SHER SINGH AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 398 · Decided: 16-10-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.P. BHARUCHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
SHER SINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
UNION OF TNDIA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 16, 1995 
(S.P. BHARUCHA, FAIZAN UDDIN AND S.B. MAJMUDAR, .l.J.] 
Se1vice Law-Pmity in pay scales-Between the Professional Librwy 
Staff and the teaching staff of Delhi Unive1'ity and its colleges-Granted, 
discontinued and restored prospectively by the govt. under a policy 
decision-Claim for restoration retrospectively on the ground of acquired 
vested 1ight of pwity and equality of qualification-Held, not entitled as of 
1ight to pality~Both belong to different categmies and stand on different foot-
uzg. 
Administrative Law-Judicial review-Scope of Policy decision-Being 
not 1tnfai1~ nzalaflde and contra1y to any statuto1y directions-Held, not 011en 
for the cowts to intelfere with tlze policy decisions of the Govt. 
Appellants, 11ualified librarians employed in the Delhi University 
and its colleges, had been granted parity with that or the teaching and 
E research staff From 1961 to 1977. The Govt. had discontinued this parity 
retrospectively with effect from l.l.73 and restored the same prospectively 
with effect from l.4.80 instead from l.l.73. However, in 1979 the matter 
was referred to a committee for upgradation of the scales of the profes-
sional library staff. Agb'Tieved by the non restoration or the parity 
retrospectively appellants approached High Court, which disn1issed the 
F 
petition in lirnine. Hence this appeal. 
G 
Appellants contended that the education qualification or the two sets 
of employees beiag the same, there is no reason to treat them differently 
and discriminatcly. Further, they have the scales of pay at par with the 
teaching staff which cannot be taken away except with an authority or law. 
So the restoration of parity should be given retrospectively with effect from 
l.l.73. Respondents contented that educational qualifications, nature or 
work, duties, work load and responsibilities of the two sets of employees 
are entirely ditTerent and parity in pay scales are just coincidental. 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
398 
SHER SINGH v. U.0.1. 
399 
HELD : I. In the instant case it cannot be said that Govt. did not A 
act fairly or acted malafide so as to call for any interference by this Court 
involving the power of judicial review. [405-A] 
2. There is no rationale or any justification in the claim of parity 
between t_he teaching staff and library staff in Delhi University and its 
colleges for the simple reason that the two sets of employees belong to 
different categories of employees who stand on a different footing. The 
nature of duties, work load, experience and responsibilities of the two sets 
of employees in question are totally different from each other. The teaching 
staff has to do some research work, deep study in their respective subjects 
B 
and to make preparations for the daily lectures in the class room and other C 
academic work while this is not so in the case of library staff. The 
experience of library staff is totally different from the one which is required 
for teaching staff. [403-G-H, 404-A-B] 
3. If the Govt. as a matter of policy equated the library staff for the 
purpose of pay scales earlier for a certain period as contended by the D 
appellants, they should be thankful to the government as they could not 
have claimed the parity as of right. It was the decision of the Govt. which 
had allowed the equation of pay scales. during the period from 1961 to 
January 1, 1973. Later if Govt. had taken a policy decision to grant parity 
again with effect from 1.4.1980 and not with retrospective effect from E 
1.7.1973, when it was disturbed there could be no legitimate grievances for 
the same because the Govt. has the right to change its policy form time to 
time, according to the administrative exigencies and demands of the 
relevant time. [404-C-D] 
4. The Court \\'ould be slo\\' in interfering with matters of Govt. policy F 
except \¥here it is sh~mi that the decision is unfair, nialafide or contrary 
to any statutory directions. There will be no justification for the Court to 
interfere with the policy of the government merely on the ground of change 
in policy. If earlier the Govt. took a policy decision to grant parity to the 
library staff it was the policy of then Govt. and if for a certain reason the G 
Go,1. took different policy decision to withdraw the policy and to enforce 
it again with effect from a certain date it will again be a matter of policy 
of the Govt. a

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.