Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the withdrawal of an upgraded pay scale granted to a College Librarian. The appellant was appointed on July 29, 1972 as a Librarian in a government college in the pay scale of Rs.220-550. The Haryana government, accepting recommendations of the Government of India and the University Grants Commission, upgraded the pay scale of Librarians to Rs.700-1600 with effect from January 1, 1973, subject to minimum educational qualifications of first or second class M.A., M.Sc., M.Com plus first or second class B.Lib. Science or diploma in Library Science. Subsequently, by order dated January 16, 1987, the Government of India relaxed the requirement of securing first or second class in the prescribed educational qualifications for existing incumbents appointed on or before December 3, 1972. The Principal of the college where the appellant worked granted him the revised pay scale of Rs.700-1600 under this relaxation order. However, the Haryana government directed the Principal to withdraw the revised pay scale. The appellant challenged this direction before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in C.W.P. No. 10988 of 1993, which dismissed the writ petition on September 9, 1993, leading to the present appeal by special leave. The appellant contended that since he had been granted the scale in relaxation of educational qualification, he was entitled to the upgraded scale. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the relaxation pertained only to obtaining first or second class in the prescribed educational qualifications and did not relax the minimum educational qualification itself. As the appellant admittedly lacked the required educational qualifications, he was not entitled to the relaxation, and the Principal erred in granting it. However, the Court noted that the higher pay scale was paid not on account of any misrepresentation by the appellant but because of a wrong construction by the Principal, for which the appellant could not be held at fault. Consequently, the amount already paid to the appellant was not to be recovered. The Court also held that the principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scale prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal was allowed partly without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Scale and Educational Qualifications - Relaxation of Educational Qualification - Not mentioned - The appellant, a College Librarian, was granted upgraded pay scale of Rs.700-1600 by the Principal purportedly under a government order dated 16.01.1987 relaxing requirement of first or second class in prescribed educational qualifications - The Supreme Court held that the relaxation extended only to class/grade requirement and not to minimum educational qualifications themselves; since appellant admittedly lacked required qualifications, he was not entitled to upgraded scale and Principal erred in granting it (Paras 2-5). B) Service Law - Recovery of Excess Payment - No Recovery When Employee Not at Fault - Not mentioned - Because the higher pay scale was paid due to wrong construction by the Principal and not due to any misrepresentation by appellant, the amount paid till date could not be recovered from him (Para 5). C) Constitutional Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Applicability to UGC Pay Scales - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court held that principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to scale prescribed by University Grants Commission (Para 5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant was entitled to the upgraded pay scale of Rs.700-1600 pursuant to the relaxation order dated 16.01.1987 despite lacking the minimum educational qualifications; whether the amount already paid could be recovered from him.
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed partly without any order as to costs. The appellant was not entitled to the upgraded pay scale of Rs.700-1600 because he lacked the minimum educational qualifications, and the relaxation order did not waive the basic qualification itself. However, the amount already paid to the appellant on the revised scale was not to be recovered, as the higher pay was granted due to a wrong construction by the Principal and not due to any misrepresentation by the appellant.
Law Points
- Relaxation of educational qualification does not waive minimum educational qualification itself
- Recovery of excess payment not permissible when employee not at fault due to employer's wrong construction
- Equal pay for equal work does not apply to UGC pay scales
