Supreme Court Upholds Denial of Pay Scale Merger for Typists and Clerks in Ranchi University: Bijay Kumar Sharma & Ors. vs. Ranchi University & Ors. (2021) INSC 123

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 March 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 123

Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a university employee demand a pay scale merger if their job title doesn’t match the criteria for that merger? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving employees of Ranchi University, who sought pay parity with Upper and Lower Division Assistants/Clerks. The Court examined whether these employees, who held positions such as typists and clerks, were entitled to the same pay scale as assistants, focusing on the specific terms of government directives and the nature of their appointments. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The dispute arose from a 1981 government letter (No. 373 dated 28.07.1981) that aimed to merge pay scales for Lower Division Assistants/Clerks with those of Upper Division Assistants/Clerks in Patna University. This letter clarified that the merger was only for posts with existing senior and junior scales and did not apply to all posts. It specifically stated that this merger was for the Secretariat and attached offices, not for field offices or constituent colleges.

On 27.01.1982, the Joint Secretary to the State of Bihar issued a communication to all the Registrars of the Universities stating that the order of merger of pay scales of the lower cadre and higher cadre employees of the university of Patna, has now been made applicable to employees of the those categories employed in other universities within the State of Bihar.

In 1989, a communication (dated 05.10.1989) from the Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, stated that all Assistants in higher and lower grades in the universities were integrated for revised unified pay scales. Following this, the Vice Chancellor of Ranchi University issued a circular implementing an integrated pay scale of Rs. 785-1210 for all lower and higher category Assistants/Clerks, effective from 01.07.1981, with actual payment from 1st February 1990.

Subsequently, the Principal of Ranchi Women’s College issued an order (dated 03.08.1990) designating several employees, including the appellants, as Office Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 785-1210, subject to Ranchi University’s approval. However, this decision was reversed on 08.03.1995. The appellants, who were working as typists, counter clerks, routine clerks, and storekeepers, challenged this reversal.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court in 1998, challenging the reversal of the pay scale merger. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the petition in 2003, ruling that the Principal of the College had the authority to issue the order dated 03.08.1990, as it was based on the directives of the University.

However, the Ranchi University appealed this decision, and a Division Bench of the Patna High Court reversed the Single Judge’s ruling on 26.11.2010. The Division Bench held that the Principal was not competent to redesignate or grant pay scales on new posts, and the merger of pay scales was limited to the categories specified in the government order of 1981. The Division Bench also rejected the plea of parity based on another writ petition, stating that any mistake committed cannot give a right of parity.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework for this case is based on the government’s directives regarding pay scale mergers. The key document is letter No. 373 dated 28.07.1981, which specified the conditions for merging pay scales of Lower Division Assistants/Clerks with Upper Division Assistants/Clerks in Patna University. This letter clarified that the merger was only for posts with existing senior and junior scales and did not apply to all posts.

The letter stated, “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 there for that category of post.”

Further, the letter clarified that, “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/– 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.”

The letter also stated 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.”

The communication of 05.10.1989, issued by the Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, also played a crucial role. It stated that all Assistants belonging to higher and lower grades in the University had been integrated for the purpose of deciding their revised unified pay scales.

Section 10(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act was also considered, which vests the power to make appointments to posts with the Vice Chancellor.

Arguments

The appellants argued that the communication dated 05.10.1989, which stated that all Assistants in higher and lower grades had been integrated for revised unified pay scales, entitled them to the merged pay scale. They also contended that the Principal of Ranchi Women’s College had the authority to issue the order dated 03.08.1990, as it was based on the directives of the University.

The appellants relied on the fact that they were designated as Office Assistants and placed in the pay scale of Rs. 785-1210, effective from 01.07.1981, as per the order of the Principal of Ranchi Women’s College. They argued that they had a right to the merged pay scale as they were also performing similar duties as Upper and Lower Division Assistants/Clerks.

The respondents, Ranchi University and others, argued that the merger of pay scales was limited to the categories specified in the government order of 1981. They contended that the Principal was not competent to redesignate or grant pay scales on new posts, and only the Vice Chancellor had the authority to do so under the Bihar State Universities Act.

The respondents also pointed out that the appellants were not appointed to the posts of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants/Clerks, but to different posts such as Typist, Counter Clerk, Routine Clerk, and Store Keeper. They argued that the pay scales of these posts were different from the scales of Upper and Lower Division Assistants/Clerks, and thus the appellants were not entitled to the merged pay scale.

The respondents further argued that the order issued by the Principal of the College was a provisional order subject to the approval of Ranchi University, and since the University did not approve the redesignation and fixation of pay, the appellants were not entitled to the merged pay scale.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in a separate section. However, the core issue addressed by the court was whether the appellants, who were working as typists, counter clerks, routine clerks, and storekeepers, were entitled to the merger of pay scales with Upper Division and Lower Division Assistants/Clerks, based on the government orders and the actions of the University and the Principal of the College.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court considered the following authorities:

✓ D.O letter No. 373 dated 28.07.1981 – This letter from the Government of Bihar specified the conditions for merging pay scales of Lower Division Assistants/Clerks with Upper Division Assistants/Clerks in Patna University. It was the basis of the dispute, and the court relied on its clarifications to deny the merger to the appellants.

✓ Communication dated 27.01.1982, issued by the Joint Secretary to the State of Bihar – This communication made the order of merger of pay scales of the lower cadre and higher cadre employees of the university of Patna applicable to employees of the those categories employed in other universities within the State of Bihar.

✓ Communication dated 05.10.1989 – This communication from the Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, stated that all Assistants in higher and lower grades in the University had been integrated for the purpose of deciding their revised unified pay scales.

✓ Section 10(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act – This provision vests the power to make appointments to posts with the Vice Chancellor.

✓ Shyam Babu Verma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 – This case was relied upon for the principle that amounts paid to employees due to a conditional order should not be recovered if the delay was on the part of the authorities.

✓ Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1995) Supp (1) SCC 18 – This case was also relied upon for the principle that amounts paid to employees due to a conditional order should not be recovered if the delay was on the part of the authorities.

✓ State of Punjab and Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (2014) 8 SCC 883 – This case was relied upon for the principle that amounts paid to employees due to a conditional order should not be recovered if the delay was on the part of the authorities.

Authorities Table

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court. The Court held that the appellants were not entitled to the merger of pay scales, as their posts did not fall under the categories specified in the government order of 1981.

The court also held that the Principal of Ranchi Women’s College did not have the authority to redesignate posts or grant pay scales, and only the Vice Chancellor had the power to do so under Section 10(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act.

The court noted that the appellants were not appointed to the posts of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants/Clerks, but to different posts such as Typist, Counter Clerk, Routine Clerk, and Store Keeper. These posts had different pay scales, and thus the appellants were not entitled to the merged pay scale.

Treatment of Submissions

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the specific terms of the government order dated 28.07.1981, which clearly defined the categories of posts eligible for the merger of pay scales. The court emphasized that the merger was not intended to be a blanket provision applicable to all employees, but was limited to posts with existing senior and junior scales. The court also stressed that the Principal of the College did not have the authority to redesignate posts or grant pay scales, as this power was vested with the Vice Chancellor under the Bihar State Universities Act.

The court also considered the fact that the appellants were not appointed to the posts of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants/Clerks, but to different posts such as Typist, Counter Clerk, Routine Clerk, and Store Keeper. This distinction was crucial in the court’s reasoning, as it highlighted that the appellants’ posts did not fall under the categories eligible for the merger.

The court also took into account the fact that the order issued by the Principal of the College was a provisional order subject to the approval of the University, and since the University did not approve the redesignation and fixation of pay, the appellants were not entitled to the merged pay scale.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning