C.W.P. No.3323 of 1995 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.3323 of 1995 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION : 30.11.2011 Ms.Neelam Bala PETITIONER VERSUS State of Punjab and others RESPONDENTS CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Shri R.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajaib Singh, Additional A.G. Punjab. MAHESH GROVER, J. The petitioner prays that the pay-scale which is admissible to Librarian, be also made available to her since she is working as Librarian with the respondents. The case of the petitioner is that she is qualified with Diploma in Library Science and joined the service as Librarian on 12.6.1979 in the pay-scale of Rs.110-250, which was subsequently revised to Rs.450-800. The petitioner made a representation soon after her appointment that she deserves to get the higher pay-scale of Librarian, and not the Assistant Librarian. The respondents were paying her the pay-scale of Assistant Librarian which was arbitrary. The C.W.P. No.3323 of 1995 -2- petitioner has also pleaded that at the relevant point of time, only the Draft Rules were framed, which were subsequently notified in the year 2007. According to the Draft Rules and the subsequent notified rules, the qualification for the post of Librarian was B.A. with Diploma in Library Science or Higher Secondary with Punjabi upto Matric. The petitioner's case was also referred to the Anomaly Committee, but no communication was received from the petitioner rectifying her anomaly in the pay-scale. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is not disputed that the petitioner was appointed as Librarian and that keeping in view her qualification, her pay-scale was revised from 450-85- to 570-1080, but strangely enough, after admitting the claim of the petitioner, in para-5 of the reply, the respondents have sought to equate the post of the petitioner with that of Assistant Librarian and justify the pay-scale which was being made admissible to her. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, the learned counsel for the respondents sought to project that the petitioner was working as Junior Librarian and repeatedly referred to an application which the petitioner had submitted prior to her getting assignment of Librarian. Despite repeated questioning, the respondents could not show any material which would justifiably offset their stand or the effect of Annexure P-1, which clearly reflects that the petitioner was working as Librarian and the respondents were conscious of this fact and were also conscious of her qualifications and the pay-scale. The respondents have also tried to plead that there is no post of Librarian existing with the respondent/Department, which is again without any basis, as no material has been shown to this Court which could justify the stand of the respondents. This Court is constrained to say that at best, it was an attempt to mislead this Court, the reason for observing so is that there is no such pleading in the reply filed by the respondents, wherein they have categorically conceded that C.W.P. No.3323 of 1995 -3- the petitioner was working as Librarian. There is thus no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner was working as Librarian. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that there is no reason that the petitioner should be denied the pay-scale of Librarian which she is entitled to, due to her having worked on the said post ever since her appointment. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to the pay-scale of Librarian, as revised from time to time and depicted in the rules notified in 2007, i.e. Rs.5000-8100 and she would also be entitled to subsequent revision which may have taken place during her tenure of service. Since the respondents have unjustifiably denied the benefit to the petitioner, the petition is accepted with costs of Rs.10,000/- (MAHESH GROVER) November 30, 2011 JUDGE GD WHETHER TO BE REFERRED TO REPORTER? YES/NO