IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2578 of 2008. Decided on: 26.3.2009. ___________________________________________________________ Shri P.K. Kaushal. … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. Dilip Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents No.1&2 : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. For Respondents No. 3 to 5 : Nemo. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. The petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis as Librarian in Government Polytechnic College, Hamirpur on 29.11.1967. He was granted pay scale of Rs. 60-175. In the year 1968, the State Government decided to carve out the Department of Technical Education from the Education Department. He opted for his reversion from Technical Education to the Education Department on 14.12.1971. In the Education Department, the Assistant Librarians were granted the pay scale of Rs. 125-300. In the Department of Technical Education, the pay scale of Librarian was also Rs. 125-300 as is evident from Annexure A-4. In Education Department, there are two categories of Librarians. The higher category of Librarians was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 220-500 and the lower category of Assistant Librarians (College/School etc.) 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 125-300. The pay scales were revised on 2.11.1979. The Assistant Librarians, who were in the pay scale of Rs. 125-300, were granted the pay scale of Rs. 450- 800. Vide Annexure A-9 Shri Sumesh Chand and others were granted the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 with effect from 1.11.1966. Similarly situated persons approached this Court for redressal of their grievance. The writ petition was transferred to the H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide judgment dated 26.7.1993 allowed the writ petition and held the Assistant Librarians working in the Education Department entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 with effect from 1.1.1966. The grievance of the petitioner was not redressed though he had filed number of representations. It will be apt at this stage to mention that vide notification dated 16.6.1994, the Assistant Librarians in the Education Department were allowed the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 with effect from1.11.1966. Mr. Dilip Sharma has strenuously argued that his client was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 with effect from 1.11.1966 on the basis of Annexure A-9 dated 7.7.1981 and Annexure A-19 dated 16.6.1994. He then contended that the post of petitioner is comparable for all intents and purposes with the post of Assistant Librarian working in Education Department. He further contended that the educational qualification of the Assistant Librarian in the Education Department and Technical Department is the same, i.e. Matriculation with certificate of Library Science. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner cannot claim parity with the Assistant Librarian 3 working in the Education Department. According to him, the petitioner has been granted the pay scale on the basis of Punjab pattern. I have heard the parties and have gone through the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was appointed though initially on ad hoc basis in the year 1967 as Assistant Librarian, however, he was regularized as Librarian on 25.9.1970. His initial appointment was in Education Department. The State Government decided to have separate Directorate of Technical Education in the year 1968. He made representations seeking his reversion to the Education Department from the Technical Education. The pay scale of Assistant Librarian in the Education Department and in the Technical Education was Rs. 125-300. The post of Assistant Librarian in the Education Department is comparable to the post of Librarian in the Technical Education. The pay scales of Assistant Librarians in both the Directorates were revised on 2.11.1979 from Rs. 125-300 to Rs. 450-800. The pay scales were revised from 125-300 to Rs. 450-800 after taking into consideration the duties being discharged by the Assistant Librarians in the Education Department and the Librarian in Technical Education. The qualifications for both the posts are the same i.e. Matriculation with certificate in Library Science. The duties being discharged by the Assistant Librarian in the Education Department and by the Librarian in the Department of Technical Education are the same. One Shri Sumesh Chand, who was also working as Librarian in the Government Polytechnic, Sundernagar, was granted the pay scale 4 of Rs. 300-600 with effect from 1.1.1966 from 7.7.1981. The representations made by the petitioner seeking pay scale of Rs. 300-600 were not heeded to. Taking cue from the notification dated 7.7.1981, as noticed above, similarly situated persons, who were working as Assistant Librarians in the Education Department sought pay scale of Rs. 300-600 with effect from 1.1.1966 by approaching the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal granted the relief on 26.7.1993. The necessary notification was issued on 16.6.1994. The respondents have maintained the parity of the petitioner as far as the release of pay scale was concerned, from the very beginning at par with the Assistant Librarians working in the Education Department. It was only when the notification was issued on 7.7.1981 that the petitioner had claimed the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 granted to some Assistant Librarians in the Education Department on 1.11.1966 along with Shri Sumesh Chand. The learned Tribunal has also granted the relief to Assistant Librarians, who were left out from the purview of notification dated 7.7.1981. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioner could not be granted the pay scale of Rs. 300- 600 with effect from 1.11.1966 since the revised pay scales were given to the petitioner on Punjab pattern. In other words, his submission is that he has been granted the pay scale of the comparable posts in the Department of Technical Education. This plea cannot be accepted. The respondents were required to take into consideration the past practice whereby the petitioner has been compared for all purposes with Assistant Librarians working in the Education Department. The qualifications for the post of Assistant 5 Librarian in the Education Department and for the post of Librarian in the Technical Education Department are the same. The duties discharged by them are also the same. The fact that the petitioner had been granted same pay scale after the revision pre-supposes that the respondents were maintaining petitioner’s parity of the pay scale with the Education Department. The State cannot take an arbitrary decision to depart from practice leading to injustice. The petitioner is working under the same employer. Earlier, he was appointed in the Education Department. He had made representation seeking repatriation to Education Department from Technical Education. He cannot be permitted to suffer only for the reason that he has been made to work in Technical Education instead of Education Department where he was initially appointed. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.T. Veerappa and others versus State of Karnataka and others, (2006) 9 Supreme Court Cases 406 have held that the Courts can interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. Their Lordships have held as under: “He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the executive and financial capacity of the Government and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal 6 Staff Assn. that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors.” Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The decision of the respondents not to grant the petitioner the pay scale of Rs. 300-600 with effect from 1.11.1966 is declared unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary. He is held entitled to the pay scale of 300-600 on the basis of Annexures A-9 and A-19 with effect from 1.11.1966 with all consequential benefits. The respondents shall calculate the consequential benefits within a period of ten weeks from today. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. March 26, 2009. (cr)