STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & ORS. versus SEEMA SHARMA on 12 May 2022

SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2022] 4 S.C.R. 798

[2022] 4 S.C.R.

ASTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPALSECRETARY & ORS.

v.

SEEMA SHARMA

(Civil Appeal No. 3892 of 2022)

B

MAY 12, 2022

[INDIRA BANERJEE AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]

Service Law – Madhya Pradesh Education Service (CollegiateBranch), Recruitment Rules, 1990 – Madhya Pradesh Public HealthC(Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clericaland Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 – Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant – UGC Scale of Pay – Respondent wasappointed to the post of Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant in thepay scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 – After completionDof 8 years of service, the respondent claimed the UGC scale of payas paid to the persons in the senior scale of Librarian as per the1990 Rules – The request was rejected – Writ petition in the HighCourt – Single Judge allowed the petition and the respondent wasdirected to be paid the UGC scale of pay as paid to the librariansof colleges under the Higher Education Department – Intra-CourtEappeal filed by the appellant was dismissed – On appeal, held: Thescale of pay of a Librarian is specified in Schedule 1 to the said1990 Rules but there is no designated post of Librarian cum MuseumAssistant in the 1990 Rules – There is a post of Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian under the 1987 Rules – In the instant case, it wouldFbe pertinent to note that the eligibility criteria for appointment ofMuseum Assistant-cum- Librarian under the 1987 Rules was differentfrom the eligibility criteria of appointment of Librarian under the1990 Rules – It is patently clear that the 1990 Rules, were notapplicable to the respondent – Hence, the appeal is allowed andthe impugned orders of the High Court are set-aside – MadhyaGPradesh Ayush Department (Clerical and Non-Clerical), Class-III,Service Recruitment Rules, 2013.

Service Law – Fixation of scales of pay – Interference ofCourts – Held: The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy,with which the Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases whereH

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARYv. SEEMA SHARMA

there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed bythe same authority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteriais the same and the duties are identical in every aspect.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD: 1. It is patently clear that the 1990 Rules, were notapplicable to the Respondent. The 1990 Rules have been annexedto the Rejoinder filed by the appellants. The scale of pay of aLibrarian is specified in Schedule 1 to the said 1990 Rules. Thescale of pay of a Librarian, as specified in Schedule-I is Rs. 2200-75-2800- 100-4000. Significantly, there is no designated post ofLibrarian cum Museum Assistant in the 1990 Rules. Theappointment letter of the respondent clearly shows that she wasappointed Librarian cum Museum Assistant at a pay of Rs. 950in the pay scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 along withthe prevailing dearness allowance from the date of joining. Evenafter completion of probation, and for a period of more than 8years, the respondent-writ petitioner did not raise any disputewith regard to her scale of pay. Under the 1990 Rules, the seniorscale of Librarian is Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000. Therespondent-writ petitioner started claiming the aforesaid scaleof pay of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000/- after completion of 8 yearsof service. [Paras 9-11][802-F-H; 803-A-B]

2. On the other hand, under the Madhya Pradesh PublicHealth (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III,Clerical and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987, thescale of pay of the Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian, being thepost to which the respondent was appointed was Rs. 515-10-575-15-800-20-840. That scale was revised. The Respondent-WritPetitioner was granted the revised pay scale. Significantly, asobserved above, there was no post of Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian under the 1990 Rules, but there was a post of MuseumAssistant-cum-Librarian under the 1987 Rules. It appears thatthe Division Bench as also the Single Bench of the High Courtfollowed the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.5438/2000 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. M.K.Verma &four Ors.)heard with other writ petitions. The judgment in thecase of M.K. Verma pertained to librarians of Engineering Colleges A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aand Medical Colleges and is not applicable in the facts andcircumstances of the instant case. [Paras 12 & 13][803-C-E]

3. In the instant case, it would be pertinent to note that theeligibility criteria for appointment of Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian under the 1987 Rules was different from the eligibilityBcriteria of appointment of Librarian under the 1990 Rules. Underthe 1987 Rules, the minimum qualification for the post of MuseumAssistant cum Librarian was graduate but under the 1990 Rules,the minimum qualification was post graduate degree. It is alsowell settled that there can be no equality to a wrong and/orillegality. Just because a librarian may have been erroneouslyCgranted the UGC pay scale, that would not entitle others to claimthe UGC pay scale, if not applicable under the Rules. The fixationof scales of pay is a matter of policy, with which the Courts canonly interfere in exceptional cases where there is discriminationbetween two sets of employees appointed by the same authority,Din the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the same andthe duties are identical in every aspect. [Paras 19, 20 & 23][805-D-E; 806-A-B]

State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Ramesh ChandraBajpai reported in (2009) 13 SCC 635 : [2009] 12 SCRE23 – relied on.

State of Uttarakhand v. Sudhir Budakoti & Others(C.A.No.2661 of 2015 decided by the Supreme Court);State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada Bachao Anadolanreported in (2011) 7 SCC 639 : [2011] 6 SCR 443 –referred to.FState of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. M.K. Verma & fourOrs. (W.P.(C)No. 5438 of 2000) – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2009] 12 SCR 23relied onPara 15G[2011] 6 SCR 443referred to Para 25

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3892of 2022.

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARYv. SEEMA SHARMA

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.08.2016 of the High Courtof Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W.A. No. 301 of 2016.

Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Mrinal Gopal Elker, Sunny Choudhary,Aakash Nandolia, Advs. for the Appellants.

N. K. Mody, Subash Samvatsar, Sr. Advs., Ms. Ashima Gupta,Prabudha Singh, Pareek, Praveen Swarup, Nitin S. Tambwekar,Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, Sumeet Samnatsar, Kaustubh Fadnis, Advs.for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by INDIRA BANERJEE, J.

Leave granted.

This appeal is against a judgment and order dated 10.08.2016passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh(Indore Bench) dismissing Writ Appeal No. 301/2016 and upholding theorder dated 09.02.2016 passed by the Single Bench allowing Writ PetitionNo. 14027/2010 filed by the respondent and directing the Appellants togrant the Respondent-Writ Petitioner the benefit of the University GrantsCommission scale of pay from the date of her initial appointment.

2. By an order No./EXT/91 Order No.480 dated 27.03.1991, theRespondent was appointed to the post of Librarian-cum-MuseumAssistant, Government Dhanvantri Ayurvedic College, Ujjain, in the payscale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 along with prevailing dearnessallowance from the date of joining. The basic pay of the Respondent-Writ Petitioner was fixed at Rs.950/-.

3. The Respondent-Writ Petitioner was appointed on probationfor a period of one year. The respondent successfully completed herprobation and was duly confirmed in service.

4. After completion of 8 years of service, the Respondent-WritPetitioner claimed the UGC scale of pay as paid to the persons in thesenior scale of Librarian in colleges under the Higher EducationDepartment, as per the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (CollegiateBranch), Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the “1990Rules”).

5. The request of the Respondent-Writ Petitioners for the higherUGC scale of pay was not acceded to. The Respondent-Writ Petitioner,

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Atherefore, filed the Writ Petition referred to above, which has been allowedand the Respondent-Writ Petitioner has been directed to be paid theUGC scale of pay as paid to the Librarians of colleges under the HigherEducation Department. An intra court appeal filed by the Appellants hasbeen dismissed.

B6. In the High Court as also this Court, the Respondent-WritPetitioner contended that her service conditions were governed by the1990 Rules. The Appellants contend that the 1990 Rules were neverapplicable to the Respondent. The 1990 Rules were applicable toinstitutions under the Higher Education Department. The GovernmentDhanvantri Ayurvedic College, where the Respondent-Writ PetitionerCwas appointed was not under the Higher Education Department, butunder the Ayush Department of the Government of Madhya Pradesh.

7. The Appellants pointed out that at the time of appointment, theRespondent-Writ Petitioner was governed by the Madhya Pradesh PublicHealth (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, ClericalDand Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 and not the 1990Rules. The Appellants have made a specific averment that the StateGovernment has made the UGC scales applicable to Colleges under theHigher Education Department, which are receiving financial aid fromthe UGC.

E

8. It is the specific contention of the Appellants that the AyurvedicColleges under the Ayush Department do not receive any financial aidfrom the UGC. The Rules applicable to institutions under the AyushDepartment do not contain any provision that makes the UGC scale ofpay applicable to the employees of institutions under the AyushFDepartment.

9. It is patently clear that the 1990 Rules, were not applicable tothe Respondent. The 1990 Rules have been annexed to the Rejoinderfiled by the appellants. The scale of pay of a Librarian is specified inSchedule 1 to the said 1990 Rules. The scale of pay of a Librarian, asGspecified in Schedule-I is Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000. Significantly, thereis no designated post of Librarian cum Museum Assistant in the 1990Rules.

10. The appointment letter of the respondent clearly shows thatshe was appointed Librarian cum Museum Assistant at a pay of Rs. 950in the pay scale of Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530 along with theH

prevailing dearness allowance from the date of joining. Even aftercompletion of probation, and for a period of more than 8 years, therespondent-writ petitioner did not raise any dispute with regard to herscale of pay.

11. Under the 1990 Rules, the senior scale of Librarian is Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000. The respondent-writ petitioner started claimingthe aforesaid scale of pay of Rs.3000-100-3500-125-5000/- aftercompletion of 8 years of service.

12. On the other hand, under the Madhya Pradesh Public Health(Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clerical andNon-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987, the scale of pay of theMuseum Assistant-cum-Librarian, being the post to which the respondentwas appointed was Rs. 515-10-575-15-800-20-840. That scale wasrevised. The Respondent-Writ Petitioner was granted the revised payscale. Significantly, as observed above, there was no post of MuseumAssistant-cum-Librarian under the 1990 Rules, but there was a post ofMuseum Assistant-cum-Librarian under the 1987 Rules.

13. It appears that the Division Bench as also the Single Bench ofthe High Court followed the judgment of the High Court in Writ PetitionNo. 5438/2000 (State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. M.K. Verma &four Ors.) heard with other writ petitions. The judgment in the case ofM.K. Verma (supra) pertained to librarians of Engineering Colleges andMedical Colleges and is not applicable in the facts and circumstances ofthe instant case.

14. Significantly, in M.K. Verma (supra), the Court found thatthere had been complete parity in the pay scale applicable to the librariansworking in Medical/Engineering Colleges till 30.06.1969. Thereafter, theUGC pay scales, accepted by the State Government were madeapplicable to librarians working in general/higher education colleges.

15. Be that as it may, the issues involved in this appeal are squarelycovered by the judgment dated 28.07.2009 of this Court in Civil AppealNo. 5058/2009 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25682/2008, State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpaireported in (2009) 13 SCC 635 arising out of Special Leave Petition(Civil) No.25682/2008, where the Respondent, a Physical TrainingInstructor in Government Ayurvedic College had been claiming the UGCpay scale.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

16. This Court took note of the submission of the learned counselfor the State of Madhya Pradesh that the University Grants Commissionscales of pay had not been extended to the employees of the AyurvedicColleges including the members of Teaching staff, governed by the 1987Rules.

A

B17. The relevant findings of this Court are set out hereinbelow forconvenience :- “9. It is not in dispute that Ayurvedic Colleges situated in theState of Madhya Pradesh are under the control of theDepartment of Medical Education. It is also not in disputethat at present recruitment to the post of Physical TrainingInstructor is regarded by the 1987 Rules. In terms of rules 5,6 and 8 read with the relevant entries of Schedules I, II andIII of the 1987 Rules, the post of Physical Training Instructoris categorized as Class II Non-Ministerial under the heading‘Establishment of Divisional Organization’ and the same isrequired to be lifted 100 per cent by direct recruitment fromamongst the persons possessing the requisite educationalqualification of Diploma in Physical Training.

C

D

The post of Sports Officer finds mention in the fourSchedules appended to the 1990 Rules. By virtue of Rule 8read with the relevant entries of Schedule II and III of the1990 Rules, the post of Sports Officer is required to be filledas under :- E

90% by direct recruitment and 10% by promotion fromamongst the Assistant Sports Officers.

F

10. The educational qualification prescribed for directrecruitment to the post of Sports Officer is a Post GraduateDegree in physical education with at least 55% marks and atthe degree level of physical education, the percentage of totalmarks obtained should not be less than 50.

G

11. A comparison of the provisions of the 1987 Rules and1990 Rules clearly establish that they not only deal withdifferent classes of employees but the educationalqualifications and scales of pay prescribed for the postsenumerated in Schedules of two sets of Rules are entirelyHdifferent. While the 1987 Rules regulate recruitment to Class

III Ministerial and Non-Ministerial posts in various collegesimparting education in India System of Medicine includingAyurvedic the 1990 rules regulate recruitment to different postsin the Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) including thatof Sports Officer.”

18. In Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), this Court further heldthat it was well-settled that the doctrine of equal pay for equal workcould only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstancedin every way. Mere similarity of designation or similarity or quantum ofwork was not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. TheCourt had to consider all the relevant factors such as the mode ofrecruitment, qualifications for the post, the nature of work, the value ofwork, responsibilities involved and various other factors.

19. In the instant case, it would be pertinent to note that the eligibilitycriteria for appointment of Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian under the1987 Rules was different from the eligibility criteria of appointment ofLibrarian under the 1990 Rules. Under the 1987 Rules, the minimumqualification for the post of Museum Assistant cum Librarian wasgraduate but under the 1990 Rules, the minimum qualification was postgraduate degree.

20. It is also well settled that there can be no equality to a wrongand/or illegality. Just because a librarian may have been erroneouslygranted the UGC pay scale, that would not entitle others to claim theUGC pay scale, if not applicable under the Rules.

21. On behalf of the Respondent-Writ Petitioner, it was forcefullycontended that the Respondent-Writ Petitioner had wrongly been grantedscale of pay as per the Madhya Pradesh Ayush Department (Clericaland Non-Clerical), Class-III, Service Recruitment Rules, 2013, whichcame into force in 2013 could have no manner of application to therespondents, who became eligible for the Senior Scale in terms of the1990 Rules. It was urged that specific Rules for the employees of theAyush Department were framed only in 2013 and such Rules could notretrospectively be applied. However, from the recital of the Rules it ispatently clear that the Rules have been framed superseding the 1987Rules.

22. This makes it absolutely clear that at all material points oftime the employees of the Ayush Department, Government of MadhyaPradesh were governed by a separate set of Rules.

A

BC

D

E

FG

H

23. The fixation of scales of pay is a matter of policy, with whichthe Courts can only interfere in exceptional cases where there isdiscrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the sameauthority, in the same manner, where the eligibility criteria is the sameand the duties are identical in every aspect.

A

24. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Saurabh Mishra, learnedcounsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants to a recent judgment ofthis Court rendered on 07.04.2022 in Civil Appeal No. 2661/2015 (Stateof Uttarakhand vs. Sudhir Budakoti & Others), where this Courtheld as under :- B

“14. A mere differential treatment on its own cannot be termedas an “anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution”. Whenthere is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted bytaking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Courtis not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigidand pedantic view as against a pragmatic one.

C

D

15. Such a discrimination would not be termed as arbitraryas the object of the classification itself is meant for providingthe benefits to an identified group of persons who form aclass of their own. When the differentiation is clearlydistinguishable with adequate demarcation duly identified,Ethe object of Article 14 gets satisfied. Social, revenue andeconomic considerations are certainly permissible parametersin classifying a particular group. Thus, a valid classificationis nothing but a valid discrimination. That being the position,there can never be an injury to the concept of equalityenshrined under the Constitution, not being an inflexibleFdoctrine.

E

16. A larger latitude in dealing with a challenge to theclassification is mandated on the part of the Court whenintroduced either by the Legislature or the Executive as thecase may be. There is no way, courts could act like appellateauthorities especially when a classification is introduced byway of a policy decision clearly identifying the group ofbeneficiaries by analysing the relevant materials.

G

17. The question as to whether a classification is reasonableor not is to be answered on the touchstone of a reasonable,common man’s approach, keeping in mind the avowed object H

behind it. If the right to equality is to be termed as genus, aright to non-discrimination becomes a specie. When twoidentified groups are not equal, certainly they cannot betreated as a homogeneous group. A reasonable classificationthus certainly would not injure the equality enshrined underArticle 14 when there exists an intelligible diffrentia betweentwo groups having a rational relation to the object. Therefore,an interference would only be called for on the court beingconvinced that the classification causes inequality amongsimilarly placed persons. The role of the court beingrestrictive, generally, the task is best left to the concernedauthorities. When a classification is made on therecommendation made by a body of experts constituted forthe purpose, courts will have to be more wary of enteringinto the said arena as its interference would amount tosubstituting its views, a process which is best avoided.

18. A long as the classification does not smack of inherentarbitrariness and conforms to justice and fair play, there maynot be any reason to interfere with it. It is the wisdom of theother wings which is required to be respected except when aclassification is bordering on arbitrariness, artificialdifference and itself being discriminatory. A decision madesans the aforesaid situation cannot be tested with either asuspicious or a microscopic eye. Good-faith and intentionare to be presumed unless the contrary exists. One has tokeep in mind that the role of the court is on the illegalityinvolved as against the governance.”

25. This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision taken bythe Government merely because it feels that another decision wouldhave been fairer; or wiser as held by this Court in State of MadhyaPradesh vs. Narmada Bachao Anadolan reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639and relied upon and re-affirmed in Sudhir Budakoti & Others (supra).

26. For the reasons discussed above, the Appeal is allowed. Theimpugned orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh are set-aside.

27. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan