Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 564 (HP)

MADAN LAL TOMAR v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2010-03-22

RAJIV SHARMA

body2010
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.(Oral)-Material facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that Assistant Librarians employed in the Department of Education challenged office order dated 7.7.1981 whereby only senior most Assistant Librarians were held entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 from the date shown against each official. Case of Assistant Librarians, in a nutshell, was that they had been discharging same and similar duties, which were being discharged by the senior most Assistant Librarians. Their grievance was not addressed to. They filed CWP No. 246/81, 116/82, 196/81 and 189/79 for redressal of their grievance. These petitions were transferred to the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and registered as TA-543/86, TA-554/86, TA-324/86 and TA-320, respectively. State admitted in the reply filed on 20.4.1982 that the Assistant Librarians of the Colleges/Schools/Public Libraries and Community Centre Libraries comprise a single category and cadre of all the Assistant Librarians was common. The question, which fell for determination before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, was whether the State was justified in granting the revised pay scale of Rs. 300-600 to only few Assistant Librarians on the basis of seniority when there was only one cadre of Schools/Colleges and other Public Libraries maintained by the Department. Learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal allowed these original applications on 26.7.1993. The operative portion of judgment dated 26.7.1993 reads thus: “Following the ratio of the above judgments, we direct the respondents to revise the pay scale of the applicants and other similarly situate Assistant Librarians in Schools/Colleges/Public Libraries and Community Centre Libraries under the Himachal Pradesh Education Department to Rs.300-600 in consonance with the Office order dated July 7, 1981 Annexure PB, within a period of two months and they be allowed all further consequential benefits to which they are found entitled subsequently consequent upon this revised pay scale. We further direct that the arrears found due and payable as a result of such revision be paid to them within a period of three months after such revision.” 2. In sequel to the judgment rendered by the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, State issued letter dated 16.6.1994. Pay scale of Rs. 300-600 has been released as per letter dated 16.6.1994 only “to the Senior Assistant Librarians of the Department as a measure personal to the existing incumbents”. Petitioners are aggrieved by the insertion of this condition. 3. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar and Mr. Pay scale of Rs. 300-600 has been released as per letter dated 16.6.1994 only “to the Senior Assistant Librarians of the Department as a measure personal to the existing incumbents”. Petitioners are aggrieved by the insertion of this condition. 3. Mr. K.D. Shreedhar and Mr. P.P. Chauhan have vehemently argued that the judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid original applications was “in rem” and not “in personam”. In other words, they also contended that the imposition of rider in the notification dated 16.6.1994 is contrary to letter and spirit of the judgment dated 26.7.1993. 4. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, learned Additional Advocate General has supported the issuance of letter dated 16.6.1994. 5. A bare perusal of judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal on 26.7.1993 reveals that the Tribunal has directed the respondent-State to revise the pay scale of the applicants arrayed therein and other similar situate Assistant Librarians in School/Colleges/School Community under the Himachal Pradesh Education class-III (Technical) Services to Rs. 300-600 in conformity with order July 7.7.1981. However, respondent (State) has incorporated the condition by confining this relief only to Senior Assistant Librarians of the Department as a measure personal to the existing incumbents. This condition was never visualized in the judgment dated 26.7.1993. Rather it was not open to the respondent-State to overreach the judgment dated 26.7.1993. The judgment, as per its contents, has been rendered “in rem” and not “in personam”. Stand of the respondent-State that the higher pay scale was payable only to the Senior Assistant Librarians is contrary to judgment. The judgment only talks about the Assistant Librarians and not Senior Assistant Librarians as being projected vide notification dated 16.6.1993. Petitioners are discharging same and similar duties, which are being discharged by other Assistant Librarians and they cannot be denied the benefit of the judgment only on the purported ground that they were appointed after 31.10.1966. All the Assistant Librarians constitute a homogeneous class. It could not be further divided by the respondent-State merely on the ground of date of appointment. The ground, which has been taken in the reply to this petition by the State was never urged and argued before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at the time of hearing of the petitions mentioned hereinabove. It could not be further divided by the respondent-State merely on the ground of date of appointment. The ground, which has been taken in the reply to this petition by the State was never urged and argued before the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at the time of hearing of the petitions mentioned hereinabove. There is a common seniority list of all the Assistant Librarians as per Annexure A-4 dated 29.9.1997 and the conditions of service are regulated under the Himachal Pradesh Education Class-III (Technical) Services notified on 24.12.1973. In view of this, all the Assistant Librarians are entitled to higher pay scale of Rs. 300-600 revised from time to time irrespective of their date of appointments. The action of the respondents of granting the relief to Senior Assistant Librarians of the Department as a measure personal to the existing incumbents is declared illegal and arbitrary. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Annexure A-2 dated 16.6.1994 is quashed and set aside only to the extent whereby the relief has been confined only to Senior Assistant Librarians of the Education Department as a measures personal to the existing incumbents after applying the principle of severalty. In other words, respondents are directed to implement the judgment dated 26.7.1993 in letter and spirit by granting pay scale of Rs. 300-600 to the petitioners and similarly situate persons within a period of ten weeks from today and they are also held entitled to revision of pay scales effected from time to time. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.