Bhagalpur University Retiree’s Higher Pay Claim Fails As Patna HC Finds He Was An Office Assistant, Not Promoted To Assistant

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner, whose University records identified him as an Office Assistant, was entitled to the Rs. 5,500–9,000 pay scale applicable to an Assistant, rather than the Rs. 4,000–6,000 scale granted to him.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to the Rs. 5,500–9,000 scale applicable to an Assistant and that the University’s grant of the Rs. 4,000–6,000 scale and associated benefits was proper.

It also directed

Finding the order dated 17 September 2018 complied with, the Court dismissed the contempt petition.

01Facts

The petitioner, a retired University employee recorded in the University’s service records as an Office Assistant, sought enforcement of the High Court’s order dated 17 September 2018.

pp. 2–3

That order directed the University to grant him the pay scale admissible to an Office Assistant in light of State of Bihar v. Sunny Prakash, while leaving open any lawful action concerning pension.

pp. 2–3

The University stated that it had fixed his pension and post-retirement benefits using the scale of Rs. 4,000–6,000, which it considered applicable to an Office Assistant, but declined to grant the Rs. 5,500–9,000 scale applicable to an Assistant.

pp. 4–7

The Court sought further clarification from the State on the merger and demerger of clerical cadres and the application of relevant pay resolutions to University employees.

pp. 10–19

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner, whose University records identified him as an Office Assistant, was entitled to the Rs. 5,500–9,000 pay scale applicable to an Assistant, rather than the Rs. 4,000–6,000 scale granted to him.

pp. 7–10, 20–21

ii.2. Whether the University had complied with the order dated 17 September 2018, such that no contempt remained.

pp. 2–4, 21–22

03Law Applied

The order in the underlying writ petition required the University to grant the pay scale admissible to an Office Assistant in light of State of Bihar v. Sunny Prakash, (2013) 3 SCC 559; it did not itself designate the petitioner as an Assistant.

pp. 2–3

The Court considered the State’s pay-revision resolutions, including Resolution No. 1972 dated 12 October 2004 and Resolution No. 2693 dated 27 August 2010, and the 2014 service statute, in determining the applicable classifications and scales for University employees.

pp. 12–14

The Court treated the scale applicable to an employee as dependent on the post held and the relevant pay provisions; the merger and demerger of clerical and Assistant grades did not, on the material before it, extend to the separate post of Office Assistant.

pp. 20–21

04Reasoning

The Court found that the petitioner’s University records showed him as an Office Assistant, and that describing himself as an Assistant or an institutional document showing retirement from that post did not establish promotion to the distinct post of Assistant.

p. 20

It concluded that Office Assistants and Routine Clerks had historically carried the same scale, while the Assistant scale was distinct; the merger and demerger provisions relied on by the petitioner concerned the LDC/UDC or corresponding Assistant grades, not Office Assistants.

pp. 20–21

The decisions cited by the petitioner were distinguishable because the employees in those cases were not Office Assistants.

p. 21

The University had therefore complied with the writ order by granting the benefits it considered admissible to an Office Assistant, including the Rs. 4,000–6,000 scale and related pensionary benefits.

pp. 21–22