SHER SINGH AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

A                         SHER SINGH AND OTHERS
                                     v.
                          UNION OF TNDIA AND ORS.

                                OCTOBER 16, 1995

B     (S.P. BHARUCHA, FAIZAN UDDIN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, .l.J.]

           Se1vice Law-Pmity in pay scales-Between the Professional Librwy
    Staff and the teaching staff of Delhi Unive1'ity and its colleges-Granted,
    discontinued and restored prospectively by the govt. under a policy
c   decision-Claim for restoration retrospectively on the ground of acquired
    vested 1ight of pwity and equality of qualification-Held, not entitled as of
    1ight to pality~Both belong to different categmies and stand on different foot-
    uzg.

          Administrative Law-Judicial review-Scope of Policy decision-Being
D not 1tnfai1~ nzalaflde and contra1y to any statuto1y directions-Held, not 011en
    for the cowts to intelfere with tlze policy decisions of the Govt.

          Appellants, 11ualified librarians employed in the Delhi University
    and its colleges, had been granted parity with that or the teaching and
E   research staff From 1961 to 1977. The Govt. had discontinued this parity
    retrospectively with effect from l.l.73 and restored the same prospectively
    with effect from l.4.80 instead from l.l.73. However, in 1979 the matter
    was referred to a committee for upgradation of the scales of the profes-
    sional library staff. Agb'Tieved by the non restoration or the parity
    retrospectively appellants approached High Court, which disn1issed the
F   petition in lirnine. Hence this appeal.

            Appellants contended that the education qualification or the two sets
     of employees beiag the same, there is no reason to treat them differently
     and discriminatcly. Further, they have the scales of pay at par with the
     teaching staff which cannot be taken away except with an authority or law.
G
     So the restoration of parity should be given retrospectively with effect from
     l.l.73. Respondents contented that educational qualifications, nature or
     work, duties, work load and responsibilities of the two sets of employees
     are entirely ditTerent and parity in pay scales are just coincidental.

H          Dismissing the appeal, this Court
                                        398
                           SHER SINGH v. U.0.1.                             399

       HELD : I. In the instant case it cannot be said that Govt. did not          A
act fairly or acted malafide so as to call for any interference by this Court
involving the power of judicial review. [405-A]

       2. There is no rationale or any justification in the claim of parity
between t_he teaching staff and library staff in Delhi University and its
colleges for the simple reason that the two sets of employees belong to            B
different categories of employees who stand on a different footing. The
nature of duties, work load, experience and responsibilities of the two sets
of employees in question are totally different from each other. The teaching
staff has to do some research work, deep study in their respective subjects
and to make preparations for the daily lectures in the class room and other        C
academic work while this is not so in the case of library staff. The
experience of library staff is totally different from the one which is required
for teaching staff. [403-G-H, 404-A-B]

      3. If the Govt. as a matter of policy equated the library staff for the
purpose of pay scales earlier for a certain period as contended by the             D
appellants, they should be thankful to the government as they could not
have claimed the parity as of right. It was the decision of the Govt. which
had allowed the equation of pay scales. during the period from 1961 to
January 1, 1973. Later if Govt. had taken a policy decision to grant parity
again with effect from 1.4.1980 and not with retrospective effect from             E
1.7.1973, when it was disturbed there could be no legitimate grievances for
the same because the Govt. has the right to change its policy form time to
time, according to the administrative exigencies and demands of the
relevant time. [404-C-D]

      4. The Court \\'ould be slo\\' in interfering with matters of Govt. policy   F
except \¥here it is sh~mi that the decision is unfair, nialafide or contrary
to any statutory directions. There will be no justification for the Court to
interfere with the policy of the government merely on the ground of change
in policy. If earlier the Govt. took a policy decision to grant parity to the
library staff it was the policy of then Govt. and if for a certain reason the G
Go,1. took different policy decision to withdraw the policy and to enforce
it again with effect from a certain date it will again be a matter of policy
of the Govt. and it is not for the 'courts to interfere with such policy
decisions of the Govt. [404-D-F]

      5. Normally the Courts will not dictate the decision of the statutory H
    400                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   authority in exercise of its discretion and formulation of its policies. The
    Court \\-ill not direct the statutory authority to exercise the discretion in a
    particular manner not expressly re<1uired by law. The Court can only
    con1mand the statutory authority by a \Vrit of n1andan1us to perform its
    duty by expressing its discretion according to law. [404-F-G]
                 1
B          U.P. State Road Tra11JjJ01t Co1poration & Anr. v. Mohd. ls111ail &
    Othei:i, (1991] 3 SCC 239, relied on.

             CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6150 of
    1983.

c        From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.81 of the Delhi High
    Court in C.W. No. 2312 of 1981.

          R. Veokataramani, Satya Mitra Garg and R. Anand Pradmanabhan
    for the Appellants.                                       - ~
D
             K. Lahiri, Avatar Singh Rawat and B.K. Prasad for the Union of
    India.

         A. Mairarputham, Mrs. Aruna Mathur and Ajay Kapoor for the
    Respondent No. 3.
E
             The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. The short question that arises for considera-
    tion in this appeal is whether the appellants who are qualified Librarians

F
    employed in the University of Delhi and its constituent colleges in different
    grades arc entitled to the parity in the pay scales between the professional
    library staff and the teaching staff of the University of Delhi and its colleges
    recognised and established since January, 1961.
                                                                                       .
             2. The appellants case is that in the year 1957 the University Grants
    Co1nn1ission constituted a Committee appointed by University Grants
G   Commission, respondent No. 2 under the Chairmanship of Dr. S.R. Ran-
    ganathan. The said Committee recommended that the status and the salary
    scales of the library staff should be the same as that of the teaching and
    research staff. Futher case of the appellants is that in the year 1961
    University Grants Con1rnission, the respondent No. 2 took decision to give
H   effect to the aforesaid recommendations of Ranganathan Committee.
               SHER SINGH v. U.0.1. [FAIZAN UDDIN.J.]                    401

Consequently, the respondent No. 2 conveyed its decision to the University A
of Delhi, respondent No. 3 by its letter dated January 18, 1961 that
professionally qualified library staff are for purposes of salary revision lo
be treated as.academic staff. The rcsp<indcnt No. 2 revised the scale of pay
of diffcr~nt categories of professionally qualified library staff equating
them with the corre.sponding categories of the teaching staff in the Univer-
                                                                                B
sity and its colleges by its letter dated 1.5.1962. In the year 1968 when there
was further revision of the pay sales of the teaching staff as well as the
professionally· qualified library staff, the parity was maintained between
the two classes. The appellants have further stated that the Third Central
Pay Commission also reiterated the principle of parity in regard to the
scales of pay of school librarians which was accepted by the Central            c
Government, respondent No. 1 herein. Consequently, the respondent No.
2 by its letter <lated 11.1.1974 conveyed the decision of the respondent No.
1 to the respondent No. 3, the University of Delhi to revise the pay scales
of teachers of the University of Delhi and its colleges with effect from
Ll.1973. Appellants further case is that in the year 1974 the University of D
Delhi appointed two Committees - one ·under the Chairmanship of the then
Pro Vice Chancellor, Prof. V.P. Dutt and the other under the Chairman-
ship of Prof. AN. Kaul and both these Committees recommended con-
tinuance of the said parity in the pay scales and allowances of the librarians
with that of the teaching staff, consequently the Executive Council of the
University adopted these recommendations in its resolutions dated E
10.4.1974 and 23.5.1974. Again in the year 1977 on the recommendations
of respondent No. 2, Union of India, respondent No. 1 ultimately decided
to revise the scales of pay of librarians in Central Universities and in the
colleges of the University of Delhi vide its letter dated 7.1.1977.
                                                                                F
       3. The appellants grievance is that the respondent No. l abruptly and
arbitrarily disturbed the parity of the pay scales of the teaching staff and
the library staff except the Librarian of the University of Delhi with
retrospective effect from 1.1.1973 and with a single stroke of pen the parity
enjoyed by the said categories of professional library staff from 1961 till     G
1977 was done away with retrospectively with effect from l.1.1973. Conse-
quently, the appellants made several representations to the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 as well as to the Minister of Education in response to which
the respondent No. 2 replied that the matter was under consideration of
the Goyernrncnt. However, the respondent No. 1 restored the parity
prospectively with    effect from l.4.1980 instead of l.1.1973. In the          H
    402                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   meanwhile in the year 1979 the respondents had referred the· question to
    a Committee for upgradatinn of the scales of the professional library staff
    who possessed the qualifications prescribed by respondent No. l. There
    was no further response till the year 1980 from the respondents. The
    appellant No. 67, therefore, made representation on 12.2.1980 lo the then
    Union Minister of Education and another representation on 28.4.1981 but
B
    oo response was received. The appellants ultimately filed a Civil Writ
    Petition No. 2312/1981 in the High Court of Delhi which was dismissed in
    limine on 13.10.1981 which led to the filing of this appeal by the appellants.

          4. The respondents have opposed the daim of the appellants. The
c Under Secretary in the Ministry of Education and Culture has filed
    Counter-Affidavit on behalf of the Union of India, respondent No. 1
    opposing the case set up by the appellants. In the Counter Affidavit it has
    been stated that the sanction of identical scales to the teaching staff and
    the library staff in the Delhi University and its colleges were just co-in-
D   cidental. The Committee for Library Staff and Physical Education person-
    nel had not recommended parity in their pay scale with those of the
    Professors, Readers and Lecturers on account of the fact that educational
    qualifications, nature of work, duties and work-load and responsibilities of
    the two sets of employees are entirely different. It has been stated that it
E   is not a fact that these scales were given to library staff because there
    existed some parity between them and that making the same scales avail-
    able to the library staff was not based on any scientific justification.
    Regarding the recommend~tions of the Third Pay Commission it has been
    stated that t.he recommendation did not suggest absolute parity or opposed
    such parity as a principle in determining the pay scales nf the library staff
F   nor it would be correct lo say that each and every recommendation of the
    Third Pay Commission was accepted by the Government. It has been
                                                                                     ...
    further stated that the Government subsequently reviewed the entire ques-
    tion and took the decision in principle to upgrade the scales of pay of
    librarians and Director of Physical Education in the U niversitics and
G colleges generally with effect from 1.4.1980 vide letter of Ministry of
    Education & Culture (Annexurc 3) dated 15.12.1982 and this decision of
    the Governn1ent \Vas i1nplcmentcd in all the Universities including the
    Delhi University after a process of consultation with the Stale Governments
    who are responsible for the inaintcnance of n1ost of the Universities in the
H country.
               SHER SINGH v. U.0.1. IFAIZAN UDDIN. J.J                   403

      5. The respondent No. 2, University Grants Con1n1lssion has also          A
oppo.sed the claim of the appellants by filing a separate Counter-Affidavit.
The respondent No. 2 has also taken also ahnost the similar stand as the
one taken by the respondent No. l. Tt has been slated that the qualification
is not the only criteria for determining the scales of pay for different
categories of posts but other factors such as experience, nature of duties
                                                                                B
and responsibilities and work-load, etc. has to be taken into account. The
respondent No. 2 has taken the stand that it cannot be said that same
qualifications are prescribed for the posts of library staff and the teachers
in Delhi University and its colleges. It has been emphatically stated by the
respondent No. 2 that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities as well
as the type of experience and the period of work of the two sets of             c
employees arc altogether different and that both these categories can on
no account be equated.

      6. Learned counsel for the appellants took pains in persuading us
that the· librarian and Library staff play a vital role in the development of   D
the institutions of higher learning and they are of real and immense help
to research work and advance studies. The educational qualilieations of the
two sets of employees are also the same arid, therefore, there is no reason
to treat them differently and with discrimination. He submitted that the
appellants have acquired a vested right to have the scales of pay at par
with the teaching staff of the University and its colleges which partly had     E
been given to them earlier on sound cH:aucmic considerations and after due
deliberations which they enjoyed for over a decade and a half since 1961
and that this vested right cannot be taken away except with an authority
of law. Learned counsel submitted that having regard to the facts and
circun1stanccs of the case, as stated above, there \Vas no justification with   F
the Government to restore the parity only with effect from 1.4.1980 and
not retrospectively with effect from 1.1.1973 when the same was disturbed.

      7. After a serious and anxious consideration on the subn1issions made
by the learned counsel for the appellants, according to us there appears to
be no rationale or any justification in the clain1 of parity between the        G
teaching staff and the library staff in the Delhi University and its colleges
for the simple reason that the two sets to employees belonged to different
categories of.en1ployees who stand on a different footing. The natufc of
duties, work-load, experience and responsibilities of the two sets of
employees in question are totally different fron1 each other. The teaching      H
    404                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A   staff has to do some research work, deep study in their respective subjects
    and to nlake preparations for the daily lectures in the class rooms and other
    academic work while this is nol so in the case of library slafl'. The cX·
    pcrience of library staff is totally different from the one which is required
    for the teaching stilfT. Working pattern of the two sets of eniployecs cannot
    be said lo be identical so as lo claim parity between the library staff and
B
    the teaching staff. If the (invcrnment as a matter of policy ha<l equated the
  library staff for the purposes of pay scales earlier for a ccrlain period as
  contended by the appellants, they should be thankful to the government as
  they could not have claimed the parity as of right. In any case that was the
  decision of the Government which had allowed the equation of pay scales
c during the period from 1961 lo January l, 1973. Later, if the Government
  had taken a policy decision to grant parity again with effect from 1.4.1980
  and not with retrospective effect from 1.7.1973 when it was disturbed there
  could be no legitimate grievance for the same because the Government has
  the right to change its policy from time to time, according to the ad-
D ministrative exigencies and demands of the relevant time. As a matter of
  fact the Courts would be slow in. interfering with matters of Government
  Policy except where it is shown that the decision is unfair malafide o{
  contrary to any statutory directions. There will be no justification for the
  Court to interfere with the policy of the Government merely on the ground
  of change in the policy. If earlier the government took a policy decision to
E
  grant parity to the library staff with the teaching staff it was the policy of
  the then Government and if for certain reasons the Government took a
  different policy decision to withdraw the parity and to enforce it again .with
  effect from a certain date it will again be a matter of policy of the
  Government and il is nol for the Courts to interfere with such policy
F decision of the Government. Normally the Courts will not dictate the
  decision of the statutory authority in exercise of its discretion and formula-
  tion of its policies. The Court will not direct the statutory authority to
   exercise the discretion in a particular 111anncr not expressly required by
   law. The Court can only command the statutory authority by a Writ of
G Mandamus to perform its duty by exercising the discretion according lo
   law. This was also the view expre55ed by the Court in U.P. State Road
   Tramport Cmporativn & Anr. v. Mohd. lmwil & 01:1'.' [199 I I 3 sec 239. In
   the present case we tind that there is no judicial or quasi-judicial duty or
   any obligation imposed on the Government to equate the library staff with
H the teaching staff, on the basis of which the enforcement thereof could be
               SHER SINGll v. U.0.1. i!'AIZAN UDDIN. J.J                 405

claimed by the appellants. In such a situatfon it cannot be said that the       A
(iovcrnmcnt did not a_ct fairly or acted 111alafidc .so as to call for any
interference by this Court invoking the power of Judicial revic\v.

      8. For the reasons stated above we find no n1erit in this appeal. lt is
accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
                                                                                B
R.A.                                                      Appeal dismissed.