Patna HC Rejects Former University Typist’s Plea For Clerk-Level Pay Upgrade, Citing Policy Limited To Clerks And Head Clerks

The petitioner sought a mandamus directing the respondents to grant him the pay scale of Rs. 5,500–9,000 from 1 January 1996, with the corresponding revised scale and grade pay, and pay parity with Assistants at the University headquarters.

He relied on the Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No. 766 of 2016 and analogous appeals, which directed extension of the State’s pay-scale upgradation policy to employees holding posts of Clerk or Head Clerk.

The respondents maintained that he was a Typist, not a Head Clerk, and stated that he superannuated on 31 May 2018 from the post of UDC (Typist).

The Court treated fixation of pay and other service conditions, including pay-scale upgradation, as matters of policy.

The policy at issue extended upgradation to Clerks and Head Clerks, but not to Steno-Typists; employees outside the identified classes had no statutory right to claim the benefit on parity grounds.

The Division Bench relied on The Union of India v. Rajib Khan, P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General, Ahmedabad, Union of India v. Pushpa Rani, and S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, and held that classification between Clerks/Head Clerks and Steno-Typists was permissible under Article 14.

The petitioner’s claim depended on his being within the class covered by the State’s upgradation policy. The Court accepted the respondents’ position, supported by the counter-affidavit, that he had retired as a UDC (Typist), rather than as a Clerk or Head Clerk.

Because the policy did not extend the benefit to Typists or Steno-Typists, the Division Bench ruling did not assist him: its direction applied only to employees holding Clerk or Head Clerk posts. The Court therefore found no statutory right to the claimed upgradation or parity.

The writ petition was dismissed.