IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 3949/2008 (OA 2023/96) Date of Decision : April 22, 2009 Ms. Uma Mahajan and another Petitioners Versus H.P. University Shimla through its Registrar, Summer Hill, Shimla-5. Respondent Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioners : Ms. Nidhi Sharma Advocate vice Mr. Bhubnesh Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. For the respondent : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate, for the respondent. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The petitioner was appointed as Semi Professional Assistant in the year 1974. With the passage of time, she was promoted as Senior Professional Assistant (Library) in the pay scale of Rs. 550- 900. It is her grievance that similarly situated persons who were junior to her were also promoted as Senior Professional Assistant but however assigned the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000. The petitioners are claiming parity of pay scale since their induction in the cadre of Semi Professional Assistant (Library). 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The respondent in its reply has clarified that vide notification dated 29.12.1987 (Annexure R-5) the petitioners were considered but however since they did not fulfill the criteria laid down, entitling them to higher pay scale they were found ineligible and thus their case was considered separately and were held entitled to draw their salary on their old respective pay scales. Persons who were junior to the petitioners fulfilled the eligibility criteria. As per the guidelines laid down by the University Grants Commission, which are universally followed by respondent university, the qualification laid down for the upgraded scale is as under: “With First or Second class BA/B.Sc./B.Com. plus first or second class M.Lib. Science degree. OR First or second class M.A./M.Sc/M.Com. degree and a first or second class B.Lib. Sc. or a Post Graduate diploma in Library Science.” Admittedly the respondents do not have the said qualification. In this view of the matter the petitioners’ prayer for same pay scale cannot be granted. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan versus Gopi Kishan Sen, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 522, has held that differentiation based on pay scale is valid. Different pay scales can be prescribed for persons employed in the same service depending upon their educational qualification. The rationale being that the 3 efficiency of a person having a higher qualification is likely to be better than a less qualified person, provided, of course, the qualification is of a nature likely to enable him to perform his duty better, and for this reason, there cannot be any legitimate objection to the grant of a better scale of pay. Further in Union of India and others versus Hiranmoy Sen and others, (2008) 1 SCC 630, the Apex Court has held that if there are two posts carrying the same scales and merely because pay scale of one post has increased that by itself cannot result in the increase in the pay scale of other post. It is entirely up to the authorities to fix the pay scales and decide whether the same should be increased or not. For the aforesaid reasons the present petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. April 22, 2009 (PK)