IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA

C.W.P. No. 5118/2010 & CWP No. 5262/2010.

Date of decision: 30 .05. 2012

CWP No. 5118/2010.

• 1. Piare Lal S/o Sh. Ram Lok Kaushal resident of Village and Post Office Kandrour, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh.
• 2. Shri Bhag Singh son of Sh. Gokul Ram, resident of Village Chhiawin Post office Pantheda Tehsil Bharari District Bilaspur, H.P.
• 3. Mrs. Maya Bhardwaj D/o Shri Pabhu Ram, resident of village and Post office Talai District Bilaspur, H.P.
• 4. Shri Sohan Lal Kaura son of late Shri Sadhu Ram, resident of Village and Post Office Naswal, Tehsil Gumarwin District Bilaspur, H.P.
• 5. Smt. Sarla Sharma, D/o Shri Brij Lal Sharma resident of H. NO. 50, Roura Sector 3 Bilaspur, H.P.

…..Petitioners.

Versus

• 1. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2.
• 2. The Director of Education to the Government of H.P. Shimla, H.P.

…..Respondents.

CWP No. 5262/2010.

• 1. Sh. Ram Nath Sharma S/o Sh. Labha Ram P. R/o Village Jol PO Dangar Tehsil Ghumarwin District Bilaspur, H.P.
• 2. Sh. Prakash Chand S/o Sh. Maru Ram P. R/o Village Bhadsin P.O Lehri Sarail Tehsil Ghumawin District Bilaspur, H.P.
• 3. Sh. Kishori Lal S/o Sh. Ajudhia Dass P. R/o Village Deot PO Tal Tehsil and District Hamirpur H.P. (since dead through LRs:)
• 3-A Smt. Sudesna Devi Wd/o late Sh. Kishori Lal,
• 3-B Sh. Pankaj Kumar S/o late Sh. Kishori Lal R/o Village Deot and Post Office Tal Tehsil and District Hamirpur, H.P.

..…..… Petitioners

Versus

• 1. State of Himachal Pradesh, through Principal Secretary (Education) to the Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla-2.
• 2. The Director of Education to the Government of H.P. Shimla, H.P.

…..Respondents.

CIVIL WRIT PETITIONS UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Coram:

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ . Yes

For the Petitioner(s):	Mr. Dushyant Dadwal, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate<br>General.

Surinder Singh, Judge (Oral).

Similar reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners in both the petitions. Therefore, taken up together to avoid conflicting decisions.

2. Heard and gone through the record.

3. The petitioners are the Assistant Librarians. They seek direction to the respondents to implement the instructions of the respondent Department for the grant of the UGC grade which is allowed to the similar situated persons, as per directions of this Court passed in CWP(T) No. 4436 of 2008 titled V.D. Sarswati and others versus State of HP and another which decision was given effect by the respondents vide annexure P5 dated 16.6.1994 qua some of the similar situated persons.

4. On attaining the age of superannuation, petitioners have retired from service. As a matter of

______________________________________________

¹ Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes

fact, all of them were appointed Assistant Librarians in the State Education Department and their services were governed under the "H.P. Education Department Class-III (Technical) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and certain Conditions of Service) Rules, 1971" in short '1971 Rules'. Thus, they are the members of an unified cadre, posted at various places in the State, i.e., Schools, Colleges and in the State Public Libraries. The 2nd respondent ordered that only the senior most Assistant Librarians will get the pay scale of `300-600/- from the date shown against each of the officials vide office order dated 7.7.1981. In most of the cases, revised pay scale was granted on and w.e.f. 1.11.1966 and in other cases, pay scales were granted subsequent to it, as shown in the said order.

5. The petitioners contended that they are doing the same job and were qualified to hold the aforesaid posts and the higher grade was only granted to handful of persons after relaxing the Rules and revised UGC pay scales were not granted to them, which action of the respondents is wrong and illegal.

6. In reply, the respondents took up the stand that 11 Assistant Librarians, who were granted

• 3 -

revised UGC pay scales were because of the implementation of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No. 4436/2008 subject to the decision of the LPA No. 146/2009 and otherwise, the order passed by this Court was in personam and not in rem, therefore, it cannot be made applicable to all of them. Further that the names of the petitioners are not in the seniority list circulated on 16.1.1985. In fact, 20 persons, who were posted in the Public Libraries were selected for the revised UGC pay scales from all Districts regarding which the notification was issued on 12.5.1978 by the Secretary Education.

7. In fact, there is no denying the fact that there is only a single cadre of Assistant Librarians manning the Libraries in the Schools/ Colleges/ Public Libraries, then it is not understood what criteria was adopted and which rule was applied to grant UGC scale to 20 persons and how their seniority was fixed and why a class within a class was created without any rationale.

8. Therefore, the stand of the respondents that the pay scale of ` 300-600/- was granted on the basis of the seniority of the Senior Assistant Librarians also appears to be irrational and without any basis. When all the Assistant Librarians were in

• 4 -

the same cadre, forming a homogeneous class, therefore, such a classification offends Article 14 of the Constitution.

9. In TA No. 543 of 1986 along with connected matters decided on 26.7.1993 titled D.R. Chauhan versus State of H.P. and another the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal directed the respondent State to revise the pay scales of the petitioners therein and other similar situated Assistant Librarians to 300-600/-. Admittedly, this was never challenged by the State before any higher Forum. Thus it attained finality. In the said judgment/order, there is neither a reference to grant the aforesaid scale to a particular class in the cadre nor it was restricted to the petitioners therein. But however, the State did not comply with the aforesaid directions issued by the Tribunal in so far as similar situated persons are concerned. The office order No. 3/26 Edu-A dated 7.7.1981 was also in utter violation of the Rules. However, 2nd respondent also issued a letter dated 16.6.1994 whereby it was directed that pay scale of300-600 would be granted only to the Senior Assistant Librarians as a measure personal to them to the existing incumbents. The letter containing such a direction is certainly contrary to the judgment/order of the learned Tribunal aforesaid. Consequently, the respondent department issued another notification modifying earlier office order of 1981 aforesaid whereby the said scale was made applicable to all but despite to utter surprise that it was not implemented qua the petitioners. Therefore, the stand taken by the respondents that it was only restricted to the Senior Assistant Librarians, who were posted in the State Public Libraries is contrary to the aforesaid notification dated 16.6.1994 as also the judgment of the Tribunal which has attained finality, which is in rem not in personam restricted either to the petitioners or to a particular class of incumbents in the cadre.

10. Further, in CWP(T) No. 4436/2008 the learned Single Judge of this Court also examined the same contentions raised by the respondents which were rejected and the petitioners therein were held entitled to UGC grade w.e.f. 1.4.1980 and thereafter the revised UGC scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986. It was also observed that the Assistant Librarians were doing the same job where they were posted in Schools/Colleges/State Public Libraries and there was a common seniority list and the conditions of service were also same. Therefore, they were held entitled to the higher pay scale of ` 300-600/ irrespective of the date of their appointment. Further, this point was also examined by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 237/2010 filed by the respondents against Shri Madan Lal Tomar and others and the observations of the learned Single Judge were upheld while dismissing the appeal.

11. Therefore, in view of the afore-stated situation, both the petitions are allowed. Respondents are directed to grant UGC pay scales to the petitioners w.e.f. 1.4.1980 and thereafter revised UGC scales w.e.f. 1.1.1986 with a subsequent revision from time to time, within a period three months from the date of production of the copy of this judgment/order, failing which, it shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date it "fell due". 12. With these directions, both these petitions

are disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.

(cm) Judge.

May 30, 2012 (Surinder Singh),

• 7 -