Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 707 (RAJ)

Bhawani Singh Rathore v. State of Rajasthan

2020-12-01

I.MAHANTY, PRAKASH GUPTA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Prakash Gupta, J. Reportable: 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with prayer to direct the respondents to grant pay scale of Rs. 15,600-39,100 in PB-3 with grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- in Pay Matrix L-14 from the date of his promotion as Librarian on 9.8.2018. It has further been prayed to declare Entry No. 18 under the Heading Courts [(a) Rajasthan High Court], Schedule-II (Rule 6) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 and sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, as ultra-vires and de-hors the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Library Restorer at Rajasthan high Court, Jaipur Bench vide order dated 01.10.2002. His service was regularized on the post of Library Restorer w.e.f. 10.10.2002. On 5.6.2007, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Cataloguer-cum-Classifier and was subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant Librarian on 30.9.2013 and on 9.8.2018, he was promoted to the post of Librarian. 3. The case of the petitioner is that the pay scale of the post of Librarian in the Rajasthan High Court as per Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 is Rs. 9,300-34,800 in PB 2 with grade pay of Rs. 4,200/- (Pay Matrix L-11), whereas the pay scale of the Librarians working in Government Secretariat, HCM Rajasthan State Institute of Public Administration as also in Lokayukta, is Rs. 15,600-39,100 in PB-3 with grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- (Pay Matrix L-14). As per Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service Staff) Rules, 1953, [which although has now been repealed by the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules of 2002 {hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2002'}], the pay scales of the post of Librarian of Rajasthan High Court and Government Secretariat was kept at par. As per Schedule-II of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, post of Librarian in the High Court was equated with the corresponding post in the Government Secretariat for the purpose of pay scales. It so happened that vide letter dated 23.4.1994, post of Librarian was upgraded as Sr. Librarian w.e.f. 1.4.1994, as a result of which existing post of Librarian was abolished. It so happened that vide letter dated 23.4.1994, post of Librarian was upgraded as Sr. Librarian w.e.f. 1.4.1994, as a result of which existing post of Librarian was abolished. Subsequently vide letter dated 16.6.1998, two posts of Librarian were sanctioned by the State Government for Rajasthan High Court in the pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000. This was for the first time that the pay scale of the post of Librarian in the High Court was lowered down and they were given the pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9000 instead of Rs. 8000-13,500, as was being given to Librarians working in Government Secretariat at the relevant point of time. Thereafter, on 28.6.2018, one more post of Librarian in the High Court was sanctioned by the State Government in the pay scale of Rs. 9,300-34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- (Pay Matrix L-11) i.e. the erstwhile pay scale of Rs. 5,500-9000. In this way, till 1994 parity was maintained in the pay scales of the post of Librarian of Rajasthan High Court with that of Librarian in Government Secretariat. 4. One Rajendra Bhandari working as Librarian in Rajasthan, Jodhpur (who subsequently retired on attaining the age of superannuation), had filed a representation on 26.5.2009 claiming parity in the pay scale of the post of Librarian in the Rajasthan High Court with that of Librarians working in the Government Secretariat. On 27.7.2012, the matter was sent to the Government by the Rajasthan High Court for removal of anomaly in the pay scales of Librarian and Assistant Librarian and in response thereto, Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department vide his letter dated 13.8.2013 conveyed that the educational qualification and recruitment process for filling up the post of Dy. Librarian (erstwhile Assistant Librarian) in the Government Secretariat and the Assistant Librarian in the Rajasthan High Court, are not the same and therefore, there was no justification for equivalence in the running pay bands and grade pays of Assistant Librarians and Librarian working in the High Court with that of Dy. Librarian (erstwhile Asstt. Librarian) and Librarian working in Government Secretariat. It was however made clear that if the recruitment process and educational qualifications for Assistant Librarians and Librarians in High Court was equalized with that of Dy. Librarian (erstwhile Asstt. Librarian (erstwhile Asstt. Librarian) and Librarian working in Government Secretariat. It was however made clear that if the recruitment process and educational qualifications for Assistant Librarians and Librarians in High Court was equalized with that of Dy. Librarian (erstwhile Asstt. Librarian) and Librarian in the Government Secretariat, then the matter could be considered for equivalence of the running pay bands of the Assistant Librarians and Librarians of the High Court with that of those working in Government Secretariat. 5. Subsequently, vide Gazette Notification dated 30th March, 2018, an amendment was made to clause (22) of Part IV of the Rules of 2002, which reads as under: "22. Reference Assistant and Library Restorers: - The selection on the posts of Library Restorer and Reference Assistant shall be made through direct recruitment by Competitive Examination. Qualifications: Candidate must possess degree of Graduation and Bachelor of Library Science from any University established by law in India or equivalent examination from any University recognized by the Government." 6. Thus, before 30.3.2018, qualification for direct recruitment at entry level for the post i.e. Library Restorer/Reference Assistant in the High Court was Graduation and personal interview, which after the above-mentioned amendment became Graduation and Bachelor Degree in Library Science and Written Test. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having the educational qualification of B.Sc., MLIS (Master of Library & Information Science) & LL.B. The petitioner having the requisite educational qualification and having been promoted on the post Librarian on 9.8.2018, submitted a representation on 25.8.2018, claiming equivalence in the pay scale and grade pay, with that of Librarians working in Government Secretariat, which was ordered to be filed (consigned to record) by Rajasthan High Court vide order dated 27.9.2018. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the work which is being performed by Librarians at the High Court Secretariat requires greater responsibility with their counterparts working in the Government Secretariat. He further submits that as per Schedule-II of the Rules of 2002, at Sr. No. 4 (Annex.-7), post of Librarian in the High Court has been equated with Librarian of the Government Secretariat for the purposes of pay scales. Further, even as per Sr. No. 3 of Schedule-II appended to the Rules of 1953, (now repealed) (Annex.-8), post of Librarian in the High Court was equated with that of Librarian in Government Secretariat for the purpose of pay scales. Further, even as per Sr. No. 3 of Schedule-II appended to the Rules of 1953, (now repealed) (Annex.-8), post of Librarian in the High Court was equated with that of Librarian in Government Secretariat for the purpose of pay scales. He further submits that in view of the fact that the Librarians working in the High Court as well as in the Government Secretariat are having the same educational qualifications as also the fact that the petitioner is having more experience than his counterparts in the Government Secretariat and also taking into consideration the nature of duties and responsibilities being discharged by the Librarian in the High Court, there should not be any disparity in the pay scales given to Librarians working in the Rajasthan High Court and pay scales of Librarians working in Government Secretariat. On account of this disparity, the rights of the petitioner guaranteed under Articles 14, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India, have been infringed and therefore, the pay scale and grade pay of the post of Librarian in the Rajasthan High Court should be equated with the pay scale and grade pay of Librarians in aforesaid departments. 9. Learned counsel further submits that under Part-IV of the Rules of 2002, which deals with Library Staff, a person is required to have 9 years experience on subordinate posts for promotion on the post of Librarian in the High Court. Prior to 8.5.2017, for promotion from the post of Cataloguer-cum-Classifier to Assistant Librarian, minimum 5 years experience was required. Therefore, the petitioner having 11 years (3 years on the post of Library Restorer + 5 years on the post of Cataloguer cum classifier + 3 years on the post of Assistant Librarian) experience on subordinate posts, was promoted to the post of Librarian, which is more than the required experience under the Rules of 2002, (since as per the extant rules the minimum requirement for promotion to the post of Librarian under the Rules is 9 years), whereas in Government Secretariat, a person having 10 years experience on subordinate posts, gets promoted on the post of Librarian. In total, the petitioner has 16 year's experience on subordinate posts i.e. 5 years experience on the post of Library Restorer (i.e. from 2002 to 2007), 6 years experience on the post of Cataloguer-cum-Classifier (i.e. from 2007 to 2013), and 5 years experience on the post of Assistant Librarian (i.e. from 2013 to 2018). 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner also took us to the proceedings of the Conference of Chief Justices of all the High Courts held in the year 1962 under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble the then Chief Justice of India, wherein it was unanimously resolved that "same principles should be applied to the employees of the High Court vis-a-vis. the corresponding State Secretariat". He further submits that except the pay scale of Librarian of the High Court, all posts shown in Schedule-II of the Rules of 2002, have the pay scales equivalent to corresponding posts in the Government Secretariat. 11. Counsel further submits that despite the fact that High Court Librarians have to keep and maintain a record of about 2,66,000/- books and also have to subscribe every year about 91 and 97 Indian Law Journals and Foreign Law Journals respectively as opposed to Govt. Secretariat Librarians, who have to keep and maintain a record of about 55,000/- books and in Governor's Secretariat as also Lokayukta, who has to keep and maintain record of about 20,000 and 4,000 books respectively, the pay scale of Librarians working in High Court is still lower than their counterparts. He further submits that in addition to above, High Court Library has a Legal Database/Online Resource based library, where only Supreme Court Cases (CD-ROM), AIR Infotech Database (CD-ROM), Manupatra Case Finder, Supreme Today, Law Finder etc. 12. Learned counsel further submits that after filing (consigned to record) the petitioner's representation dated 25.8.2018, he filed the instant writ petition before this Court. The respondents have put in appearance and filed the reply. Rejoinder was also filed. Subsequently, the matter was listed before the Court on 17.2.2020. On the said date, the petitioner was asked to file a fresh representation to the respondents pointing out his grievance. Pursuant thereto, on 18.2.2020, the petitioner submitted another representation, which was forwarded to the Government by the High Court on 17.3.2020. The said representation was rejected by the Dy. Subsequently, the matter was listed before the Court on 17.2.2020. On the said date, the petitioner was asked to file a fresh representation to the respondents pointing out his grievance. Pursuant thereto, on 18.2.2020, the petitioner submitted another representation, which was forwarded to the Government by the High Court on 17.3.2020. The said representation was rejected by the Dy. Secretary, Finance Department vide note sheet dated 30.4.2020 on the very same ground that the mode of recruitment/promotion and minimum qualification prescribed for the post of Librarian in High Court as well as in Government Secretariat are not similar. The said note sheet/order was communicated to the High Court by Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs vide his letter dated 7.5.2020. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 8.7.2020 when the matter was listed before the Court, the learned Advocate General was asked by this Court to search out any means to settle the matter. On that basis, the matter was reconsidered by the Government and vide note sheet dated 20.8.2020, it was opined by the Deputy Secretary, Finance Department that the pay scale of Librarian of High Court cannot be revised/cannot be made equal to the pay scale of Librarian of Government Secretariat for the reason that the mode of recruitment and promotional channels and minimum qualifications prescribed for the two posts are not similar. The said note sheet was sent by the Principal Secretary, Law and Legal Affairs Department to the office of Government Advocate vide letter dated 25.8.2020. 14. Learned counsel further submits that prior to substitution of sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002, posts shown in Schedule-II of the Rules of 2002 were equated with corresponding posts in the Government Secretariat for the purpose of pay scales. Corresponding posts shown in Schedule-II of the Rules 2002 were thus kept at par for the purpose of pay scales with the Government Secretariat employees. 15. Learned counsel submits that in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 229 (2) of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court made the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2002') regulating the recruitment and other conditions of service of the employees serving in the establishment i.e. Rajasthan High Court. Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 deals with Pay. 16. Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 deals with Pay. 16. Rule 21(2) of the Rules of 2002 prior to 1.5.2013 read as thus: (1) ...... (2) The post shown in Schedule-II to these rules have been equated with the Government of Rajasthan Secretariat posts shown against them and the pay scales applicable to the equivalent posts and the orders regarding fixation in such pay scales issued from time to time by the Government shall be applicable to the corresponding High Court posts by an order of the Chief Justice. 17. However, on 1.5.2013, Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 was amended and sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 was substituted, as under: (1)... (2) Except for the grade pay and pay band, the posts shown in Schedule II to these rules have been equated with the Government of Rajasthan Secretariat posts shown against them for the purpose of special pay and other benefits. Orders as may be issued by the Government from time to time as regards special pay and other benefits, as applicable to the equivalent Secretariat posts, shall be applicable to the corresponding posts in the High Court. 18. He submits that from a clear and plain reading of sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002, it would be clear that while substituting sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002, the words "except for the grade pay and pay band" were not construed in the right perspective. 19. Learned counsel further submits that the Rajasthan High Court Non Gazetted Ministerial Staff Association had filed a writ petition which came to be numbers as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8002/1992 titled Rajasthan High Court Non Gazetted Staff Association & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1996 (1) WLC 643 , which was allowed vide order dated 14.3.1996 and directions were issued to the respondents to bring about parity in the pay scales, as prayed and felt desirable. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the State preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 494 of 1996 titled State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Rajasthan High Court Non Gazetted Ministerial Staff Association & Ors. reported in : 2002 (3) WLC 379 (Raj.), which was decided vide judgment dated 30.5.2002. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, the State preferred D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 494 of 1996 titled State of Rajasthan & Ors. Versus Rajasthan High Court Non Gazetted Ministerial Staff Association & Ors. reported in : 2002 (3) WLC 379 (Raj.), which was decided vide judgment dated 30.5.2002. Vide order/judgment dated 30.05.2002, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that looking to the fact that High Court employees were performing duties more onerous, in the interest of justice, the pay scales of such employees be stepped up by giving one step higher pay scales to the employees of the High Court. Further, the Coordinate Bench also directed that necessary amendment be carried out in the rules. Against the said judgment passed by the Division Bench, the State Government filed Civil Appeal No.(s) 3806/2003, which was decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 12.1.2010. Although the Hon'ble Apex Court set-aside the judgment passed by the Division Bench, it was observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the High Court could no doubt make recommendations to the Government for giving various benefits to its employees but it was for the Government to accept or not to accept the said recommendations. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a meeting of three Judges Committee was held on 6.2.2014, which considered the matter with regard to upgrading the pay scales of the staff of Rajasthan High Court while keeping their pays higher as compared to the pays given to staff of the State Government and after due deliberations and more particularly taking into consideration the nature of job/duties in the High Court and the extant Rule 21 of the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, the Committee was of the view that a fresh proposal, as suggested by the Registry of the High Court for up-gradation might/should be accepted and it was accordingly resolved. The said recommendation was accepted by the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court and the matter was directed to be sent to the Government. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the State Government on 07.02.2014. 21. The said recommendation was accepted by the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court and the matter was directed to be sent to the Government. Accordingly, the matter was referred to the State Government on 07.02.2014. 21. In this way, the intention of the rule making authority while amending sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 and inserting the words "except pay band and grade pay" was to grant higher grade pay and pay scale to the employees working in the High Court as compared to the employees of Government Secretariat. 22. He further submits that the petitioner while being promoted to the post of Librarian, has been placed at a pay scale lower to what is being given to Librarians in Government Secretariat. Learned counsel thus submitted that the said sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 be declared ultra-vires since the same is violative of petitioners' fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 23. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention towards Article 229 of the Constitution of India which reads as under: 229. Officers and Servants and the expenses of High Courts.- (1) Appointments of Officers and servants of a High Court shall be made by the Chief Justice of the Court or such other Judge or Officer of the Court as he may direct: Provided that the Governor of the State may by rule require that in such case as may be specified in the rule no person not already attached to the Court shall be appointed to any office connected with the Court save after consultation with the stat Public Service Commission. (2) Subject to the provisions of any law made by the Legislature of the State, the conditions of service of officers and servants of a High Court shall be such as may be prescribed by rules made by the Chief Justice of the Court or by some other Judge or Officer of the Court authorized by the Chief Justice to make rules for the purpose.: Provided that the rules made under this clause shall, so far as they relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the Governor of the State. (3) That administrative expenses of a High Court including all salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of the officers and servants of the Court shall be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the State, and any fees or other moneys taken by the Court shall form part of that Fund. 24. He further submits that powers of the Chief Justice of High Court under Article 229 of the Constitution of India are discretionary in nature. He submits that Article 229 confers exclusive power upon the Chief Justice not only in matters regarding appointments, but also with regard to prescribing the conditions of service of the officers and servants of the High Court. Learned counsel relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in; AIR 1990 SC 334 to contend that the request made by the Chief Justice of a High Court of a State would be looked upon by the Governor and unless there is very good reason for not granting the approval, the approval should always be granted. If the Governor of the State is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightaway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the Governor of the State and the Chief Justice of the State. In other words, the recommendations made by the Chief Justice of the State with regard to salaries, allowances, leave or pension in all fairness be accepted by the Government. 25. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Hon'ble Chief Justice had recommended the case of the petitioner for parity in pay band, State is bound to implement the recommendations. 26. He has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of S.K. Ghosh and Ors. Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in: 1985 (1) WLN 65 and Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala High Court Non-Graduate Staff Association and Ors. Versus The State of Kerala & Ors. to contend that treating same/similar categories of posts in the High Court and Secretariat differently is discriminatory. 27. Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in: 1985 (1) WLN 65 and Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala High Court Non-Graduate Staff Association and Ors. Versus The State of Kerala & Ors. to contend that treating same/similar categories of posts in the High Court and Secretariat differently is discriminatory. 27. He further submits that the nature of work performed by the librarian in the Court is best known to the Court and not to the Govt. and when a recommendation is made by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice to the effect that the work performed by an employee in Court is same/similar to that of the persons similarly placed in the Govt. Secretariat, the pay scales of the two posts should be identical. It is not permissible for the Govt. to disregard the recommendations and have a persistently contrary view. Such an action of the Govt. is wholly impermissible having regard to the object of Article 229 of the Constitution of India. 28. He further submits that in the case of S.K. Ghosh (supra), the controversy was with respect to pay scale of the Private Secretaries working in the High Court with that of those working in Government Secretariat. The said writ petition was allowed vide judgment dated 16.11.1984 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding that the action of the State to depart from parity with employees of the State Government despite a proposal made by the Chief Justice was arbitrary. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that similar controversy with regard to discrimination in the pay scales of the Librarians working at the Rajasthan High Court vis-a-vis. the Librarians working in the Government Secretariat arose before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ghan Shyam Charan Versus High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur & Ors. reported in : RLW 1988 (1) Raj. 13. In the aforesaid case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court having found that the pay scales of Librarians working in Government Secretariat and Librarians of the High Court was not at par, held it to be a case of apparent discrimination. Accordingly, the Librarian of Rajasthan High Court at the relevant point of time was directed to be in the pay scale of Rs. 375-850, with effect from 01.01.1970. Accordingly, the Librarian of Rajasthan High Court at the relevant point of time was directed to be in the pay scale of Rs. 375-850, with effect from 01.01.1970. No appeal was filed by the State Government against the said judgment passed in the case of Ghan Shyam Charan (supra) and since the said judgment was complied with, it attained finality. He submits that when a similar controversy has already been put to rest, the respondents are bound to ensure uniformity in the pay scales. 30. Learned counsel further drew the attention of the Court towards the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh Versus Union of India & Ors. reported in : (1982) 1 Supreme Court Cases 618, where it was held that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the courts, but where all things are equal i.e., where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts should not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Learned counsel submits that in this view of the matter, there should be equal pay for equal work. This stand has been recognized by all the previous Pay Commissions and Pay Equalization Committees. Equal pay for equal work is implicit in the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14. He also referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Chand Somchand Shah and Another Versus Union if India and another reported in (1991) 2 Supreme Court Cases 48, wherein it was held that right to equality guaranteed under Article 14 ensures equality amongst equals and its aim is to protect persons similarly placed against discriminatory treatment. It means that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Even amongst persons similarly situated differential treatment would be permissible between one class and the other. In that event, it is necessary that the differential treatment should be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved. 31. In that event, it is necessary that the differential treatment should be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved. 31. Learned counsel for the petitioner further drew the attention of the Court towards the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Govt. of AP and Another Versus P. Hari Hara Prasad and others reported in (2002) 7 Supreme Court Cases 707. In that case, the employees of the subordinate Courts and the employees of the A.P. High Court claimed parity in the pay scale with the employees of Govt. Secretariat. The Division Bench of the AP High Court held that the posts of LDCs and Typists in the High Court Service or in the Judicial Ministerial Service and in the Secretariat Service were not only identical, but also involved the performance of same nature of duties and therefore, it was unreasonable and unjust to discriminate between the two in the matter of pay. The matter went to the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court partly allowed the appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent that the Court directed that the employees of the subordinate courts are entitled to the same scale of pay as was being drawn by the Secretariat employees in the same or equivalent post from time to time from 1969. Accordingly the employees of the High Court were given the revised pay scales on a par with the employees of the Government. 32. Per contra, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits that the process of recruitment and educational qualification of Rajasthan High Court and State Government are not the same, and therefore, the person working on the post of Librarian in Rajasthan High Court cannot be treated at par with Librarians working in the Government Secretariat. It is further submitted that for a person to be promoted to the post of Librarian in Government Secretariat, it is essential that he/she must possess degree of Graduation with Degree of B. Lib. It is further submitted that for a person to be promoted to the post of Librarian in Government Secretariat, it is essential that he/she must possess degree of Graduation with Degree of B. Lib. and have 10 years experience on the subordinate post (5 years experience on the post of Assistant Librarian in a Government or a recognized institution prior to appointment and 5 years experience on the post of Deputy Librarian/Librarian cum Documentation Assistant in Secretariat), whereas for promotion to the post of Librarian in the High Court, a person must possess degree of graduation and Bachelor of Library Science and have 9 years experience on the subordinate post, which is less than the required experience. He further submits that in the amended Rule 21, which came into force w.e.f. 1.5.2013, the word "except" has been used specifically, which differentiates persons working in the Rajasthan High Court with those working in the Government Secretariat. 33. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General however concedes that at the most, the pay scale of the Librarian working in the High Court can be equated with that of Librarian working in the Government Secretariat from the date of the amendment in Clause (22) of the Rule of 2002 with effect from 30.03.2018. 34. Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, learned counsel for the High Court submits that the decision to increase the pay scale resides with the State Government and the same is a policy decision. It is further submitted that the principle of equal pay for equal work should not be applied as a thumb rule and can only be done if the work, responsibilities, and qualifications are same. He further submits that the amendment in Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 clarified the present stand with regard to pay bands. Even the hierarchy is different in the librarians associated with the High Court and the librarians in the Government Secretariat. He further submits that in the case of Ex Librarian Shri Rajendra Bhandari, the matter was referred to the Rules Committee by the Administrative Committee in relation to making recommendations for amendment in the Rules regarding qualifications at the entry level as well as for promotion, particularly for the posts of Assistant Librarian and Librarian. The matter was placed before the Rules Committee and the representation submitted by Ex-Librarian Shri Rajendra Bhandari was rejected. The matter was placed before the Rules Committee and the representation submitted by Ex-Librarian Shri Rajendra Bhandari was rejected. After retirement, he filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9281/2013 before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, which came to be dismissed as in-fructuous in view of the fact that one of the Judges of the Administrative Committee (Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.K. Vyas) made recommendation on administrative side. However, liberty was granted to him to file a fresh writ petition. Subsequently Shri Rajendra Bhandari filed another writ petition being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7214/2017, which is pending adjudication before the Court. In this view of the matter, when the controversy has already been set at rest, no interference is required by this Court. 35. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even in the High Court, the educational qualification for the post of LDC (re-named as Jr. Judicial Assistant) is graduation and in Government Secretariat, the educational qualification for the post of LDC is Sr. Secondary Pass, whereas at both the places, the pay scales are same. Thus, the plea raised by the respondents with regard to different educational qualification is misconceived. 36. Even otherwise, for the next promotional post i.e. Sr. Librarian, the pay scales are same. It is only for the post of Librarians that different pay scales have been prescribed. 37. Heard. Considered. 38. After hearing the parties and perusing the material available on record, the following issues arise for consideration before this Court: (i) Whether or not the Petitioner had the qualifications for being appointed/promoted on the post of Librarian in the High Court as also the Government Secretariat? (ii) Whether or not the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two posts in question i.e. Librarian in High Court and Librarian in Government Secretariat are the same? (iii) Whether the Government could straightaway ignore/reject the recommendations made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice for giving pay parity to the Petitioner and to what extent were these recommendations binding on the government? (iv) Whether sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 and Entry No. 18 under Heading Court [A Rajasthan High Court], Schedule-II of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India? (v) Relief? In re: Issue No. (i) 39. (iv) Whether sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Rules of 2002 and Entry No. 18 under Heading Court [A Rajasthan High Court], Schedule-II of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 are ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India? (v) Relief? In re: Issue No. (i) 39. The service conditions of the employees of the High Court were earlier governed by the Rajasthan High Court (Conditions of Service Staff) Rules, 1953, which have now been replaced by the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules of 2002. As per the repealed Rules, the pay scales of Librarians working in the High Court were kept on par with those working in Government Secretariat. As per the extant Rules, the qualifications for Library Staff in High Court and Government Secretariat are as follows: Rajasthan High Court Name of the Post Mode of recruitment Qualifications Reference Assistant and Library Restorer Before 30.03.2018 Direct Recruitment through personal interview Before 30.03.2018 Graduation from any University established by law or its equivalent examination by the government After 30.03.2018 Direct Recruitment through competitive examination After 30.03.2018 Degree in Graduation and Bachelor of Library Science from any University established by law or equivalent examination from any University recognized by the Government Cataloguer Classifier Promotion on the basis of recommendations of a committee on the basis of seniority-cum merit. Three years minimum experience as Reference Assistant/Library Restorer Assistant Librarian Promotion on the basis of recommendations of a committee nominated by the Appointing Authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit Minimum Three years' experience as Cataloguer Classifier Librarian Promotion on the basis of recommendations of a committee nominated by the Appointing Authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit Minimum Three years' experience as Assistant Librarian Senior Librarian Promotion on the basis of recommendations of a committee nominated by the Appointing Authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit Rajasthan Government Secretariat Name of the Post Deputy Librarian/Librarian Cum Documentation Assistant Mode of Recruitment Direct Recruitment through personal interview Qualifications Graduation with degree in Library Science from a University established by law with 5 years' experience on the post of Assistant Librarian in a government department or recognized institution. Librarian Promotion on the basis of recommendations of a committee nominated by Appointing Authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit D.Lib. from a University established by law and 5 years' experience on the post of Deputy Librarian OR Graduate with B. Lib. Librarian Promotion on the basis of recommendations of a committee nominated by Appointing Authority on the basis of seniority-cum-merit D.Lib. from a University established by law and 5 years' experience on the post of Deputy Librarian OR Graduate with B. Lib. From a University established by law and 7 years' experience on the post of Deputy Librarian Senior Librarian Promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit Minimum 5 years' experience on the post of Librarian 40. From the table above, it is clear that a Librarian working in the High Court must have 9 years' minimum experience (3 years as Reference Assistant/Library Restorer, 3 years as experience as Cataloguer Classifier and 3 years' as Assistant Librarian) along with a Degree in Graduation (prior to 30.03.2018) and a Degree in Graduation along with Bachelor of Library Science from any University established by law or equivalent examination from any University recognized by the Government. Similarly, for a person to be appointed as Librarian in Government Secretariat is 10 years' experience (5 years as Assistant Librarian and 5 years' as Deputy Librarian) along with a Degree Graduation with degree in Library Science from a University established by law. However, for those Assistant Librarians who do not have the qualification of D.Lib, the minimum experience to be promoted on the post of Librarian is 12 years'. 41. A comparison of the educational and other qualifications as tabulated above would reveal that the Petitioner admittedly possesses Degrees in B.Sc., Masters' in Library Science and L.L.B. and he was appointed as Library Restorer in the High Court on 01.10.2002. Further, the Petitioner was promoted on the post of Cataloguer-cum-Classifier on 07.06.2007 and on the post of Assistant Librarian on 30.09.2013. Further, the Petitioner was promoted on the post of Librarian on 09.08.2018. Thus, the Petitioner possesses all the qualifications for being a Librarian even at the Government Secretariat. The Petitioner admittedly had 11 years' experience on posts subordinate to the post of Librarian and he also possesses a graduation degree along with Masters' in Library Science. Thus, the Petitioner had all the qualifications to be promoted as Librarian even in Government Secretariat. The first issue is answered accordingly. In re: Issue No. (ii) 42. The Petitioner admittedly had 11 years' experience on posts subordinate to the post of Librarian and he also possesses a graduation degree along with Masters' in Library Science. Thus, the Petitioner had all the qualifications to be promoted as Librarian even in Government Secretariat. The first issue is answered accordingly. In re: Issue No. (ii) 42. As far as the nature of duties and responsibilities entrusted to Librarians working at the High Court and those working at Government Secretariat are concerned, we find substance in the arguments put forth by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner that the nature of duties and responsibilities entrusted to Librarians working at the High Court are as onerous, if not more, as those working at the Government Secretariat. As per the pleadings, the Rajasthan High Court library is one of the biggest in the state with a collection of over 1,45,000 books/journals at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur and over 1,21,000 books/journals at Jaipur. These include Law Journals, Legal Commentaries, General Books, Foreign Law Journals, various legal and other lexicons et al. As opposed to this, the Government Secretariat Library has a collection of around 55,000 books, the Lokayukta Secretariat has around 4,000 books and Governor Library has around 20,000 books. Being entrusted with the management, safe-keeping and cataloguing of 1,45,000 and 1,21,000 books at Principal Seat, Jodhpur and Bench at Jaipur, it cannot be said that the Librarians working at the High Court do not discharge substantially similar functions and duties as compared to their counter-parts working at the Government Secretariat. A coordinate bench of this Court in Ghan Shyam Charan v. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan,: (1988) 1 RLW 13 has already held that the services of Librarians working at Government Secretariat and those working at the High Court are on par. We may also add here that till 1994, there used to be pay parity between Librarians working at the High Court and those working at Government Secretariat. For the first time on 16.06.1998, different pay scales were prescribed for the two classes of Librarians. Further, a bare perusal of Schedule II appended to the Rajasthan High Court Staff Rules, 2002 further makes it clear that the post of "Librarian" in High Court has been equated with that of "Librarian" working in Government Secretariat at Serial No. 4. Issue No. (ii) is answered accordingly. Further, a bare perusal of Schedule II appended to the Rajasthan High Court Staff Rules, 2002 further makes it clear that the post of "Librarian" in High Court has been equated with that of "Librarian" working in Government Secretariat at Serial No. 4. Issue No. (ii) is answered accordingly. In re: Issue No. (iii) 43. It has been contended on behalf of the Petitioner that Article 229 of the Constitution confers exclusive power on the Chief Justice of the High Court concerned for matters regarding appointments and service conditions of the officers and other members of the staff of the High Court. One the Chief Justice recommended for pay parity, it was for the government to reject the recommendations without deliberate discussions. In support of the argument, reliance was placed on Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association (Supra). 44. We do not need to delve into this issue too much since the position of law has already been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association (Supra). While it is open for the Hon'ble Governor to not agree with the recommendations of the Chief Justice as far as the rules regarding service conditions of the High Court staff are concerned, the government cannot straightaway reject the recommendations of the Chief Justice without application of mind. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association (Supra). observed as thus: "57. So far as the Supreme Court and the High Courts are concerned, the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the concerned High Court, are empowered to frame rules subject to this that when the rules are framed by the Chief Justice of India or by the Chief Justice of the High Court relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, the approval of the President of India or the Governor, as the case may be, is required. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is apparent that the Chief Justice of India and the Chief Justice of the High Court have been placed at a higher level in regard to the framing of rules containing the conditions of service. It is true that the President of India cannot be compelled to grant approval to the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, but it is equally true that when such rules have been framed by a very high dignitary of the State, it should be looked upon with respect and unless there is very good reason not to grant approval, the approval should always be granted. If the President of India is of the view that the approval cannot be granted, he cannot straightway refuse to grant such approval, but before doing so, there must be exchange of thoughts between the President of India and the Chief Justice of India....... 62. Thus, as delegated legislation or a subordinate legislation must conform exactly to the power granted. So far as the question of grant of approval by the President of India under the proviso to Article 146(2) is concerned, no such conditions have been laid down to be fulfilled before the President of India grants or refuses to grant approval. By virtue of Article 74(1) of the Constitution, the President of India shall, in exercise of his functions, act in accordance with the advice of the Council of Ministers. In other words, it is the particular department in the Ministry that considers the question of approval under the proviso to Article 146(2) of the Constitution and whatever advice is given to the President of India in that regard, the President of India has to act in accordance with such advice. On the other hand, the Chief Justice of India has to apply his mind when he frames the rules under Article 146(2) with the assistance of his officers. In such circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to hold that the delegation of the legislative function on the Chief Justice of India and also on the President of India relating to the salaries, allowances, leave and pensions of the officers and servants of the Supreme Court involve, by necessary implication, the application of mind. In such circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to hold that the delegation of the legislative function on the Chief Justice of India and also on the President of India relating to the salaries, allowances, leave and pensions of the officers and servants of the Supreme Court involve, by necessary implication, the application of mind. So, not only that the Chief Justice of India has to apply his mind to the framing of rules, but also the Government has to apply its mind to the question of approval of the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions. This condition should be fulfilled and should appear to have been so fulfilled from the records of both the Government and the Chief Justice of India. The application of mind will include exchange of thoughts and views between the Government and the Chief Justice of India and it is highly desirable that there should be a consensus between the two. The rules framed by the Chief Justice of India should normally be accepted by the Government and the question of exchange of thoughts and views will arise only when the Government is not in a position to accept the rules relating to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions. 45. Issue no (iii) is answered accordingly. In re: Issue No. (iv) and (v) 46. Having observed that the qualifications for the posts of Librarian in the High Court is similar to those in Government Secretariat and also considering that the nature of duties and responsibilities being substantially same, we are of the opinion that denying equal pay to the Petitioner as those of his counterparts working in Government Secretariat is violative of the equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: "Our attention was drawn to Binoy Kumar Mukerjee v. Union of India : ILR (1973) 1 Del 427] and Makhan Singh v. Union of India : ILR (1975) 1 Del 227], where reference was made to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India : AIR 1962 SC 1139 : (1962) 44 ITR 532 ] describing the principle of "equal pay for equal work" as an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do with Article 14. We shall presently point out how the principle, "equal pay for equal work", is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India : AIR 1962 SC 1139 : (1962) 44 ITR 532 ] is not itself of any real assistance to us since what was decided there was that there could be different scales of pay for different grades of a service. It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be applied to them. 8. It is true that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a directive principle of State Policy. "Equal pay for equal work for both men and women" means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the takeover of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word "socialist" must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'to each according to his need', it must at least mean "equal pay for equal work". "The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western Labour Codes too. Under provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and Clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance" (vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p. 265). In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and Clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance" (vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p. 265). The Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of 'equal remuneration for work of equal value' as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled". Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle "equal pay for equal work" is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. 9. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the "powers, functions and privileges of a police officer", their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others? There is none. The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not a principle which the courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from January 1, 1973, the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect." Conclusions: (i) The qualifications for the posts of Librarian in High Court after the amendment to the High Court Staff Rules 2002 is the same as those working in Government Secretariat. (ii) The nature of duties and responsibilities entrusted to the two set of employees is also substantially the same. (iii) Rule 21(2) of Rajasthan High Court Staff Rules, 2002 is read down to the extent it makes disparity in the pay scales and grade pays of Librarians working in the High Court and those working in Government Secretariat. (iv) No. 18 under Heading Court [A Rajasthan High Court], Schedule-II of Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2017 is hereby struck down as being violative of Article 14 and the principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" (v) Petitioner is held entitled for the Pay Scale of 15600-39100 in PB-3 with Grade Pay of 5400 (Pay Matrix L-14) with effect from the date of his promotion as Librarian i.e. 09.08.2018. Arrears due to the petitioner shall be paid within a period of two months. (vi) Since the learned Advocate General has fairly conceded petitioner's right to claim pay parity with Librarians working in Government Secretariat from 2018, we hope that the state would endeavour to comply with the order in its true spirit. 47. The Writ Petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition Allowed