TMI Blog1995 (10) TMI 234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... leges in different grades are entitled to the parity in the pay scales between the professional library staff and the teaching staff of the University of Delhi and its colleges recognised and established since January, 1961. 2. The appellants case is that in the year 1957 the University Grants Commission constituted a Committee appointed by University Grants Commission, respondent No. 2 under the Chairmanship of Dr. S.R. Ranganathan. The said Committee recommended that the status and the salary scales of the library staff should be the same as that of the teaching and research staff. Further case of the appellants is that in the year 1961 University Grants Commission, the respondent No. 2 took decision to give effect to the aforesaid rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ended continuance of the said parity in the pay scales and allowances of the librarians with that of the teaching staff, consequently the Executive Council of the University adopted these recommendations in its resolutions dated 10.4.1974 and 23.5.1974. Again in the year 1977 on the recommendations of respondent No. 2, Union of India, respondent No. 1 ultimately decided to revise the scales of pay of librarians in Central Universities and in the colleges of the University of Delhi vide its letter dated 7.1.1977. 3. The appellants grievance is that the respondent No. 1 abruptly and arbitrarily disturbed the parity of the pay scales of the teaching staff and the library staff except the Librarian of the University of Delhi with retrospecti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been stated that the sanction of identical scales to the teaching staff and the library staff in the Delhi University and its colleges were just co-incidental. The Committee for Library Staff and Physical Education personnel had not recommended parity in their pay scale with those of the Professors, Readers and Lecturers on account of the fact that educational qualifications, nature of work, duties and work-load and responsibilities of the two sets of employees are entirely different. It has been stated that it is not a fact that these scales were given to library staff because there existed some parity between them and that making the same scales available to the library staff was not based on any scientific justification. Regarding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be said that same qualifications are prescribed for the posts of library staff and the teachers in Delhi University and its colleges. It has been emphatically stated by the respondent No. 2 that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities as well as the type of experience and the period of work of the two sets of employees are altogether different and that both these categories can on no account be equated. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellants took pains in persuading us that the librarian and Library staff play a vital role in the development of the institutions of higher learning and they are of real and immense help to research work and advance studies. The educational qualifications of the two sets of employees are also the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms and other academic work while this is not so in the case of library stall. The experience of library staff is totally different from the one which is required for the teaching staff. Working pattern of the two sets of employees cannot be said to be identical so as to claim parity between the library staff and the teaching staff. If the Government as a matter of policy had equated the library staff for the purposes of pay scales earlier for a certain period as contended by the appellants, they should be thankful to the government as they could not have claimed the parity as of right. In any case that was the decision of the Government which had allowed the equation of pay scales during the period from 1961 to January 1, 1973. Later, if th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m its duty by exercising the discretion according to law. This was also the view expressed by the Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Anr. v. Mohd. Ismail and Ors.: (1991)IILLJ332SC . In the present case we find that there is no judicial or quasi-judicial duty or any obligation imposed on the Government to equate the library staff with the leaching staff, on the basis of which the enforcement thereof could be claimed by the appellants. In such a situation it cannot be said that the Government did not act fairly or acted malafide so as to call for any interference by this Court invoking the power of Judicial review. 8. For the reasons staled above we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. No order as to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
