GITASHREE BAISHYA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a democratic set up, it is good for a citizen to be conscious of his rights, but at the same time, it is useful to be conscious of the limitations of one's own rights. Similarly, each institution, functioning as an organ of the State, must respect the position and powers of the others in the Constitutional scheme of things and before an institution exercises its powers, it must also be conscious of the limitations imposed on such powers. If an institution exercises its powers without being conscious of the limitations imposed on its powers and without being aware of the constitutional position of the others, an unwarranted collision is bound to take place. Such a collision course of institutions is catastrophic for the State as a whole and should, therefore, be avoided under all circumstances.

(2.) With the help of the present application made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for issuance of appropriate writ/writs commanding the respondents to upgrade the pay scale of the petitioner, who is an Assistant Librarian of the Gauhati High Court, with retrospective effect, as proposed by letter, dated 09.01.1996, issued by respondent No. 3, namely, the Gauhati High Court represented by its Registrar (Administration) and to set aside the impugned letter, dated 09.02.2000 (Annexure-III to the writ petition) issued by respondent No. 1, namely, Secretary to the Government of Assam, Judicial Department, conveying State government's inability to agree to the proposal for the up-gradation of pay scale of the Assistant Librarian in the Gauhati High Court establishment.

(3.) In a nut-shell, the case of the petitioner runs as follows: As per the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules 1967, the post of Assistant Librarian is a Class III non-gazetted post in the Ministerial Establishment and there is only one post. The petitioner, who is an MA in English and LLB having diploma in Library Science, has been serving as Assistant Librarian in the pay scale of Rs. 1475-3825 (Pre-revised) per month at the Principal Seat of the Gauhati High Court. This is a basic scale of pay of the UD A of the High Court and the qualification required for the UDA in the High Court is only graduation, but while the UDAs of the High Court have promotional avenues, the Asstt. librarian does not have any such avenues for promotion save and except one i.e. the post of Librarian, but even the post of librarian is not a promotional post as the same can be filled up by direct recruitment too. The Registrar (Administration), Gauhati High Court, wrote to the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Judicial Department, stating to the effect that since the Assistant Librarian required additional qualification, the pay scale of Assistant Librarian should be up-graded to Rs. 2215-4075 per month (Pre-revised) i.e. the pay scale equivalent to the pay scale of Superintendent in the High Court. On receipt of this letter, respondent No. 1 sought for some clarifications from the respondent No. 3. The clarifications were accordingly provided assigning reasons for the proposal of up-gradation of the pay scale made by the High Court, whereupon the respondent No. 1, vide its letter, dated 04.11.1996, expressed Government's inability to acceed to the High Court's proposal for up-gradation. By letter, dated 26.02.1997, respondent No. 3, once again, requested respondent No. 1 requesting him to reconsider the proposal for up- gradation. By letter dated 01.08.1997, request for re-consideration was, again, turned down by respondent No. 1 on the ground that the basic scale of the post of Assistant Librarian had been revised and upgraded as per Assam Pay Commission's recommendations in 1998 and the High Court was requested to place the matter before the Pay Commission as and when such Commission was constituted. The petitioner instituted WP(C) No. 1124/99 challenging the refusal of the Government to give effect to the said proposal of the High Court. By judgment and order, dated 21.07.1999, passed in WP(C) No. 1124/99 aforementioned, the High Court disposed of the writ petition setting aside and quashing the letters, dated 04.11.1996 and 01.08.1997, and remanded the matter to the authorities concerned to reconsider the entire matter in the back ground of the observations made by the Court. The respondent No. 1, vide letter, dated 09.02.2000, again, expressed their inability to acceed to the proposal made by the High Court on the ground, inter alia, that (i) the post of the Librarian in the State Govt. carries a lesser scale than the scale of the Assistant Librarian of the High Court, (ii) to be a UDA from LDA, it takes several years, but the Asstt. Librarian, because of additional qualification, gets higher scale equivalent to a UDA, (iii) to be promoted to the post of Superintendent, it takes about 20 years for LDA, but the Assistant Librarian's post is a directly recruited post and as such, the proposal for upgradation of pay scale is unacceptable, (iv) the nature of duties of the Asstt. librarian is different from that of the Superintendent and (v) there are numerous other posts in the State Government, where promotional avenues are bleak. The writ petitioner has, now, challenged the validity of the letter, dated 09.02.2000, aforementioned.