librarian working in the Polytechnics is the question involved in this writ petition. ( 2 ) THE applicant was employed as assistant Librarian in the college of Arts. The Human Resource Development of the government of India created various posts from time to time in terms whereof posts of Assistant Librarian had been upgraded to the post of librarian and placed in higher scale of pay. The petitioner prayed that he be placed in the scale of pay of Rs. 1,400/- Rs. 2,600/ -. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that the Fourth Central Pay Commission (in short, iv Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ) did not consider the matter. ( 4 ) THE learned Tribunal by reason of the impugned judgment declined to grant any relief to the petitioner only on the ground that the fixation of pay-scale of assistant Librarians would depend upon the size of library of the College of Arts or in the Polytechnic. THE IV Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in para 11. 63 stated as under :- "11. 63 There are difficulties in re- classifying the posts of librarians and specifying their qualifications and recruitment levels. The pay scales, qualifications and, recruitment levels of responsibility will really depend on several factors, mainly on the size of the library, its character and importance. To draw up suitable proposals in this regard a committee may be constituted to undertake this work. Pending such a review by the committee, we recommend that librarians and library staff may be given the revised scales of pay proposed in Chapter 8. " ( 5 ) MR. Venkataramani, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the relevant documents, although were directed to be produced, had not been produced before the Tribunal. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said findings are wrong that the Report of the Committee had not been produced. ( 7 ) THE learned Tribunal in its impugned judgment held that the petitioner would be entitled to the scale of pay, as recommended by the Committee, which was constituted pursuant to the direction of the IV Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ( 7 ) THE learned Tribunal in its impugned judgment held that the petitioner would be entitled to the scale of pay, as recommended by the Committee, which was constituted pursuant to the direction of the IV Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ( 8 ) FROM the Order Sheets dated 16. 10. 2000 and 30. 10. 2000 passed by the learned Tribunal and as contained in annexure p-16 and p-17 , it does not appear that the recommendations of the Committee constituted by the IV code of Civil Procedure, 1908 were produced before the learned Tribunal. ( 9 ) THE applicant inter alia contended in the said original application by filing two Miscellaneous Applications that pursuant to the recommendations of the Committee, the scales of pay had been revised as regard counterparts of the applicants working in similar organisations. ( 10 ) RECOMMENDATIONS as regards pay-scale of librarians are as under:- ( 11 ) IT is not in dispute that the principles of equal pay for equal work in terms of Article 39 (d) read with Article 14 of the constitution of India (in short, the Constitution ) would be attracted provided the concerned employees are similarly situated. ( 12 ) FURTHERMORE, it appears that the learned Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the case for grant of the said scale of pay was not recommended by the IV Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. However, in para 4 (ii) of their counter affidavit, it was stated as under :- "4 (II) In reply to this para it is submitted that the applicant is a Graduate with Diploma in library Science. The post of Asstt. Librarian in college of Arts was not dealt with by IIIrd Pay commission or by IVth Pay Commission and hence, the applicant cannot claim the scale of rs. 1400-2600 on the basis of recommendation because replacement scale of Rs. 1200-2050 has already been given as per recommendation of the IIIrd Pay Commission. " ( 13 ) IN that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal must be held to be wrong inasmuch as it proceeded on a wrong premise, particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner in his reply to the preliminary objections categorically stated that the qualifications of assistant Librarian of the polytechnics as also the qualification of assistant Librarian in the College of Arts are similar. ( 14 ) IT has further been stated that the petitioner had been working in the Library of Post-Graduate College, which has international recognition and is affiliated to the University of delhi. The said Library consists of thousands of rare books, which are not only costly, but also technical in nature. ( 15 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, her duties and functions are much arduous than the assistant Librarian of a polytechnic. Keeping in view the fact that the Report of the committee had not been produced before the learned tribunal and furthermore as admittedly the case of the petitioner had not been considered either by the Third central Pay Commission or the IV Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 , we are of the opinion that the Tribunal committed a manifest error in dismissing the said original application. IT may be that it could not have decided the matter itself, but, it ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the respondents herein for non-production of the Report of the committee, which was constituted in terms of the directions of the IV Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Report of the Committee was very relevant. The respondents being a model employer could not have withheld the same. ( 16 ) IN that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned judgment of the Tribunal cannot be sustained, which is set aside accordingly. This writ petition is allowed. ( 17 ) THE respondents are thereby directed to make the necessary job of evaluation of the assistant Librarian in College of arts vis-a-vis assistant Librarian in the Polytechnic and take an appropriate decision. Such decision must be taken at an early date and not later than three months from the date of the communication of this order. KEEPING in view the fact that the respondent had not produced the relevant records before the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the petitioner herein is also entitled to costs, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/ -. ( 18 ) THIS writ petition is accordingly allowed.