JAMIL AKHTAR vs THE PROVINCE OF SIND AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an order of the Sind Services Tribunal, which summarily dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning the correct fixation of his pay in the national pay scales as a librarian. The core legal question raised is whether the Government has the authority to discriminate between incumbents of the same post by prescribing differential pay scales based on educational qualifications. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that an employer is fully competent to offer higher compensation for higher qualifications within the same post, provided such qualifications have a direct relevance to the functions assigned. The Court established the principle that prescribing higher pay scales for persons possessing higher qualifications is legally justified to attract better-qualified personnel and does not constitute unlawful discrimination.
- Whether the Government can prescribe differential pay scales for incumbents of the same post based on educational qualifications?
- Is an employer legally competent to offer higher compensation for higher qualifications within the same post?
- Does the prescription of a higher pay scale for higher qualifications relevant to the functions of a post constitute unlawful discrimination?
ORDER
1. ANWARUL HAQ, C. J.-This petition seeks leave to appeal against an order made by the Sind Services Tribunal on the 23rd of April, 1980, whereby an appeal filed by the petitioner in the matter of the correct fixation of his pay in the national pay scales, was summarily dismissed.
2. The relevant facts are that the appellant was working as a librarian in the Education Department on a consolidated salary in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600. When the cadre of the Librarians was bifurcated into the school and colleges side and option was taken from various Librarians. The petitioner opted for the college side, but for some reason effect was not given to his option.
3. However, this fact is now not material, as ultimately the Librarians serving in the Schools were also allowed the same pay scale with effect from I-6-1970 as admissible to those serving in colleges.
4. Although identical pay scales were prescribed for Librarians serving in schools and colleges yet a distinction was made on the ground of their basic qualifications. For those possessing B.A./B. Sc.
5. Degree and diploma in Library Science the scales were Rs. 350-925 with effect from 1st June, 1970 ; and Rs. 400-1,000 with effect from I st March, 1972.
6. For those having Masters degree in Library Science the scales prescribed were Rs. 450-1000 with effect from 1st June, 1970 and Rs, 500-1,250 with effect from 1st March, 1972.
7. The petitioner contended before the Services Tribunal that he was entitled to the higher pay scale even though he did not possess an M. A. Degree in 'Library science, for the reason that the Government had no authority to discriminate between the salary admissible to various incumbents of the same post. The Tribunal has taken the view that the Government was fully competent to impose any condition while revising the pay scales.
8. Leave to appeal is sought on the ground that the pay scale is prescribed for a post and not for the individual, and, accordingly, the Government has no power to discriminate between various incumbents of the same post simply on the ground of higher qualifications. The learned counsel contends that the provincial Government could not discriminate in this manner.
9. We regret we see no merit in these submissions. It is certainly open to the employer to offer a higher compensation for higher qualifications, even though appointment may be to the same post.
10. In our view no exception can be taken to the prescription of a higher pay scale for persons possessing higher qualifications as compared to others who may be appointed to the same post or posts. In the present case, the higher qualification prescribed has direct relevance to the functions assigned to the Librarians, and the Provincial Government was, therefore, clearly justified in prescribing the higher pay scale in order to attract persons so qualified.
11. The petition. Accordingly, fails and is hereby dismissed.