WP(C) 1394/2006 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard M r. D Chakraborty, learned Central Govt. counsel who appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner who is serving as a Library Assistant in the North Easter n Regional Institute of Water and Land Management, Tezpur (hereinafter referred to as ’the Institute’) has approached the Court seeking financial up-gradation i n the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 instead of Rs.4500-7000 that was granted to h im. Higher scale of pay is claimed on the basis of the two Office Memorandum(s), first one dated 24.7.1990 (Annexure D) issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry o f Finance, Department of Expenditure, whereby recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission for Library Staff have been incorporated and a second Office Mem orandum issued on 21.2.2002 (Annexure F), whereby the merger of the post(s) of L ibrary Information Assistant and Senior Library and Information Assistant were o rdered and uniform pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 was prescribed for both the post(s) of Library Information Assistant/ Senior Library and Information Assistant. 3. Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Institute Authorities failed to implement the recommendation made through th e said Office Memorandum(s) for the Library Staff in the Institute whereas such pay upgradation bendfit have been conferred for the Library Staff in the North E astern Council (NEC) Secretariat under which the Institute functions. 4.1. Mr. D Chakraborty, learned Central Govt. counsel by relying upon the cou nter affidavit filed by the Director of the Institute submits that the Institute is governed by a Management Council and under Clause 12.5 of the Bye Laws of th e Institute, the posts and the pay of the Institute’s staff are to be decided by the Management Council. It is further submitted that the Institute has its own staff structure and pay scale keeping in mind its own requirement and the recomm endation made by the Govt. of India on posts and pay scale are not automatically extended to the Institute’s Staff, unless it is approved by the Management Coun cil. 4.2. It is further pointed out by the learned Central Govt. counsel that the writ petitioner was appointed as a Library Assistant without specialized Library qualification on 29.2.1992 and for lack of necessary qualification, he could no t apply for the post of Asstt. Librarian, which was filled up by a duly qualifie d candidate on contract basis on 4.11.1999. The petitioner obtained the B. Lib. Degree only in the year 2003 and prior to the said date, he had no qualification for the post of Asstt. Librarian / Library Information Assistant. 4.3. The learned counsel also submits that because the petitioner was stagnat ing in the post of Library Assistant for more than 12 years, by the order dated 31.3.2005, financial up-gradation in the next higher grade as applicable under t he ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000 was granted to him and since ther e is no sanctioned post of Library Information Assistant or pay scale of Rs.5500 -9000 for Assistant Librarian, there can be no justification for claiming ACP be nefits in the higher pay scale. 5. The bye-laws of the Institute clearly shows that it is for the Managemen t Council to take a decision on the posts and the pay scale for the staff under the Institute. The recommendation of the Govt. of India is not automatically imp lementable in the Institute, unless they are approved for implementation by the Management Council. In such circumstances, I find no enforceable right in favour of the petitioner to claim the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 which has not been imp lemented in the Institute. 6. But since it is submitted by Mr. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the petit ioner that the recommendation of the Central Government for higher pay scale has been approved by the Management Council in respect of most of the posts under t he Institute barring the posts in the Institute’s Library, it is prayed that the Appeal filed by the writ petitioner on 21.11.2005 (Annexure I) before the Direc tor for the higher pay scale be placed for consideration by the Management Counc il of the Institute. The learned counsel representing the respondents does not h ave any objection to consideration of the petitioner’s representation by the Man agement Council. 7. In view of the above discussion and agreement, I direct that the Appeal of the writ petitioner be appropriately considered by the Management Council. Th e Director of the Institute is directed to facilitate consideration of the said Appeal by the Management Council. 8. The petitioner may furnish a copy of this Court’s order along with a cop y of his pending Appeal to the Director of the Institute for carrying out the Co urt’s directions. The matter be placed for consideration in the next meeting of the Management Council as it is informed by Mr. Chakraborty that they sit only o nce every year. 9. The case is disposed of accordingly.