IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 14TH KARTHIKA 1930 OP.No. 21431 of 1999(B) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- P. RAMANATHAN, ATTENDER, RURAL LIBRARY, PAROPPADY, MERIKKUNNU.P.O. BY ADV. SRI.PARTHASARATHY. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION (A) DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. STATE LIBRARY COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT LIBRARY COUNCIL, PALAYAM BUS STAND BUILDING, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. M.R. SABU, R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.SURENDRANATH. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. NO. 21431/1999-B: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION DTD. 19/12/98. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. K. DIS. M3.61207/80 DTD. 05/01/1982. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O. (MS). NO. 02/99/H. EDN. DTD. 01/01/99. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O. (P).NO.36/71/EDN. DTD. 23/03/1971. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 06/03/99 MADE BY THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. prv. S. SIRI JAGAN, J. ------------------------------------ O.P.No.21431 OF 1999 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Library Attender under the 3rd respondent – District Library Council, which is an establishment coming under the 2nd respondent – State Library Council. The petitioner was originally appointed as a Library Attender in the Local Library Authority, Kozhikode, which was an establishment under the Madras Public Libraries Act 1948. In 1968, qualifications of various posts in the Local Library Authorities were re-fixed. However, in respect of persons already in service prior to re- fixation of the qualification by Ext.P2, were exempted from possessing the revised qualifications for the purposes of continuance in the respective posts and for the purposes of promotion to higher posts to which they were qualified according to the qualifications originally prescribed before the qualifications were re-fixed. Pursuant thereto the petitioner, who did not O.P.No.21431/1999 2 possess the refixed qualifications continued as Library Attender enjoying the exemption granted by Ext.P2. In 1989, the Kerala Libraries Act was enacted and as per Section 46(1) of the Act, the Local Library Authorities were transferred to the District Library Councils by Ext.P1 order dated 19.12.1998. Accordingly, the petitioner became a Library Attender in the District Library Council and continued as such. While so, the Government by Ext.P3 order, extended the pay revision benefits granted to the Librarians of Government Departments to the Librarians under the Local Library Authorities. However, that pay revision benefits were not extended to the petitioner. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) issue notice to the respondents and declare that the petitioner who is a Library Attender and discharging the same duty as Librarian Grade IV in Departmental Libraries is entitled to the same pay as applicable to Librarian Grade IV and; ii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders making Ext.P3 Government Order and the O.P.No.21431/1999 3 scale of pay of Librarian Grade IV applicable to the petitioner and other Library Attenders similarly situated and also.” 2. The petitioner's contention is that in the Government Departmental Libraries, Librarians were classified as Librarian Gr.I, Librarian Gr.II, Librarian Gr.III and Librarian Gr.IV. The corresponding categories in the Local Library Authority are Librarian Gr.I, Librarian Gr.II, Librarian Gr.III and Library Attender. The petitioner would contend that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Librarian Gr.IV in Government Departments and Library Attender in the Local Library Authorities are the same as also the duties and functions attached to that post. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the post of Librarian Gr.IV in Government Department is equivalent to the post of Library Attender in the Local Library Authority. That being so, the pay revision benefits applicable to Librarian Gr.IV is to be given to Library Attender in the Local Library Authority, in view of Ext.P3 Government Order is the contention raised by the petitioner. O.P.No.21431/1999 4 3. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit refuting the contentions of the petitioner. Although it is stated in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that the averment of the petitioner that in Libraries run by the Local Library Authorities, there are Librarians Gr.I to III and Library Attender and Library Attender is in independent charge of rural libraries are discharging the same duties as that of Librarian Gr.IV in Department Libraries are without any basis, the counter affidavit does not state as to how the averment of the petitioner is not correct. It is not disputed before me that the qualifications prescribed for the post of Librarian Gr.IV in Government Department Libraries are the same qualifications prescribed for Library Attender in the Local Library Authorities. It is not also contended before me by the 2nd respondent that there is a post of Library Attender in the Government Department Libraries. It is not disputed before me that there is no post of Librarian Gr.IV in the Local Library Authorities. That being so, the irresistible conclusion is that the post of Librarian Gr.IV in the Government Departmental Libraries O.P.No.21431/1999 5 is equivalent to the post of Library Attender in the Local Library Authorities. Therefore, these two posts are comparable. When by Ext.P3, the Government extended pay revision benefits applicable to Government Departmental Libraries to the corresponding posts in the Local Library Authorities, such benefits should be extended to comparable posts, since the nomenclature for posts used in the two services may not be the same although qualifications and duties and functions may be the same. It is all the more so since a person holding one particular post cannot be discriminated in the matter of pay revision benefits. When in an establishment pay revision benefits is extended, the pay revision should be made applicable to all the categories of persons uniformly in that establishment. In this case, simply because a post of Library Attender is not available in the Government Departmental Libraries, the Library Attenders of Local Library Authorities cannot be deprived of pay revision benefits. Therefore, the attempt should be to find out a corresponding category in the Government Departmental Libraries equivalent to the post of Library Attender O.P.No.21431/1999 6 in Local Library Authorities and extend the pay revision benefits applicable to that post. The respondents could not satisfy me that the post of Librarian Gr.IV in Government Departmental Libraries are not comparable to that of Library Attender in Local Library Authorities. Therefore, I am of opinion that the pay revision benefits applicable to Librarians Gr.IV in the Government Departmental Libraries should be extended to the Library Attenders of Local Library Authorities. 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would raise another contention that since the petitioner does not possess the qualifications prescribed for Librarian Gr.IV in Government Departmental Libraries or Library Attender in Local Library Authorities, he cannot calim the benefits of pay revision as applicable to Librarian Gr.IV of Government Departmental Libraries. 5. I am unable to countenance that contention also. The petitioner joined the establishment much before these qualifications were introduced as necessary qualifications for the O.P.No.21431/1999 7 post of Library Attender. In order to enable the petitioner to continue in service based on the earlier qualifications, by Ext.P2, the Director of Public Instructions had exempted persons like the petitioner from the revised qualifications for the purposes of continuance in the respective posts and even for the purpose of promotions. That being so, on that ground the petitioner cannot be discriminated in so far as he has been accepted and continues as a Library Attender in the Local Library Authority, which post is comparable to the post of Librarian Gr.IV in Government Departmental Libraries. 6. The result of the above discussion is that the persons holding the post of Library Attender in Local library Authorities become eligible for the pay revision benefits as per Ext.P3 as applicable to Librarian Gr.IV of the Government Departmental Libraries. Consequently the petitioner being a Library Attender of the Local Library Authority, he also becomes entitled to such pay revision benefits. It is declared so. O.P.No.21431/1999 8 7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in S.C. CHANDRA AND OTHERS V. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS [(2007(8) Supreme Court Cases 279] for the proposition that the equal pay for equal work is applicable only when there is complete and wholesale identity between two posts. Since I have held that the two posts are comparable posts, the application of that decision does not arise in this original petition. 8. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent expresses an apprehension that the Government may direct the 2nd respondent to bear the expenses for such pay revision benefits since Ext.P3 does not cover such pay revision benefits to the Library Attenders. 9. I do not find any basis for such apprehension because I have held that the petitioner becomes entitled to pay revision benefits by virtue of Ext.P3. Therefore, all the benefits declared by the Government as per Ext.P3 would be applicable in this case. Therefore, the Government being a party to this writ petition, O.P.No.21431/1999 9 cannot contend otherwise, and all their liabilities under Ext.P3 have to be borne by them in respect of the petitioner also. In the above circumstances, the original petition is allowed as above and the 2nd respondent is directed to pass consequential orders monetary benefits of which due to the petitioner shall be disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Acd O.P.No.21431/1999 10