Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

SAHIB RAM versus THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

The open-data metadata spells this title “SAHIB RAM versus THE STATE OF HARAYANA AND ORS.”. We show the spelling the judgment's own text uses.

Decided
19 September 1994
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 674 · 1994 INSC 399
Also cited as
  • (1995) Supp 1 SCC 18 (100 citing judgments)
  • (1995) SCC(L&S) 248 (42 citing judgments)
  • JT 1995 (1) SC 24 (6 citing judgments)
  • AIR 1995 SCW 1780 (3 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0848/1995 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
5 other citation strings that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 12 other Supreme Court judgments we hold. The 5 most recent:

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 675, margin E

The appellant was appointed in July Z9, 1972 as a Librarian in Government College in the pay-scale of, Rs.220-550 .. The Haryana Government accepting the recommendations of Government of India and tl:e University Grants Commission upgraded the pay-scale of Librarian with effect from 1st January, 1973 to Rs. 700-1600, if they possesse a minimum educational qualification of first or second Class M.A., M.Sc., M.Com plus a first or second Class B, Lib. Science or a diploma in Library Science, the degree of M.Lib. being a preferential qualification. Thereafter taking into consideration, representations made by several Librarians appointed prior to 31st December , 1972 and of the recommendations of the University Grants Commission, the Government of India in their proceedings of January 16, 1987 relaxed the and requirement of securing first or second class in M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. and other prescribed educational qualifications, by an order which was in the following terms :

p. 675, margin E

"lt' has now been decided, on the recommendation of the U GC, that the existing incumbents of the posts of Librarians in College who have been appointed to these posts on or before 3.12.1972 may be sanctioned the upgraded scale of Rs. 700-1600 in relaxation of the qualification prescribed in Annexure-1 referred to above without insisting on a first or second class in the degree, diploma

p. 676, margin A

or other prescribed educational qualification."

p. 676, margin B

The Principal of the College, where the appellant was working as a Librarian allowed to him the revised pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 purporting to act under the above order. However, the Govt. of Haryana dire~ted the Principal to withdraw the pay-scale of Rs. 700-1600 allowed to appellant. The appellant had challenged their direction in C.W.P. No. 10988of1993 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The High Court by the impugned order dated September 9, 1993 dismissed the writ petition. Thus this appeal by special leave.

p. 676, margin B

Mr. Prem Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the previous scale of Rs. 220-550 in which the appellant was entitled become Rs. 700-1600 since the appellant had been granted that scale of pay in relaxation of the educational qualification. The High Court was, therefore, not right in dismissing the writ petition. We do not find any force iii this contention. It is seen that the Government in consultation with the University Grants Commission had revised the pay-scale of a Librarian working in the Colleges to Rs. 700-1600 but they insisted upon the minimum educational qualification of first or second class M.A., M.Sc., M.Com. plus a first or second class B. Lib. Science or a diploma in Library Science. The relaxation given was only ~s regards obtaining first class or second class in the prescribed educational qualification but not relaxation in the education_al qualification itself.

p. 676, margin D

Admittedly the appellant does not possess the required educational qualifications. Under the circumstances the appellant would not be entitled to the relaxation. The Principle erred in granting him the relaxation. Since the date of relaxation the appellant had been paid his salary on revised scale. However, it is not on account of any mis-representation made by the appellant that the benefit of higher pay-scale was given to him but by wrong construction made by the Principal for which the appellant cannot be held to be at fault. Under the circumstances the amount paid till date may not be recovered for the appellant . The principle of equal pay for equal work would not apply to the scales prescribed by the University Grants Commission. The appeal is allowed partly without any order as to costs . T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

pp. 676–677, margin F