Summary
The respondent was appointed in 1991 as Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant at the Government Dhanvantri Ayurvedic College, Ujjain, under the Ayush Department, in the scale prescribed by the 1987 Rules. After eight years she claimed the UGC senior scale of Librarian under the M.P. Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990, which govern Higher Education Department colleges. The Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed her writ petition following M.K. Verma and the Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court allowed the State's appeal: the 1990 Rules never applied to Ayush institutions, which have separate rules and receive no UGC aid; the post, qualifications and scales differ; equal pay for equal work requires employees similarly circumstanced in every way; there is no equality in illegality; and pay fixation is policy with which courts interfere only in exceptional cases.
Issues
- Whether a Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant in a Government Ayurvedic College under the Ayush Department, appointed under the 1987 Rules, is entitled to the UGC scale of pay applicable to Librarians of colleges under the Higher Education Department under the M.P. Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990.
- Whether the doctrine of equal pay for equal work or Article 14 warrants judicial interference with the pay scales fixed for a distinct cadre governed by separate recruitment rules.
Provisions considered
- Schedules of posts, qualifications and pay scales (1987 Rules: Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian; 1990 Rules: Librarian), M.P. Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy) Class-III Clerical and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987; M.P. Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990The 1987 Rules, not the 1990 Rules, governed the respondent: the post of Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant exists only under the 1987 Rules, her appointment letter fixed her in the 1987 scale, the minimum qualification under the 1987 Rules is graduation whereas the 1990 Rules require a post-graduate degree, and the 1990 Rules apply to Higher Education Department colleges receiving UGC aid, which Ayush colleges do not; the 2013 Ayush Department Rules superseded the 1987 Rules, confirming that Ayush employees were always governed by a separate set of rules. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 19, 21, 22)
- Article 14 (equal pay for equal work; reasonable classification), Constitution of IndiaEqual pay for equal work can be invoked only where employees are similarly circumstanced in every way, mere similarity of designation or work not being determinative (Ramesh Chandra Bajpai); a reasonable classification with intelligible differentia is a valid discrimination, and courts must respect policy classifications unless they border on arbitrariness (Sudhir Budakoti; Narmada Bachao Andolan). There can be no equality in a wrong or illegality. (¶¶ 18, 20, 23, 24, 25)
Held
- The 1990 Rules were patently inapplicable to the respondent: they govern institutions under the Higher Education Department receiving UGC financial aid, contain no post of Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant, and prescribe a different scale and a post-graduate qualification, whereas she was appointed under the 1987 Rules to a post carrying a graduate qualification and a distinct scale, which was duly revised, and raised no dispute for over eight years. The High Court's reliance on M.K. Verma, which concerned librarians of engineering and medical colleges, was misplaced. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19)
- The issue is squarely covered by State of M.P. v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, where a Physical Training Instructor in a Government Ayurvedic College governed by the 1987 Rules was denied the UGC scale, this Court holding that the 1987 and 1990 Rules deal with different classes of employees with entirely different qualifications and scales, and that equal pay for equal work applies only to employees similarly circumstanced in every way, having regard to mode of recruitment, qualifications, nature and value of work and responsibilities. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18)
- There can be no equality in a wrong or illegality, so an erroneous grant of the UGC scale to some librarian would not entitle others to claim it; the Ayush Department's 2013 Rules, framed in supersession of the 1987 Rules, show that its employees were at all material times governed by separate rules; and fixation of pay scales is a matter of policy with which courts interfere only in exceptional cases of discrimination between employees appointed by the same authority, in the same manner, with the same eligibility criteria and identical duties, not merely because another decision might be fairer. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Madhya Pradesh High Court's judgment of 10.08.2016 in W.A. No. 301 of 2016 and the Single Judge's order of 09.02.2016 in W.P. No. 14027 of 2010, directing grant of the UGC scale of pay to the respondent Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant of the Government Dhanvantri Ayurvedic College, Ujjain from her initial appointment, set aside. Pending applications disposed of.