Retired IGMC Librarian Gets UGC Pay Scale From Eligibility Date, as Himachal Pradesh HC Notes Two Colleagues Got It

The petitioner, an Assistant Librarian at Indira Gandhi Medical College (IGMC), held the requisite library qualifications.

After the Librarian post became vacant in IGMC in June 1998, he was assigned its additional charge in 1999 and was granted officiating allowance under Fundamental Rule 49.

He sought promotion from the date he became eligible and the UGC pay scale, relying in part on the scale granted to other Librarians in the same department.

The State finalized the applicable Recruitment and Promotion Rules (R&P Rules) in 2014, and the petitioner was promoted in 2015.

His earlier proceedings and representations had sought consideration for promotion and finalization of the R&P Rules.

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution prohibit arbitrary or discriminatory treatment in public employment.

The Court accepted that pay-scale parity cannot ordinarily be claimed merely because employees share a designation, particularly across different departments; the applicable duties, rules and circumstances matter.

It also relied on the principle stated in P.N. Chauhan v. Himachal Pradesh University and the Shiv Dayal Kataria litigation that an employee who performs the duties of a higher post for a prolonged period and is later regularized or appointed to that post is entitled to the salary of that post.

Fundamental Rule 49 was relevant to the officiating allowance already paid to the petitioner, which was to be adjusted against the remuneration due.

The Court found that the Librarian post in IGMC was sanctioned and vacant, that the petitioner possessed the requisite qualifications, and that he had been assigned its additional charge.

The State’s reliance on the delay in finalizing the R&P Rules did not justify withholding the benefit, particularly when the petitioner had pursued the matter and the rules were eventually notified.

Although the Court accepted that cross-departmental pay parity could not be claimed solely by designation, it distinguished that principle because other Librarians in the same department—including the petitioner’s predecessor at IGMC and M.L. Verma—had received the UGC scale.

Denying the petitioner that scale, despite his performance of the same duties, would be arbitrary and discriminatory.

His 2015 promotion therefore did not resolve the claim for the earlier period.

The respondents were directed to grant the petitioner the UGC pay scale of Librarian from the date he became eligible under the R&P Rules, on the analogy of the scale granted to M.L. Verma, with consequential benefits.

As the petitioner had retired, the respondents were directed to revise his pension and pay the arrears within six months; if payment was delayed beyond that period, interest at 6% per annum would run on the arrears from the date of judgment until payment.