Supreme Court of India
BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.versusRANCHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 191
- Decided
- 17 March 2021
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the D.O. letter of 28 July 1981 does not apply to the appellants’ posts, so no mandamus for pay‑scale merger is available, and the amounts already paid cannot be recovered.
Summary
The State Government of Bihar issued a Departmental Order (D.O.) on 28 July 1981 to merge the pay scales of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants/Clerks in Patna University, later extending the scheme to other universities. Subsequent communications in 1982, 1989 and 1990 led the Vice‑Chancellor of Ranchi University to direct affiliated colleges to implement the integrated pay scale. The Principal of Ranchi Women’s College, on 3 August 1990, provisionally re‑designated several Category III employees (typist, counter clerk, routine clerk, store‑keeper) to the merged scale, subject to university approval. The University reversed this order on 8 March 1995. The employees filed writ petitions; a Single Judge allowed them, but the Division Bench set aside the order. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the D.O. applied to the appellants’ posts and whether a mandamus could compel the merger. It held that the D.O. applies only to posts that have distinct lower and upper division categories with two or more scales, which the appellants’ posts lacked; consequently, no mandamus could be issued. The Court also ruled that amounts already paid between 1990‑1995 could not be recovered due to the long delay and retirement of some employees. The appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The D.O. letter dated 28 July 1981 is applicable to the posts held by the appellants.
- Whether a mandamus can be issued to compel the merger of pay scales for the appellants.
- Whether the amounts paid to the appellants under the provisional order must be recovered.
Legislation cited
- Bihar State Universities Acts. 10(6)
- Constitution of Indias. Article 142
Subjects
pay scale mergerdepartmental ordermandamusuniversity appointmentscategory III employeesstatutory interpretationretroactive benefits
Judgment
250 [2021]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 7 S.C.R. 250 [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA & ORS.
v.
RANCHI UNIVERSITY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2822 of 2012)
B MARCH 17, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Service Law – Merger of pay scales – Permissibility – D.O.
letter dated 28.07.1981 of the State Government provided for merger
of pay scales only of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants/
C
Clerks in the Patna University – The merger was further extended
to other Universities of the erstwhile State of Bihar by a letter dated
27.01.1982 – Thereafter, a communication was issued on 05.10.1989
by which the State decided to implement the above-mentioned
integrated pay scale to all the class III employees of the colleges
D affiliated to various Universities of the State – Pursuant thereto,
Vice-Chancellor of Ranchi University issued a circular to all the
affiliated colleges – Consequently, Principal of a college affiliated
to Ranchi University, granted such merger to the appellants subject
to approval of the University by order dated 03.08.1990 – The order
of the principal was reversed by University on 08.03.1995 – Writ
E
petition challenging order dated 08.03.1995 allowed by the Single
Judge of the High Court – The order of Single Judge of High Court
was set aside by Division Bench of the High Court – On appeal,
held: As per D.O. letter dated 28.07.1981, the category of posts
sought to be merged were only those which had two or more scales
F of senior and junior incumbents – In the post in question, there is
no categorisation of lower division and senior division and the
appellants were appointed to sanctioned posts – They were neither
promoted nor appointed or regularized against the post of Lower
Division and Upper Division Assistants/Clerks – In absence of such
categories, the letter dated 28.07.1981 would not apply and there
G
cannot be a mandamus to merge pay scales – However, as regards,
the benefit to appellants from 1990 to 1995, the same is not liable to
be recovered.
H
250
BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA v. RANCHI UNIVERSITY 251
Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
Held: 1. The cause arose from D.O. letter No. 373 dated
28.07.1981. In matters which have financial implication so far as
the State or the employees are concerned, there must be a right
for it to be enforced for the employees. This Court is concerned
with merger of scales and if qua the appointments and qua the B
post held by the appellants, a merger was not to take place, there
cannot be a mandamus to merge the pay scales. The D.O. itself
stated that only such of the category of posts as of two or more
scales of the senior and junior incumbents were sought to be
merged. In the absence of any such categories, there would be
no application of this D.O. This is apart from the fact that the pay C
scales were also different from the post held by the appellants
which are of Typist, Counter Clerk, Routine clerk and Store
Keeper. [Para 17][261-F-H]
2. The denial of the claim by the University is predicated on
the plea that the appellants do not belong to the category of LD D
Clerks/Assistants to the UD Clerks/Assistants in the given pay
scales. Last three posts in the colleges are of different designation
such as Headclerk, Accountant, Correspondent Clerk, Accounts
Clerk, Counter Clerk, Store Keeper etc. which in turn is based
on the number of students in an institution. It is a matter of the
staffing pattern for such appointments. In the post in question E
there is no categorization of the post of Lower Division and Upper
Division and these appellants were appointed to sanctioned posts.
They were neither promoted nor appointed or regularized against
the post of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants/Clerks.
[Para 18][262-A-C] F
3. The principle of merger of pay scales is to bring uniformity
of pattern in grant of pay in pay scales. However, there can be
uniformity in respect of the posts for which such uniformity is
sought to be implemented and not in respect of any other post
which exists in category III. [Para 19][262-C-D]
G
4. The communication of the Registrar of the university vide
letter dated 25.04.1990 only sought w.e.f. to the Govt. letter dated
11.07.1989 by communicating it to the constituent colleges. It is
in the wisdom of the Principal of the Ranchi Women’s College
H
252 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A that she issued letter dated 03.08.1990 but cautiously worded it
by stating that if University does not approve the designation in
pay scale, they may be reverted in the existing pay scale. The
appellants were paid salaries according to the provisional fixation
of pay by the Principal of the College and it is this which did not
find approval from University vide letter dated 09.03.1995 being
B
contrary to the Government letter dated 11.07.1989. [Para
20][262-D-F]
5. Unless a re-designation of the post takes place, the benefit
cannot be available under the G.Os. Such redesignation could not
have taken place without a specific sanction of the Vice-Chancellor
C of the University and thus the rationale which permeated the order
of the Single Judge of the High Court that no such permission will
require in view of Section 10(6) of the Bihar Universities Act would
not hold water. [Para 21][262-F-G]
6. Lastly turning to the aspect of benefit which is already
D accrued to the appellants from 1990 to 1995, this Court is of the
view that persons like the appellants working in category III cannot
be made now to re-pay their benefits after so many years, specially
and when two of them have even already retired. There was no
misrepresentation on part of the Appellants as to make them refund
E the amount but a conditional order passed by the Principal remained
in force on account of a large delay on part of the concerned
authorities. Thus, it is made clear that any amounts paid to the
appellants under the order of the Principal dated 03.08.1990 or even
under the order of the Single Judge (if any) will not be sought to be
recovered from the appellants. [Para 23][262-G-H; 263-A-C]
F
Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
(1994) 2 SCC 521: [1994] 1 SCR 700; Sahib Ram v. State
of Haryana and Ors. (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18: [1994] Suppl.
(3) SCR 674; State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih
(2014) 8 SCC 883: [2014] 8 SCR 228 – referred to.
G
Case Law Reference
[1994] 1 SCR 700 referred to Para 23
[1994] Suppl. (3) SCR 674 referred to Para 23
[2014] 8 SCR 228 referred to Para 23
H
BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA v. RANCHI UNIVERSITY 253
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2822 of A
2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2010 of the High Court
of Judicature at Ranchi in L.P.A. No.576 of 2003.
Ashwarya Sinha, Ambhoj Kumar Sinha, Advs. for the Appellants.
B
Gopal Prasad, Shalya Agarwal, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. An endeavour made by the Respondent-State to give uniform
C
pay scales to Upper Division and Lower Division Assistants/Clerks working
in the University in the then State of Bihar has given rise to this prolonged
litigation which began in the year, 1998.
2. The Government issued a letter No. 373 dated 28.07.1981
providing for a merger of pay scales only of Lower Division Assistants/
D
Clerks with the pay scale of Upper Division Assistants/Clerks staff of
Patna University. Since this is the basic document from which the dispute
arises, it would be appropriate to reproduce this letter as under:
“Sri K.N Aradhanareeswaran
Education Commissioner
E
Bihar, Patna
Dated 28th July, 1981
D.O Letter No. 373©
Kindly refer to your letter dated 27 July 1981 in connection with
the sanction of merger scale to lower division and upper division F
assistants in your University and sanction of senior scale (Rs. 348–
570) to all the categories of posts in the scale of Rs.260–408/–,
296–460/– and Rs.340–490/– with effect from 1.3.1977 along with
pay fixation benefits in accordance with F.D. letter No. 4144 dated
16.3.1977. G
You are aware that Government have sanctioned merger scale to
only such categories of post as have two or more scales for the
senior and junior incumbents. It is not that any category of Post
which has a particular scales that has been merged with a higher
scale got upgraded to the same even if the higher scale is not
H
254 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A there for that category of post.
As such, in conformity with the Government policy in this regard,
only such category of posts assistants as have a junior scale of
Rs.260–408/– and senior scale of Rs. 348–570/-or a junior scale
of Rs. 296 –460/ – or Rs. 340–490/– and senior scale of Rs. 348/
B – 570/– can alone be merged with the scale of Rs. 348–570/–.
The scale of Rs. 348–570/– cannot be given to any other category
of post which is in the scale of Rs. 260–408/–, Rs.296–460/–, Rs.
340–490/– without there being a senior scale of Rs. 348–570/– for
such post from before.
C I may further point out that Government have merged L.D (Rs.
260–408/–) and U.D. (Rs.348–570/–) scales only four Secretariat
and attached offices. This kind of merger has not been allowed for
employees of the field offices. In line with the same, this kind,
merger cannot be made applicable to the assistants in the constituent
colleges. Any revision in their scales shall be possible only after the
D publication of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee report and in its
acceptance by the Government.
The merger scale to the various categories of assistants may be
granted subject to the condition of aforesaid with effect from 1st
July 1989. Their pay fixation may be made in pursuance of F.D.
E letter No. 4144 dated 16.3.1977 subject to the condition that no
arrear shall be paid until the Finance Department have concurred
in the proposal.
Sd/– K.N. Aradhanareeswaran
F 28.7.81”
3. A bare reading of the aforesaid letter would show that some
clarifications were sought in respect of this merger issue and the letter
dated 28.07.1981 gave absolute and clear elucidation to the effect that
the sanction was only for :
G a) Such categories of posts as have two or more scales for senior
and junior incumbents;
b) It is not that any category of post which has similar scales that
have been merged with the higher scale but upgraded to the same even if
the higher scale is not there for that category of post;
H
BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA v. RANCHI UNIVERSITY 255
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
c) It is applicable only to such category of posts assistants as A
having a junior scale of Rs. 260-408/- and senior scale of Rs. 348-570/-
or junior scale of Rs. 296-460/- or Rs. 340-490/- and senior scale of Rs.
348-570/- can alone be merged with the scale of Rs. 348-570/-. The
scale of Rs. 348-570/- cannot be given to any other category of post
which is in the scale of Rs. 206-408/-, Rs. 296-460/-, Rs. 340-490/- without
B
there being a senior scale of Rs. 348-570/- for such post from before;
d) The merger of the Lower Division and Upper Division scales is
only for four Secretariats and attached offices. It has not been allowed
for employees of the field offices and thus cannot be made applicable to
the assistants in the constituent colleges,
C
e) Any revision in the scales would be possible only after publication
of the Fourth Pay Revision Committee report and in its acceptance by
the Government.
4. On the basis of these clarifications, the mergers to various
categories of Assistants were granted w.e.f. 01.07.1989 with their pay
fixation being made in pursuance to F.D. letter No. 4144 dated 16.03.1977, D
subject to the condition that no arrear shall be paid until the Finance
Department concurred with the proposal.
5. On 27.01.1982, the Joint Secretary to the State of Bihar issued
a communication to all the Registrars of the Universities qua the issue of
integration of granted pay scales corresponding to lower category and E
higher category ministerial employees of those universities. The
communication reads as under:
“Under directions given to me, in continuation of the facts of
Letter No. 1217 of the Department of Education dated 29.9.1980,
this is to hereby inform you that already an order vide Letter No. F
373 (C) dated 26.7.1981 which is a semi government letter of the
Director of Education corresponding to the integration of pay scales
of the lower cadre and higher cadre employees of the university
of Patna, has now through this order has been made applicable to
employees of the those categories employed in other universities
within the State of Bihar. G
Bihar acknowledge the receipt of this letter.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/- (illegible)
Ramachandra Prasad Varma
H
256 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A Joint Secretary to the State Govt.
Bihar
O/W No. 91 Patna dated 27th January 1982. Copy to the
Commissioner of Finance, Bihar, Patna in continuation of Memo
No. 373 (C) dated 28.7.1981 of the Department of Education for
B due information.
Sd/-(illegible)
Ramachandra Prasad Varma
Joint Secretary to the State Govt.
C
Bihar
O/W No. 91 dated 27th January 1982
Copy order copy No. 373 dated 28.7.1981 sent to the Director
D of Higher Education, Bihar, Patna/Financial Advisor, Directors of
Higher Education of all Universities (Higher Education Bihar/
Accounts officer in charge, education Department/Section-officer-
in-charge: 14x15’s all assisted for necessary proceedings.
Sd/-(illegible)
E
Ramachandra Prasad Varma
Joint Secretary to the State Govt.
Bihar”
F 6. The aforesaid communication shows that it is in the context of
the communication dated 28.07.1981, extracted aforesaid.
7. It is the case of the appellants that thereafter a communication
was issued on 05.10.1989 by the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner,
Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar
G to the Registrars of all Universities regarding the same subject matter,
which reads as under:
“ I am hereby directed to inform you regarding the aforesaid
matter that according to the agreement reached on 26.4.1989 with
the Bihar State University and College Employees Union, that on
H the basis of approvals made in State Govt’s letter No. 942 dated
BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA v. RANCHI UNIVERSITY 257
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
17.8.1985 and Letter No. 156 dated 19.8.1985 respectively, a A
Government order will be released/issued shortly.
2. After due introspection of the decisions taken on the basis of
the said G.Os regarding paragraph 1(c) of the said G.O. 156 dated
19.8.1985, whose particulars are given below, no G.O. could be issued on
the said issue matter: B
“In the demand No. 3 among the various demands put up by
the union, it has been requested that the merger pay scales in the
case of all III Grade employees of the universities be made applicable
from the year 1977 itself as it has already been existing and effected
in the case of the Secretariat Employees and lower grade and upper C
grade assets/clerks of the Zonal Officers. It has also been decided
in this regard that under any circumstances, no arrear payments
will be made or will be admissible.”
3. It’s remarkable here that all the assistants belonging to higher
grade and lower grad employed in all the universities of the state has been D
integrated for the purpose of deciding their revised unified pay scales and
in this case the pay scales of ministerial employees of third grade will be
made as applicable to them too as mentioned in Departmental letter No.
91 dated 27.1.1982 and has been made applicable with effect from
01.07.1981 and thereafter vide Departmental Letter No. 562 dated
15.4.1985, the unified pay scales have also been implemented in the case E
of colleges affiliated to University of Patna too.
4. Thus all the aspects related to this matter were duly taken into
consideration and only thereafter the State Government has decided to
implement the aforesaid integrated pay scale to all Class-III, Upper Grade
and Lower graded Assts/clerks working in the colleges affiliated to various F
universities within the state except the said class employees of University
of Patna, but as a result of the above, no arrear will be liable to be paid.
5. Information and directions in this regard has already been issued
to the Director (higher Education), Bihar.
G
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-(illegible)
B.B. Sahai
Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner
H
258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A Department of Human Resources
Development, Bihar, Patna”
8. It is this letter which has been forcefully relied upon by the
appellants on the ground that para 3 specifies that all Assistants belonging
to higher and lower grade employee in the University to the State had
B been integrated for the purpose of deciding their revised unified pay scales.
9. In pursuance of the aforesaid communication dated 05.10.1989,
the Vice Chancellor of Ranchi University issued a circular to all the affiliated
colleges in terms as under :
C “In the perspective of Letter No. 14/M/1-0-0228/791/Sec/
1173 dated 5.10.1989 of the Department of Human Resources
Development (HRD), Government of Bihar, the integrated pay
scale of RS. 785-1210/- applicable to all lower category and Higher
Category Assistant/Clerks of University of Ranchi and all its
affiliated colleges will be effective from date 01.07.1981, but still
D the actual payment of salary on said basis will be made on 1st
February 1990. But at this time arrear amount will not be paid.
Hence the concerned Principles are hereby directed requestfully to
send their payment fixation proforma accordingly within 15-5-90
for due approval.
E
By the order of the respected
Vice Chancellor
Sd/- of M.Uraon
(Registrar)
F
University of Ranchi, Ranchi
Memo: RU./BC. 4120-21”
10. It is the say of the appellants that the Principal, Ranchi Women’s
College, Ranchi consequently issued an order dated 03.08.1990 in the
G following terms in which the names of the appellants were included :
“The following person are designated Office Assistant and
placed in the pay scale….. against…..subject to approval of the
Ranchi University. If the University does not approve their
designation and pay scale, they may be reverted in the existing pay
H
BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA v. RANCHI UNIVERSITY 259
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
scale. These entire seniority will be also accepted as per decision A
of the Ranchi University.
Name w.e.f. Pay Scale
1. Sri Bhola Paswan 1.7.81 Rs.785-1210
2. Sri Chunu Mahto 1.7.81 -do- B
3. Sri Rajendra Mahto 1.7.81 -do-
4. Sri Lalan Pd.Singh 1.7.81 -do-
5. Sri Surajdeo Singh 1.7.81 -do-
6.Sri Shrutidhar Pandey 1.7.81 -do- C
7. Sri Ramsudra Sahu 1.7.81 -do-
8. Sri Ashok Kr. Pandey 1.7.81 -do-
9. Sri Kamla Kant Jha 1.7.81 -do-
10. Sri Laloo Lakra 1.7.81 -do- D
11. Sri Rajendra Oraon 1.7.81 -do-
12. Sri Kanhai Sahu 1.7.81 -do-
13. Sri Ramakant Sharma 1.7.81 -do-
E
14. Sri P.S. Bakla 1.7.81 -do-
15.Sri Chandradeo Pd. Rai 1.7.81 -do-
16. Sri Devi Ram Toppo 1.7.81 -do-
17. Miss Laxmi Lakra 785-1210
F
18. Sri Prabhat Kr. Lal -do-
19. Sri Uma Shankar Singh 730-1080
20. Sri Rameshwar Singh -do-
21. Sri Nanku Sahu -do-
G
22. Sri M.R. Kalindi -do-
23. Sri Vijay Kr. Sharma 785-1210
24. Sri Budhram Toppo 730-1080
25. Sri Naresh Kr. Singh 785-1210
H
260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A 26. Sri Rammohan Singh 785-1210
27. Sri Vivek Chandra 785-1210
No arrear shall be paid prior to the date of this notification. Payment
to Sl.No. 17 to 27 on……..will be made w.e.f. the salary of July 90, will
be as per Rule dt.1.1.86.”
B
11. It appears that the appellants continued to enjoy the benefit of
these revised pay scales till the aforesaid decision dated 03.08.1990 was
reversed on 08.03.1995. In this context, we may note that the appellants
before us fell in the category of typist, counter clerk, routine clerk and
store keeper.
C 12. It is the aforesaid decision dated 08.03.1995 which was assailed
by the appellants by filing a writ petition bearing No. 1266 of 1998 before
the Patna High Court. The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single
Judge vide judgment dated 10.07.2003. The reasoning of the learned
Single Judge was predicated on the fact that though the order issued by
D the Principal of the College was a provisional order of reservation subject
to the approval of Ranchi University, and even though the power vested
with the Vice Chancellor to make appointment to post in view of Section
10(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act, the Principal had authority to
issue the communication dated 03.08.1990 as the appointments or creation
of any uniform cadre was not a suo moto action but arose out of the
E directives of the University dated 25.04.1990. The learned Judge also
noticed that another learned Single judge of that Court had passed an
order in Writ Petition No. 3585 of 1995 dated 02.07.1996 which had not
been assailed and had been implemented and thus the acceptance of that
order would give rise to a plea of parity by the appellants.
F 13. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was assailed before
the Division Bench by the Ranchi University vide LPA No. 576 of 2003,
which was allowed on 26.11.2010. The reasoning contained in the said
order which has been impugned before us is that the State Government
had only allowed merger of pay scales of Upper Division Assistants and
Lower Division Assistants/Clerks in the manner as set out in DO letter
G
No. 373 dated 28.07.1981 and the Principal was not competent to re-
designate or grant pay scales on new posts under the Universities Act,
though the Vice Chancellor was competent to do so. The posts to which
the appellants were appointed was noted by the court; to opine that even
the pay scales of these appellants were different from the scales of
H Upper Division and Lower Division Assistants/Clerks. The University
BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA v. RANCHI UNIVERSITY 261
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
was competent not to approve the re-designation and fixation of pay A
made and the order issued by the Principal itself made it subject to approval
of the University.
14. The Division Bench rejected the plea of any vested rights in
favour of the appellants as the re-designation was subject to approval of
the competent authority which would be the Vice Chancellor. Insofar as B
the aspect of the other writ petitions was concerned, it was noted that the
plea of the University was that they were working as cashiers equivalent
to the Accountants and had been given the benefit of the said pay scale
and in any case if any mistake had been committed, that cannot give a
right of parity. The plea of principle of natural justice was also rejected as
the grant of the scale itself was subject to the orders of the competent C
authority which had not been forthcoming.
15. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 who have taken us to the
pleadings. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submits that though
he had filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondents No 5 the State of D
Jharkhand and respondent No. 6 but no one represents them. We may
only note that it was for the State to have made arrangements to put forth
its position which they have failed to do. Be that as it may, we have had
the benefit of the stand of the State Government as reflected in the counter
affidavit. E
16. We are of the view that the impugned judgment cannot be
faulted.
17. The rationale for saying so is that the cause arose from DO
letter No. 373 dated 28.07.1981. We have already extracted the terms on
which it was made applicable which are expressive in its turn. In matters F
which have financial implication so far as the State or the employees are
concerned, there must be a right for it to be enforced for the employees.
We are concerned with merger of scales and if qua the appointments and
qua the post held by the appellants, a merger was not to take place, there
cannot be a mandamus to merge the pay scales. We may also notice the
G
important aspect that the DO itself stated that only such of the category
of posts as of two or more scales of the senior and junior incumbents
were sought to be merged. In the absence of any such categories, there
would be no application of this DO. This is apart from the fact that the
pay scales were also different from the post held by the appellants which
are of Typist, Counter Clerk, Routine clerk and Store Keeper. H
262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 7 S.C.R.
A 18. The denial of the claim by the University is predicated on the
plea that the appellants do not belong to the category of LD Clerks/
Assistants to the UD Clerks/Assistants in the given pay scales. Last
three posts in the colleges are of different designation such as Headclerk,
Accountant, Correspondent Clerk, Accounts Clerk, Counter Clerk, Store
Keeper etc. which in turn is based on the number of students in an
B
institution. It is a matter of the staffing pattern for such appointments. In
the post in question there is no categorization of the post of Lower Division
and Upper Division and these appellants were appointed to sanctioned
posts. They were neither promoted nor appointed or regularized against
the post of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants/Clerks.
C 19. The principle of merger of pay scales is to bring uniformity of
pattern in grant of pay in pay scales. However, there can be uniformity in
respect of the posts for which such uniformity is sought to be implemented
and not in respect of any other post which exists in category III.
20. The communication of the Registrar of the university vide letter
D dated 25.04.1990 only sought w.e.f. to the Govt. letter dated 11.07.1989
by communicating it to the constituent colleges. It is in the wisdom of the
Principal of the Ranchi Women’s College that she issued letter dated
03.08.1990 but cautiously worded it by stating that if University does not
approve the designation in pay scale, they may be reverted in the existing
E pay scale. The appellants were paid salaries according to the provisional
fixation of pay by the Principal of the College and it is this which did not
find approval from University vide letter dated 09.03.1995 being contrary
to the Government letter dated 11.07.1989.
21. On our query learned counsel for the appellants fairly stated
F that unless a re-designation of the post takes place, the benefit cannot be
available under the GOs. Such re-designation could not have taken place
without a specific sanction of the Vice Chancellor of the University and
thus the rationale which permeated the order of the learned Single Judge
that no such permission will require in view of Section 10(6) of the Bihar
Universities Act would not hold water.
G
22. We are thus of the view that the impugned order cannot be
faulted with for the aforesaid reasons.
23. Lastly turning to the aspect of benefit which is already accrued
to the appellants from 1990 to 1995, we are of the view that if the concerned
authorities take 5 years to decide the issue, persons like the appellants
H
BIJAY KUMAR SHARMA v. RANCHI UNIVERSITY 263
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
working in category III cannot be made now to re-pay their benefits A
after so many years, specially and when two of them have even already
retired. There was no misrepresentation on part of the Appellants as to
make them refund the amount but a conditional order passed by the
Principal remained in force on account of a large delay on part of the
concerned authorities. We thus make it clear that any amounts paid to
B
the appellants under the order of the Principal dated 03.08.1990 or even
under the order of the learned Single Judge (if any) will not be sought to
be recovered from the appellants. We are following the course of action
as adopted in Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and
Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 (para 11) and Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana
and Ors. (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18 (para 5); and as clarified in State of C
Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883 (para 8), in exercise
of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution.
24. The appeal is dismissed in aforesaid terms leaving the parties
to bear their own costs.
D
Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pay scale merger"Sign in to search