ORDER : 1. The petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Commissioner/Respondent No.2, whereby the representation of the petitioner for fixation of proper pay scale, grant of increment, extension of benefit of 6th Pay Commission and promotion to the post of Librarian has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that on 14.08.1988 (Annexure P/2) the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Librarian in the respondent/College against the regular vacant post in the pay scale of Rs. 575-800/- and since then the petitioner is discharging her duties. The pay scale of Rs. 575-800/- granted to the petitioner was upgraded from time to time in pay scale of Rs. 950 in the year 1990, 1150-1800 in the year 1991 and finally vide order dated 23.12.2006, the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/- of University Grants Commission was granted to the petitioner with effect from the date of appointment i.e. 16.08.1988, applying & in compliance of order dated 16.10.1990 of State and the same is in accordance with Fifth Pay Commission. According to the petitioner, she is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- in accordance with scheme of University Grants Commission and order dated 16.10.1990 of State Government, from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 16.08.1988, as she fulfills the qualification and eligibility prescribed for the post of Librarian from the date of her appointment, having qualification of B.Lib. with more than 50% and M. Lib. with more than 55% and she would have been upgraded with the Sixth Pay Scale also. According to the petitioner, identically placed Assistant Librarian namely Smt. Usha Tiwari has been granted pay scale of Librarian of Rs. 2200-4000/- from the date of her eligibility i.e. 12.06.1987 though worked till 18.10.2006 as Assistant Librarian. Further, the other similarly placed Assistant Librarians namely Anila Sharma and Anita Saxena have also been granted the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The petitioner is also getting the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000 applying order dated 16.10.1990 issued by the respondent State but for applying pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 of the same order dated 16.10.1990, claim of petitioner is dismissed on the ground that the respondent/college is a private college. 2200-4000/-. The petitioner is also getting the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000 applying order dated 16.10.1990 issued by the respondent State but for applying pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 of the same order dated 16.10.1990, claim of petitioner is dismissed on the ground that the respondent/college is a private college. According to the petitioner, since she was eligible and qualified for the post of Librarian right from the date of her appointment, therefore, a letter dated 18.08.2004 (Annexure P/8) was issued by the Respondent No. 2 to the respondent College for sending proposal for up-gradation of the post of petitioner in the post of Librarian, and in pursuance of said letter dated 18.08.2004, recommendation was sent by the Respondents No. 3 & 4, providing detail information and requirement of up-gradation of post of Assistant Librarian of petitioner in the post of Librarian with additional financial burden of Rs. 18000/- yearly, however, vide letter dated 20.08.2013 (Annexure P/9), the Respondent No. 3 submitted before the Respondent No. 2 that the respondent college never demanded pay scale of Librarian for the petitioner. According to the petitioner, despite being eligible and qualified for the post of Librarian right from the beginning, the petitioner has not been given benefit of increment scheme of the State Government and despite serving on the same post of Assistant Librarian and same pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/- for more than 25 years, the petitioner has not been granted any increment and pay scale of the higher post till date, whereas, when recommendation was sent by the respondent college to the Respondent No. 2 on 28.08.2008, the proposal was changed and directed to send the proposal of first increment, pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500/-, which is not the pay scale of University Grants Commission, whereas the petitioner has already been granted University Grants Commission pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/- upgraded as Rs. 5500-9000/- and next University Grants Commission pay scale is Rs. 8000-13500/-. Despite being the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission implemented in all the government colleges and government aided colleges, the petitioner is not being granted benefit of Sixth Pay Commission, though a letter dated 19.10.2012 is sent to the Respondent No. 2. 1740-3000/- upgraded as Rs. 5500-9000/- and next University Grants Commission pay scale is Rs. 8000-13500/-. Despite being the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission implemented in all the government colleges and government aided colleges, the petitioner is not being granted benefit of Sixth Pay Commission, though a letter dated 19.10.2012 is sent to the Respondent No. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent college was having only one Librarian namely Smt. Chandralekha Diwan, who was also retired on 31.03.2012 and being dying cadre post, no appointment has been made on the post of Librarian in the respondent College despite the fact that the college had more than 2750 students, 46752 books and teaching is being done in two sessions in a day and the petitioner is only Assistant Librarian discharging the complete duties of the post of Librarian, being Incharge Librarian and also given the charge of one year B.Lib. course on 22.07.2013. In this regard, the petitioner has made several representations (Annexure P/13) to the respondent authorities, but all the efforts of the petitioner went in vain. The petitioner is being deprived from the proper pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- from the date of her appointment i.e. 16.08.1988 and despite serving for more than 25 years, the petitioner could not get a single promotion as the post of Librarian has been declared dying cadre. The petitioner has also not been granted increment for last 4 years and the benefit of 6th Pay Scale has also not been extended to the petitioner, thus the petitioner is deprived from proper pay, as well as promotion by the respondent authorities, without there being any fault on the part of the petitioner, despite being eligible and qualified for the same. The petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) no. The petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) no. 295/2014 before this Hon'ble Court & the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2015 (Annexure P/14) with a direction that in the event, the petitioner prefers a representation before the Respondent No. 2 for grant of appropriate pay scale with consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment claiming parity with other similarly placed persons within a period of one month, the Respondent No. 2 shall decide the representation, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 3 months thereafter, if the need arises, the petitioner may move afresh before this Court. Accordingly the petitioner submitted representation on 20.10.2015 before the Respondent No. 2 & reminder on 05.11.2015, however, vide order dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure P/15), the representation of the petitioner was rejected by Additional Director, Higher Education Directorate, Naya Raipur, C.G. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a contempt petition being Contempt Petition (C) No. 166 of 2016 before this Hon'ble Court but during pendency of the Contempt petition, the respondent Commissioner cancelling the order dated 07.12.2015, passed the impugned order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the representation of the petitioner without proper consideration and the contempt petition was disposed of on 09.08.2016 (Annexure P/17). Hence, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1. That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant pay scale of 2200-4000/- to the petitioner from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 16.08.1988 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission to the petitioner, with arrears @ 18% per annum, in accordance with law. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant increment to the petitioner from her date of entitlement in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no. 1 & 2 to decide the proposal of respondent no. 3 and 4 for up-gradation of post of petitioner i.e. Assistant Librarian in the post of Librarian within specific period. 8,000-13,500/-. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no. 1 & 2 to decide the proposal of respondent no. 3 and 4 for up-gradation of post of petitioner i.e. Assistant Librarian in the post of Librarian within specific period. 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay arrears of pay to the petitioner, with interest @ 18% per annum. 10.6 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits the identically placed Assistant Librarian namely Smt. Usha Tiwari has been granted pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- from the date of her eligibility i.e. 12.06.1987, but the petitioner is being denied the same. Other similarly placed Assistant Librarians namely Anila Sharma and Anita Saxena have also been granted the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- and if the same logic and law will be applied in case of the petitioner, then she will become entitle for the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 from the date of eligibility in post of Librarian i.e. 16.08.1988. Learned counsel further submits that as per U.G.C. scheme and order dated 16.10.1990, the petitioner is entitled for pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- from the date of her appointment as granted to the other identically placed Assistant Librarians, but discrimination is being done with the petitioner, despite being eligible and qualified, without there being any fault on her part. It has been also submitted that Smt. Usha Tiwari has been granted pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 from the date of 12.06.1987 on the basis that the pay scale of Demonstrator was Rs. 1740-3000/- and it is provided in Clause 2(c) of Order dated 16.10.1990 that the respondent/college is a Government Aided college and receiving the Government aid, where all the government rules and regulations regarding service conditions including increment, pay scale, time bound promotion and promotion are applicable. Further submission of learned counsel is that the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission has been implemented in the State of Chhattisgarh upon all Government Colleges as well as Government Aided Colleges. Proposal was sent by the respondent/college for up-gradation of post of Assistant Librarian of petitioner on the post of Librarian, but to no avail. Further submission of learned counsel is that the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission has been implemented in the State of Chhattisgarh upon all Government Colleges as well as Government Aided Colleges. Proposal was sent by the respondent/college for up-gradation of post of Assistant Librarian of petitioner on the post of Librarian, but to no avail. Proposal was sent by the respondent College for granting benefit of increment to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500/-, but to no avail. Changing the proposal of respondent college, the respondent/State had directed to send proposal to grant increment to the petitioner in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500/-, which is not University Grants Commission pay scale and the petitioner is already receiving pay scale of University Grants Commission and her pay scale cannot be upgraded in non-U.G.C. pay scale. 4. Learned counsel also submits that despite being eligible and qualified for the post of Librarian for last 25 years, the petitioner’s claim has not been considered and promoted on the post of Librarian, without there being any fault on her part and despite the recommendation of the respondent College and being eligible and qualified for benefit of Sixth Pay Commission, the petitioner has not been granted benefit of revised pay scale as per recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission, as such, the petitioner is also entitled for arrears and monetary benefits from the date of her entitlement, with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Learned counsel also submits that there was only one Librarian posted in the respondent college who retired on 31.03.2012 and since then the petitioner is discharging all the duties of the Librarian in the respondent/College, as Incharge Librarian and also granted charge of one year B.Lib. course of the respondent College, but no monetary benefit is being given to the petitioner despite being eligible and entitled. Learned counsel also submits that specific ground of discrimination and arbitrariness was taken by the petitioner in the representation, which was not duly considered by the respondent authorities in accordance with law. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order without properly appreciating the facts, circumstances and law applicable in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for all monetary benefits. 5. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and Ors.Vs. The representation of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order without properly appreciating the facts, circumstances and law applicable in the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for all monetary benefits. 5. Reliance has been placed on the decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and Ors.Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 571 , State of H.P. Vs. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Committee & Ors. reported in (1995) 4 SCC 507 and the decision of this Hon’ble High Court in the matter of H.S. Baghel Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. (WPS No.1563/2014, order dated 27.02.2018) 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Librarian on 14/08/1988 by the Respondent No. 4 Society who is running the Respondent No. 3 college which is a private college getting grant in aid from the State Government. The instant petition is a second round of litigation. On earlier occasion, the petitioner had preferred a writ petition bearing W.P. (S) No. 295/2014 which has been disposed off by the Hon'ble Court vide order dated 22/09/2015 (Annexure P/14) whereby the petitioner has been directed to file representation before the respondents and the respondents were directed to decide the representation. Learned counsel further submits that in pursuance of the order dated 22/09/2015 (Annexure P/14) passed by the Hon'ble Court in W.P. (S) No. 295/2014, the petitioner has preferred a representation and in compliance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court, the respondents have duly considered the representation preferred by the petitioner and rejected by the impugned order dated 05/07/2016 (Annexure P/1). Petitioner is praying for the aforesaid reliefs mainly on the basis of the order dated 16/10/1990, which is only applicable to the government colleges only. The said order is not at all applicable in the private aided college and since the petitioner is an employee of private aided college i.e. the Respondent No. 3 and appointed by the a society running the said private aided college and, therefore, the said order is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner. 7. The said order is not at all applicable in the private aided college and since the petitioner is an employee of private aided college i.e. the Respondent No. 3 and appointed by the a society running the said private aided college and, therefore, the said order is not at all applicable in the case of the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is praying for up-gradation of her post from the post of Assistant Librarian to the post of Librarian and grant of consequential benefits thereof, which is not at all permissible because the petitioner has been appointed to the post of Assistant Librarian and merely because the petitioner is having the educational qualification to the post of Librarian, her post cannot be upgraded that too when the post of Librarian is not at all available in the college. As per applicable rules, the petitioner is being paid the salary in accordance with the pay scale attached to the post and she is not at all entitled for any of the reliefs. Thus, the instant petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 submits that the Kalyan College is 100% Government Aided college for the purpose of salary of the sanctioned post and staff by the State Government, therefore, the rules and regulations of the State Government in relation to the Institution are binding upon the respondents College Society. Initially, the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Librarian vide order dated 14.08.1988 and the petitioner joined the same on 16.08.1988. Vide letter dated 18.08.2004, office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate, Science Campus, Raipur, written a letter to the Principal, Kalyan College, Bhilai that as per decision of the State Government, the post of Assistant Librarian is declared dying cadre. Learned counsel further submits that in the case of Smt. Manjula Sjhukla, she was Assistant Librarian. Since Smt. Manjula Shukla was qualified to be appointed as Librarian, therefore, a proposal with financial estimate for up-gradation of the post of Assistant Librarian to the Librarian and to create the post of Librarian, send the proposal immediately vide Annexure R3 & 4/1. In reply, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 sent a proposal dated 01.09.2004 (Annexure R-3 & 4/2) for up-gradation of the post of Assistant Librarian. In reply, the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 sent a proposal dated 01.09.2004 (Annexure R-3 & 4/2) for up-gradation of the post of Assistant Librarian. Thereafter, only the respondent/State informed the respondents that Smt. Manjula Shukla, Assistant Librarian, Kalyan Mahavidyalaya, Bhilai, District Durg was granted UGC pay scale of Rs.1740-3000 with the condition that the post of Assistant Librarian will be a post of dying cadre, which is evident from Annexure R-3 & 4/3. Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 also issued pay slip dated 17.07.2008 (Annexure R-3&4/4) and from that date Smt. Manjula Shukla is getting the above pay scale. Since the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are getting 100% grant in-aid for the salary of their staff which is completely controlled by respondent No.1 and 2, therefore, without concurrence or clear order of the State Government, the respondents are unable to fulfill the demands of the petitioner. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is an admitted fact in this case that the petitioner is working since 16.08.1988 in respondent-College and as per the submission of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, this college is 100% grant aided college. A letter dated 18.08.2004 (Annexure R-3&4/1) regarding up-gradation of post was sent by the Commissioner, Higher Education Secretariat, Raipur. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the letter is reproduced herein as under :- ^^’kkldh; egkfo|ky;ksa esa ‘kklu ds fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj ij lgk;d xzaFkky; ds inksa dks MkbZax dsMj ?kksf”kr fd;k x;k gSA Jherh eatqyk ‘kqDyk dks Ádj.k ;g gS fd Jherh eatqyk ‘kqDyk lgk;d xzaFkiky gSA dk;Zjr egkfo|ky; esa dqy yxHkx 2750 Nk= gSaA nks ikfy;ksa esa v/;kiu dk;Z pyrk gSA egkfo|ky; esa yxHkx 46752 iqLrdsa gSA pwafd Jherh eatqyk ‘kqDyk xzaFkiky in gsrq fu/kkZfjr ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk j[krh gSA vr% mlds vfrfjDr Hkh vkids egkfo|ky; esa lgk;d xzaFkiky ds in dks xzaFkiky ds in esa vixzsM djrs gq, xzaFkiky dk in fuekZ.k djus gsrq vkSfpR;iw.kZ ÁLrko vfrfjDr foRrh; Hkkj ds lkFk rRdky HkstsaA** 11. The respondent/College replied to the said letter. The respondent/College replied to the said letter. For ready reference, the relevant contents of the same are reproduced herein as under :- ^^mYys[kuh; gS fd Jherh eatqyk ‘kqDyk tks ;wŒthŒlhŒ osrueku ¼1640&3000½ dh ik=rk j[krh gSA e/; Áns'k mPp f’k{kk foHkkx ds vkns’k Øekad 3777 Hkksiky fnukad 16-10-1990 ds vuqlkj ik=rk iw.kZ djus rFkk vk;qDr mPp f’k{kk e/; Áns'k ‘kklu ds i= Øekad 3132@vkŒmŒf’kŒ@’kk[kk&7@99 Hkksiky fnukad 28-10-1999 ds vuqlkj fu;fefrdj.k frfFk ls 1640&3000 osrueku dh Lohd`fr rFkk osrueku Hkqxrku dk Ádj.k foxr 4 o”kksZ ls yafcr gSA vkils vkxzg gS fd bl Ádj.k dks fujkdj.k Hkh ;Fkk’kh?kz djus dk d”V djsaA** 12. As per order dated 23.12.2006 (Annexure R-3& 4/3), pay scale of Rs.1740-3000 was sanctioned on the condition that the post of Smt. Manjula Shukla, Assistant Librarian, will be treated as dying cadre. For ready reference, the contents of this letter is reproduced herein as under :- ^^Øekad% ,Q 1&43@2006@38 % jkT; ‘kklu }kjk] foHkkxh; Kki vkns’k Øekad&3777@mf’kfo@38&1@90 fnukad 16-10-1990 ds vuqØe esa Jherh eatqyk ‘kqDyk] lgk;d xzaFkiky] v’kkldh; dY;k.k egkfo|ky;] fHkykbZuxj ftyk nqxZ dks ;wŒthŒlhŒ osrueku #i;s 1740&3000@& bl ‘krZ ds lkFk Lohd`fr Ánku dh tkrh gS fd mDr Kki ds rgr ;g in MkbZax dSMj dks gksxkA** 13. The petitioner has raised her grievance by filing various representations before the respondent/college and in earlier round of litigation, this Court directed the petitioner to file a representation before the Respondent No.2 for grant of appropriate pay scale with consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment claiming parity with other similarly situated employee and in compliance of the Court’s order when the petitioner filed representation (Annexure P/15), the Respondent No.2-Commissioner rejected the representation of the petitioner by impugned order (Annexure P/1) on the ground, which are reproduced herein as under :- 14. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid impugnd order that other similarly situated/placed employees are getting salary more than the petitioner. The respondent authorities did not file any document showing that as to what action has been taken and what inquiry has been conducted in this regard against other employees who are getting higher salary than the petitioner. 15. This Court in the matter of H.S. Baghel (supra) held in para 10 as under :- “10. The respondent authorities did not file any document showing that as to what action has been taken and what inquiry has been conducted in this regard against other employees who are getting higher salary than the petitioner. 15. This Court in the matter of H.S. Baghel (supra) held in para 10 as under :- “10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, irresistible conclusion of this Court is that in respect of non-teaching staff of private colleges receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the Government, the enhanced age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years would take effect only from 31/08/2013 as provided in the Ordinance as also circular dated 26/08/2013 which was made applicable vide another circular dated 08/08/2024. As the petitioner attained age of superannuation after 31/08/2013, he was certainly entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of superannuation of 62 years. By virtue of an interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner continued in service till he attained the age of 62 years. The petitioner, therefore, shall be deemed to have continued in service till 31/03/2016 until he attained the age of 62 years. He would accordingly be entitled to all consequential benefits as if he was in service till 31/03/2016.” 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of H.P. State (supra) held in para 10 as under :- “10. It is, therefore, late in the day to say that the teachers in the aided schools are not entitled to parity in the matter of salary, allowances etc. with their counterparts in the government schools. The question, for our consideration, however, is whether the State Government or the Management is to meet the consequent expenditure.” 17. Further, Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana State Adhyapak (supra) held in para 4 as under :- “4. The State Government will also take up with the managements of the aided schools the question of bringing about parity between the teachers of aided schools and the teachers of government schools for the period following that to which the aforesaid thirty-five installments relate, so that a scheme for payment may be evolved after having regard to the different allowances claimed by the petitioners.” 18. In the light of above proposition of law and considering the fact that other similarly situated employees of the respondent College are getting higher salary than the petitioner, the instant petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed and the respondent authorities are directed to grant pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- from 16.08.1988 and also extend the benefit of 6th Pay Commission to the petitioner. It is further directed that respondent/State to grant increment to the petitioner from the date of her entitlement in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- like other employees. The respondent authorities to calculate all arrears of pay scale from the back date within four months from the date of order of this Court, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 19. Petition is thus allowed.