LALDINGLIANI HLYCHHO Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed W.P.(C) No. 46 of 2012 for her promotion to the post of State Librarian and W.P.(C) No. 48 of 2012 has been filed for grant of enhanced pay scale and accordingly these 2 (two) writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Johny L. Tochhawng, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the writ petitions as well as Mr. Aldrin Lallawmzuala, learned Addl. A.G., Mizoram for the State respondents. Mr. M. Zothankhuma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Lalfakawma, learned counsel, appears for the respondent No. 6 i.e., the Mizoram Public Service Commission. None appears for the private respondent No. 7. On 4.7.2013, this Court in W.P.(C) No. 48 of 2012 had given permission to the learned counsel for the petitioner to personally serve upon respondent No. 7 in W.P.(C) No. 46 of 2012 and thereafter to file affidavit. Affidavit was filed showing dasti service upon the respondent No. 7 and the same was accepted by this Court on 25.6.2014. By the same order dated 25.6.2014, it was directed that if respondent No. 7 is not represented, the case shall be taken up ex parte. Till date, none has appeared for respondent No. 7. However, the case is accordingly taken up and disposed of in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court.

(3.) Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed as a teacher in Government High School, Saiha and thereafter by an order dated 8.2.1978, the petitioner was appointed temporarily on transfer as District Librarian at Saiha in the scale of 425-800 per month under the Directorate of Education. By another order dated 5th March, 1985, the petitioner along with 20 (twenty) others were confirmed in the service with effect from the date shown against their names. The name of the petitioner appears at Sl. No. 2 in the Annexure appended to the said order dated 5.03.1985 and her date of confirmation is shown as 1.10.1984. Since then, the petitioner has been serving in the capacity of District Librarian till date without any further promotion. The private respondent No. 7 was appointed on the recommendation of the DPC temporarily as Assistant Librarian in the scale of pay of 1640-2900 per month and posted at State Library, Aizawl under the Directorate of Art and Culture. At this stage, learned senior counsel submits that the Art and Culture Directorate was earlier under the Directorate of Education which was later trifurcated into Directorate of School Education, Directorate of Higher and Technical Education and Directorate of Art and Culture. In view of the trifurcation, the petitioner was also brought under the administrative control of the Education and Human Resources Department. While the petitioner was serving as District Librarian and the respondent No. 7 as Assistant Librarian under the Directorate of Art and Culture, the State respondents enacted the Mizoram Education & Human Resources Department, Group 'B' Non-Gazetted Recruitment Rules, 1996 (hereinafter the Group 'B' Rules of 1996). Therein, at Annexure-I appended to the said Group 'B' Rules of 1996, the post of Assistant Librarian is shown as 100% direct recruitment and District Librarian as 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. For the purpose of direct recruitment, the essential qualifications were a degree in B.Lib. from a recognised University, Knowledge of Mizo language upto Middle School standard with desirability in experience in Library Administration. He also submits that the State respondents had also enacted the Mizoram Education & Human Resources Department, Group 'A' Gazetted Recruitment Rules, 1996 wherein in the Annexure appended thereto, the post of State Librarian at column 6 is shown as 100% promotion failing which by direct recruitment and at column 12 therein, the feeder post for promotion to the post of State Librarian is shown as Deputy State Librarian with 5 (five) years regular service in the grade. Thereafter, the State Group 'A' Recruitment Rules of 1996 was amended by the Mizoram Education & Human Resources Development (Group 'A' post) Recruitment (First Amendment) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter the Group 'A' Amended Rules of 2005). By the said Group 'A' Amended Rules of 2005, Column 12 was amended by showing the feeder post to the post of State Librarian as from Assistant Librarian, Mizoram State Library and District Librarian with not less than 8 (eight) years regular service in the grade. He submits that by the time the said Group 'B' Rules of 1996 and the Group 'A' Rules of 1996 were enacted, both the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 were already in service. It is also submitted that the petitioner having entered service in the year 1976, she was already qualified for promotion to the post of State Librarian by the time the Group 'A' Rules of 1996 was enacted. Further, when the Rules of 1996 was amended by the Group 'A' Amended Rules of 2005, the petitioner had a qualifying length of 8 (eight) years regular service as stipulated by the said Rules. 2005. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to a decision taken by the council of ministers on 18.4.1994, a Cabinet Sub-Committee was constituted to look into the claims of Government employees for up gradation of pay scales or posts. On the basis of such constitution, the Cabinet Sub-Committee submitted its report and with regard to the Education & Human Resources Department at para 5, more particularly 5(d) Art and Culture, the Sub-Committee considered the demand for up gradation of pay scales of different categories of posts and was of the view that the standard conversion of pay scales worked out by the Sub-Committee will take care of the demands in so far as the Directorate of Art and Culture was concerned. Under the standard conversion of pay scales of Group D, C and B at Sl. No. 10, the Cabinet Sub-Committee had recommended that for the ROP of 1986, 1640-2900.00, the recommended pay scale is 2000-3200.00. He submits that when the petitioner was initially appointed as District Librarian in the pay scale of 425-800 the same was revised by the ROP of 1986 to 1240-2600. He, however, submits that when the Cabinet Sub-Committee made its recommendation in the year 1994, the petitioner was also enjoying the scale of 1640-2900.00 and the recommendation of 2000-3500.00 was, therefore, automatically applicable to her. He submits that the respondent No. 7 as well as the petitioner were enjoying the same scale of pay of 1640-2900.00 and therefore as per the standard conversion of the cabinet Sub-Committee, she was entitled to the recommended pay scale of 2000-3500.00. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered and only the respondent No. 7 was considered. This was done based on the letter dated 1.6.2005 issued by the Director of Art and Culture department wherein it was stated that the service book of the respondent No. 7 was returned along with approved statement of fixation of pay under CCS(R.P.) CSC Rules 1994 in the scale of pay of 2000-3500.00 p.m. on 10.12.1994 and CCS(R.P.) Rules 1997 at 6500.00 in the scale of pay of 6500-10500.00 p.m. on 1.1.1996. By the said letter dated 1.6.2005, the effective date for drawing enhanced pay as per the CCS(R.P.) Rules 1997 was on 1.5.1999. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this letter was written in complete violation of the Government of Mizoram (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1987 inasmuch as the Finance Department was never consulted nor approval of the Finance Department was taken. Under such circumstances, the Directorate of Art and Culture could not have issued the said letter dated 1st June, 2005 approving the recommendation of pay scale made by the Cabinet Sub-Committee in the year 1995 in respect of respondent No. 7. He also submits that assuming that this letter is acceptable, the same should have been done for the petitioner but instead the respondents applied a different yardstick in favour of the respondent No. 7 while ignoring the case of the petitioner.