Supreme Court clarifies pay scales for Ayush Department Librarians: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Seema Sharma (2022) INSC 484

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 12, 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 484
Judges: Indira Banerjee, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.
Can employees of Ayurvedic colleges claim the same pay scales as those in higher education colleges? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, clarifying the applicability of University Grants Commission (UGC) pay scales to librarians in Ayurvedic colleges under the Ayush Department. The court held that the 1990 Rules, which provide for UGC pay scales, do not apply to the Ayush Department. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Indira Banerjee and Justice C.T. Ravikumar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Indira Banerjee.

Case Background

The respondent, Seema Sharma, was appointed as Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant at Government Dhanvantri Ayurvedic College, Ujjain, on March 27, 1991. Her initial pay scale was Rs. 950-25-1000-30-1210-40-1530, with a basic pay of Rs. 950. After completing eight years of service, she claimed the UGC scale of pay, as paid to senior librarians in colleges under the Higher Education Department, citing the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990. Her request was denied, leading her to file a writ petition, which was initially allowed by the High Court, and later upheld by a Division Bench. The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by Seema Sharma, directing the appellants to grant her the UGC pay scale from her initial appointment date. This decision was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed the intra-court appeal filed by the Appellants. The High Court followed its previous judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. M.K. Verma & four Ors., which pertained to librarians of Engineering and Medical Colleges. The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the 1990 Rules were not applicable to the respondent, as she was employed in an Ayurvedic college under the Ayush Department, not the Higher Education Department.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the applicability of two sets of service rules: the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 (referred to as the “1990 Rules”) and the Madhya Pradesh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clerical and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 (referred to as the “1987 Rules”). The 1990 Rules govern the service conditions of employees in institutions under the Higher Education Department, while the 1987 Rules govern those in institutions under the Ayush Department. The 1990 Rules specify a pay scale of Rs. 2200-75-2800-100-4000 for Librarians, and a senior scale of Rs. 3000-100-3500-125-5000. The 1987 Rules, on the other hand, specify a pay scale of Rs. 515-10-575-15-800-20-840 for the post of Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian, which was later revised.

The Supreme Court noted that the 1990 Rules do not include a post of Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant, and that the respondent was appointed under the 1987 Rules. The Court also noted that the UGC pay scales were made applicable to colleges under the Higher Education Department that received financial aid from the UGC, which was not the case for Ayurvedic colleges under the Ayush Department.

Arguments

The respondent argued that her service conditions were governed by the 1990 Rules, and that she was entitled to the UGC scale of pay after completing eight years of service. She contended that the 1990 Rules were applicable to her, and that the 2013 Rules for the Ayush Department could not be applied retrospectively.

The appellants argued that the 1990 Rules were not applicable to the respondent, as she was employed in an Ayurvedic college under the Ayush Department, which does not receive financial aid from the UGC. They contended that the respondent was governed by the 1987 Rules, which specify a different pay scale for the post of Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian. The appellants also pointed out that the 1990 Rules did not include the post of Museum Assistant-cum-Librarian. They relied on the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635], where the Supreme Court held that the UGC pay scales were not applicable to employees of Ayurvedic colleges.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the main issue before the court was:

✓ Whether the respondent, a Librarian-cum-Museum Assistant in an Ayurvedic college under the Ayush Department, is entitled to the UGC pay scale as applicable to Librarians in colleges under the Higher Education Department.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

✓ State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635] – Supreme Court of India: This case held that the UGC pay scales were not applicable to employees of Ayurvedic colleges, including Physical Training Instructors, as they were governed by the 1987 Rules. The Court noted that the 1987 Rules and 1990 Rules dealt with different classes of employees with different educational qualifications and pay scales.

✓ State of Uttarakhand vs. Sudhir Budakoti & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2661/2015) – Supreme Court of India: This case emphasized that differential treatment is not a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution if there is a reasonable basis for classification. It also noted that courts should not interfere with policy decisions unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory.

✓ Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990: These rules were found to be inapplicable to the respondent, as they govern institutions under the Higher Education Department, not the Ayush Department.

✓ Madhya Pradesh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clerical and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987: These rules were found to be applicable to the respondent, as they govern institutions under the Ayush Department.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635]*: The Court followed this judgment, which directly addressed the issue of UGC pay scales for employees of Ayurvedic colleges and held that they were not applicable.

✓ State of Uttarakhand vs. Sudhir Budakoti & Others (Civil Appeal No. 2661/2015)*: The Court relied on this case to justify the differential treatment in pay scales, holding that it did not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court emphasized that the 1990 Rules were not applicable to the respondent, and that the 1987 Rules were the relevant rules governing her service conditions. The Court also highlighted that the UGC pay scales were applicable only to colleges under the Higher Education Department that received financial aid from the UGC, which was not the case for Ayurvedic colleges under the Ayush Department.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the applicable service rules and the fact that Ayurvedic colleges under the Ayush Department did not receive UGC funding, unlike colleges under the Higher Education Department.

The Court’s reasoning was more focused on the legal aspects of the case, particularly the applicability of the service rules and the precedent set by previous judgments, rather than the factual aspects.

The Court considered the arguments of both sides, but ultimately sided with the appellants, emphasizing that the fixation of pay scales is a matter of policy, and that courts should not interfere unless there is clear discrimination. The Court also noted that the principle of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way, which was not the case here.

The Court quoted from its judgment in State of Uttarakhand vs. Sudhir Budakoti & Others, stating, “A mere differential treatment on its own cannot be termed as an “anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution”. When there is a reasonable basis for a classification adopted by taking note of the exigencies and diverse situations, the Court is not expected to insist on absolute equality by taking a rigid and pedantic view as against a pragmatic one.”

The Court further stated, “This Court cannot interfere with the policy decision taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision would have been fairer; or wiser.”

The Court also observed, “It is also well settled that there can be no equality to a wrong and/or illegality. Just because a librarian may have been erroneously granted the UGC pay scale, that would not entitle others to claim the UGC pay scale, if not applicable under the Rules.”

Key Takeaways

✓ Employees of Ayurvedic colleges under the Ayush Department are not entitled to the UGC pay scales applicable to librarians in colleges under the Higher Education Department.

✓ The applicable service rules for employees of the Ayush Department are the Madhya Pradesh Public Health (Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy), Class-III, Clerical and Non-Clerical Services Recruitment Rules, 1987, and not the Madhya Pradesh Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990.

✓ The principle of equal pay for equal work can only be invoked when employees are similarly circumstanced in every way, including the mode of recruitment, qualifications, nature of work, and responsibilities.

✓ Courts should not interfere with policy decisions taken by the government unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, thereby denying the respondent’s claim for UGC pay scales.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that employees of Ayurvedic colleges under the Ayush Department are not entitled to the UGC pay scales applicable to librarians in colleges under the Higher Education Department. This judgment reaffirms the principle that the applicability of pay scales is governed by the relevant service rules and the specific department under which the employee is working. It also reinforces the principle that courts should not interfere with policy decisions unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory. The judgment did not introduce any new legal principle but rather reaffirmed existing legal positions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Seema Sharma clarifies that librarians in Ayurvedic colleges under the Ayush Department are not entitled to the UGC pay scales applicable to those in the Higher Education Department. The Court emphasized the importance of following the applicable service rules and the fact that Ayurvedic colleges do not receive UGC funding. This decision underscores that the principle of equal pay for equal work requires employees to be similarly circumstanced in every way, and that courts should not interfere with policy decisions unless they are arbitrary or discriminatory.