1 2026:CGHC:7296-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 323 of 2024 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Higher Education Department, Mantralaya New Raipur, P.S. Rakhi, District Raipur Chhattisarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate, Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh, ... appellant (s) versus 1 - Smt. Manjula Shukla W/o. Late Hari Dutta Shukla Aged About 59 Years R/o 841, Sunder Nagar Raipur, Police Staiton Deendayal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Chhattisgarh Kalyan Society, Through The Chairman, Kalyan Post Graduate College, Bhilai Nagar, Durg Chhattisgarh 3 - The Principal, Kalyan Post Graduate College, Bhilai, Nagar Durg Chhattisgarh, ... Respondent(s) For appellants/ State : Mr. Praveen Das. Addl. Advocate General For Respondent No. 1 For Res. No. 2 & 3 : : Mr. Prateek Sharma, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.02.12 10:16:07 +0530 2 Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.02.2026 1. Heard Mr. Praveen Das, Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the appellants/ State as well as Mr. Prateek Sharma, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 (Petitioner in WPS No. 4708/2016) and Mr. Siddharth Tiwari, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and 3. 2. This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ State, who are the respondent No. 1 & 2 in WPS No. 4708/2016, against the order dated 19.12.2023 passed by learned Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court in WPS No. 4708/2016 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein), has been allowed. 3. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the Respondent No. 1, are that on 14.08.1988 (Annexure P/2) the Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Librarian in the respondent/College against the regular vacant post in the pay scale of Rs. 575. 800/- and since then the Respondent No. 1 is discharging her duties. The pay scale of Rs. 575-800/- granted to the Respondent No. 1 was upgraded from time to time in pay scale of Rs. 950 in the year 1990, 1150-1800 in the year 1991 and finally vide order dated 23.12.2006, the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/- of University Grants Commission was granted to the Respondent No. 1 with effect from the date of appointment i.e. 16.08.1988, applying & in 3 compliance of order dated 16.10.1990 of State and the same is in accordance with Fifth Pay Commission. According to the Respondent No. 1, she is entitled for the pay scale of Rs.2200- 4000/- in accordance with scheme of University Grants Commission and order dated 16.10.1990 of State Government, from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 16.08.1988, as she fulfills the qualification and eligibility prescribed for the post of Librarian from the date of her appointment, having qualification of B.Lib. with more than 50% and M. Lib. with more than 55% and she would have been upgraded with the Sixth Pay Scale also. According to the Respondent No. 1, identically placed Assistant Librarian namely Smt. Usha Tiwari has been granted pay scale of Librarian of Rs. 2200-4000/- from the date of her eligibility i.e. 12.06.1987 though worked till 18.10.2006 as Assistant Librarian. Further, the other similarly placed Assistant Librarians namely Anila Sharma and Anita Saxena have also been granted the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The Respondent No. 1 is also getting the pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000 applying order dated 16.10.1990 issued by the respondent State but for applying pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 of the same order dated 16.10.1990, claim of Respondent No.1 is dismissed on the ground that the respondent/college is a private college. According to the Respondent No. 1, since she was eligible and qualified for the post of Librarian right from the date of her appointment, therefore, a letter dated 18.08.2004 (Annexure P/8) was issued by the 4 Respondent No. 2 to the respondent College for sending proposal for up-gradation of the post of Respondent No. 1 in the post of Librarian, and in pursuance of said letter dated 18.08.2004, recommendation was sent by the Respondents No. 3 & 4, providing detail information and requirement of up-gradation of post of Assistant Librarian of Respondent No. 1 in the post of Librarian with additional financial burden of Rs. 18000/-yearly, however, vide letter dated 20.08.2013 (Annexure P/9), the Respondent No. 3 submitted before the Respondent No. 2 that the respondent college never demanded pay scale of Librarian for the Respondent No. 1, According to the Respondent No. 1, despite being eligible and qualified for the post of Librarian right from the beginning, the Respondent No. 1 has not been given benefit of increment scheme of the State Government and despite serving on the same post of Assistant Librarian and same pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/- for more than 25 years, the Respondent No. 1 has not been granted any increment and pay scale of the higher post till date, whereas, when recommendation was sent by the respondent college to the Respondent No. 2 on 28.08.2008, the proposal was changed and directed to send the proposal of first increment, pay scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500/-, which is not the pay scale of University Grants Commission, whereas the Respondent No. 1 has already been granted University Grants Commission pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000/- upgraded as Rs. 5500- 9000/- and next University Grants Commission pay scale is Rs. 5 8000-13500/-. Despite being the recommendation of Sixth Pay Commission implemented in all the government colleges and government aided colleges, the Respondent No. 1 is not being granted benefit of Sixth Pay Commission, though a letter dated 19.10.2012 is sent to the Respondent No. 2. According to the Respondent No. 1, the respondent college was having only one Librarian namely Smt. Chandralekha Diwan, who was also retired on 31.03.2012 and being dying cadre post, no appointment has been made on the post of Librarian in the respondent College despite the fact that the college had more than 2750 students, 46752 books and teaching is being done in two sessions in a day and the Respondent No. 1 is only Assistant Librarian discharging the complete duties of the post of Librarian, being Incharge Librarian and also given the charge of one year B.Lib. course on 22.07.2013. In this regard, the Respondent No. 1 has made several representations (Annexure P/13) to the respondent authorities, but all the efforts of the Respondent No. 1 went in vain. The Respondent No. 1 is being deprived from the proper pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- from the date of her appointment i.e. 16.08.1988 and despite serving for more than 25 years, the Respondent No. 1 could not get a single promotion as the post of Librarian has been declared dying cadre. The Respondent No. 1 has also not been granted increment for last 4 years and the benefit of 6th Pay Scale has also not been extended to the Respondent No. 1, thus the Respondent No. 1 is deprived from 6 proper pay, as well as promotion by the respondent authorities, without there being any fault on the part of the Respondent No. 1, despite being eligible and qualified for the same. The Respondent No. 1 being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, had filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(S) no. 295/2014 before this Hon'ble Court & the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 22.09.2015 (Annexure P/14) with a direction that in the event, the Respondent No. 1 prefers a representation before the Respondent No. 2 for grant of appropriate pay scale with consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment claiming parity with other similarly placed persons within a period of one month, the Respondent No. 2 shall decide the representation, at the earliest, preferably within a period of 3 months thereafter, if the need arises, the Respondent No. 1 may move afresh before this Court. Accordingly the Respondent No. 1 submitted representation 20.10.2015 before the Respondent No. 2 & reminder on 05.11.2015, however, vide order dated 07.12.2015 (Annexure P/15), the representation of the Respondent No. 1 was rejected by Additional Director, Higher Education Directorate, Naya Raipur, C.G. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 filed a contempt petition beign Contempt Petition (C) No. 166 of 2016 before this Hon'ble Court but during pendency of the Contempt petition, the respondent Commissioner cancelling the order dated 07.12.2015,passed the impugned order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P/1) rejecting the representation of 7 the Respondent No. 1 without proper consideration and the contempt petition was disposed of on 09.08.2016 (Annexure P/17). Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 has filed the writ petition bearing WPS No. 4708/2016 seeking following relief (s) "10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure P/1). 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant pay scale of 2200- 4000/- to the Respondent No. 1 from the date of her initial appointment i.e. 16.08.1988 and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission to the Respondent No. 1, with arrears @ 18% per annum, in accordance with law. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant increment to the Respondent No. 1 from her date of entitlement in the pay scale of Rs. 8,000-13,500/-. 10.4 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents no. 1 & 2 to decide the proposal of respondent no. 3 and 4 for upgradation of post of Respondent No. 1 i.e. Assistant Librarian in the post of Librarian within specific period. 8 10.5 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to pay arrears of pay to the Respondent No. 1, with interest @ 18% per annum. 10.6 That, any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the costs of the petition may be given." 4. After hearing the parties and material available on record, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the Respondent No. 1- Smt. Manjula Shukla (respondent herein). 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that, the impugned judgment dated 19.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to the material available on record and settled principles of service jurisprudence, and is therefore unsustainable in law. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that the petitioner/respondent No.1, who was admittedly appointed and working as an Assistant Librarian (a Class-III post), is entitled to the pay scale of a Librarian (a higher Class-II/I promotional post), despite never having been promoted to the said post in accordance with rules. The higher pay scale of Librarian is admissible only upon promotion, as is evident from the promotion order dated 02.09.2000, and cannot be granted merely on the basis of educational qualification. The reliance placed on cases of Smt. Anita Saxena, Smt. Anila Sharma and Smt. Usha Tiwari is wholly misplaced, as their appointments and regularisation were 9 governed by distinct statutory provisions and factual circumstances, particularly the Madhya Pradesh Tadarth Niyuktion Ke Niyamitikaran Niyam, 1997, which are not applicable to the present case. Furthermore, the petitioner cannot claim negative parity on the basis of any alleged erroneous benefit granted to others, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Basawaraj v. Special Land Acquisition Officer (2013) 14 SCC 81, wherein it has been categorically held that Article 14 does not envisage negative equality. The petitioner was serving in a private aided college governed by a separate statutory framework and cannot equate herself with employees of Government Colleges. In absence of promotion and availability of a sanctioned vacant post, grant of Librarian pay scale from the date of initial appointment would be contrary to rules and established service law principles. Hence, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 would submit that the grounds raised by the appellants are misconceived and unsustainable in law. The plea of “negative equality” has been raised for the first time in the present appeal and was neither pleaded nor argued before the learned Single Judge, and therefore cannot be permitted to be urged at this stage. Moreover, the stand of the State is self-contradictory, as on one hand it seeks to distinguish the case of Respondent No.1 from other 10 similarly situated Assistant Librarians, and on the other hand contends that even if identically placed, benefit cannot be granted on the ground of negative equality. Before the writ Court, the State had itself submitted that enquiry was being conducted against Smt. Usha Tiwari and others, yet no action has been taken for more than eight years, which clearly demonstrates that the benefits granted to them have attained finality and cannot now be termed illegal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there cannot be a pick-and-choose policy resulting in discrimination. The Respondent No.1, a retired widow and the only remaining Assistant Librarian in the State, was appointed on a sanctioned and 100% government-aided post, granted revised pay scales, time-bound scale and other benefits under the order dated 16.10.1990, which has been consistently applied to her service conditions; therefore, denial of corresponding benefit under the same order is arbitrary and discriminatory. Similarly situated employee Smt. Usha Tiwari was granted the benefit upon acquiring requisite qualification, and Respondent No.1, having acquired the same qualification in 1988, is equally entitled. The benefit of Sixth Pay Commission has also been made applicable to aided colleges as per order dated 03.02.2010. In view of the admitted factual and legal position, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge and the writ appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the 11 Kalyan College is 100% Government Aided college for the purpose of salary of the sanctioned post and staff by the State Government, therefore, the rules and regulations of the State Government in relation to the Institution are binding upon the respondents College Society. Initially, the Respondent No. 1/petitioner was appointed as Assistant Librarian vide order dated 14.08.1988 and the Respondent No. 1/petitioner joined the same on 16.08.1988. Vide letter dated 18.08.2004, office of the Commissioner, Higher Education Directorate, Science Campus, Raipur, written a letter to the Principal, Kalyan College, Bhilai that as per decision of the State Government, the post of Assistant Librarian is declared dying cadre. Learned counsel further submits that in the case of Smt. Manjula Sjhukla, she was Assistant Librarian. Since Smt. Manjula Shukla was qualified to be appointed as Librarian, therefore, a proposal with financial estimate for up-gradation of the post of Assistant Librarian to the Librarian and to create the post of Librarian, send the proposal immediately vide Annexure R/3 & 4/1. In reply, the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 sent a proposal dated 01.09.2004 (Annexure R-3 & 4/2) for up-gradation of the post of Assistant Librarian. Thereafter, only the appellant/State informed the respondents that Smt. Manjula Shukla, Assistant Librarian, Kalyan Mahavidyalaya, Bhilai, District Durg was granted UGC pay scale of Rs. 1740-3000 with the condition that the post of Assistant Librarian will be a post of dying cadre, which is evident from Annexure R-3 & 4/3. 12 Learned counsel also submits that thereafter, the appellant No. 2 also issued pay slip dated 17.07.2008 (Annexure R-3 & 4/4) and from that date Smt. Manjula Shukla is getting the above pay scale. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are getting 100% grant in-aid for the salary of their staff which is completely controlled by appellants, therefore, without concurrence or clear order of the State Government, the respondents are unable to fulfill the demands of the Respondent No. 1/ petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the documents submitted by the parties as well as the order passed by Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in the WPS No. 4708/2016. 9. The Hon’ble Single Bench of this Court, after considering the fact of the present case, that other similarly situated/placed employees are getting salary more than the Respondent No. 1/petitioner and also considered that the respondent authorities did not file any document showing that as to what action has been taken and what inquiry has been conducted in this regard against other employees who are getting higher salary than the petitioner and further relied upon the judgments passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, which are reproduced hereinbelow for his ready reference:- 10. This Court in the matter of H.S. Baghel Vs. State of C.G. & Ors. (WPS No. 1563/2014 order dated 27.02.2018) held in para 10 as under: 13 "10. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, irresistible conclusion of this Court is that in respect of non-teaching staff of private colleges receiving 100% grant-in-aid from the Government, the enhanced age of superannuation from 60 to 62 years would take effect only from 31/08/2013 as provided in the Ordinance as also circular dated 26/08/2013 which was made applicable vide another circular dated 08/08/2024. As the petitioner attained age of superannuation after 31/08/2013, he was certainly entitled to continue in service until he attained the age of superannuation of 62 years. By virtue of an interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner continued in service till he attained the age of 62 years. The petitioner, therefore, shall be deemed to have continued in service till 31/03/2016 until he attained the age of 62 years. He would accordingly be entitled to all consequential benefits as if he was in service till 31/03/2016 11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of H.P. Vs. H.P. State Recognised & Aided Schools Managing Comittee & Ors, reported in (1995) 4 SCC 507 held in para 10 as under :- "10. It is, therefore, late in the day to say that the teachers in the aided schools are not entitled to parity in the matter of salary, allowances etc. with their 14 counterparts in the government schools. The question, for our consideration, however, is whether the Government State or the Management is to meet the consequent expenditure." 12. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (1988) 4 SCC 571 held in para 4 as under :- "4. The State Government will also take up with the managements of the aided schools the question of bringing about parity between the teachers of aided schools and the teachers of government schools for the period following that to which the aforesaid thirty- five installments relate, so that a scheme for payment may be evolved after having regard to the different allowances claimed by the petitioners. 13. Further the learned Single Judge after considering the above proposition of law and considering the fact that other similarly situated employees of the respondent College are getting higher salary than the petitioner/ respondent No. 1, allowed the petition and directed the authorities to grant pay scale of Rs.2200-4000/- from 16.08.1988 and also extend the benefit of 6th Pay Commission to the Respondent No. 1/petitioner. It is further directed that appellant /State to grant increment to the respondent 15 No. 1/ petitioner from the date of her entitlement in the pay scale of Rs.8,000-13,500/- like other employees. The appellant/ authorities to calculate all arrears of pay scale from the back date within four months from the date of order of this Court, failing which the same shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 14. Thus, considering the submissions made by the parties and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. However, it is made clear that this relief is granted to the Respondent No. 1/ petitioner in exceptional circumstances, and it should not be treated as a precedent. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s).. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika