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/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 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 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 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 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.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
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 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 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 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 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]
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]
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 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 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 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 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 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] 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.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.