Post-demerger compassionate appointees are entitled only to the Lower Division Clerk pay scale.

The petitioners’ fathers were government employees under the Building Construction Department, Purnea, and died in harness. The petitioners were thereafter appointed on compassionate grounds as Junior Accounts Clerks/Junior Division Accounts Clerks in 2014, against sanctioned vacancies, in the pay scale corresponding to ₹3,050–4,590/-, carrying Grade Pay ₹1,900/-.

Subsequently, relying on Finance Department Resolution No. 3111 dated 25 March 2015 concerning the revised pay scales of Accounts Clerks, the petitioners were granted Grade Pay ₹2,400/- and consequential pay fixation.

The Superintending Engineer later issued the impugned order dated 26 May 2017, reverting the petitioners to the post of Lower Division Clerk and reducing their pay to Grade Pay ₹1,900/-, on the ground that compassionate appointments could not be made to the post of Accounts Clerk and were confined to the LDC pay scale.

The order also directed recovery of alleged excess payments. The petitioners challenged the reversion, claimed entitlement to the pay scale attached to the post of Accounts Clerk, and relied upon the Division Bench decision in LPA No. 206 of 2014.

The State contended that, following the de-merger of the clerical cadre and the Finance Department’s instructions, compassionate appointments could be made only to the LDC post carrying the ₹3,050–4,590/- scale; appointment to the Accounts Clerk post required selection through examination.

1. Whether the petitioners, having been appointed on compassionate grounds after the de-merger of the clerical cadre, were entitled to the higher pay scale of ₹4,000–6,000/- or Grade Pay ₹2,400/- attached to the post of Upper Division Clerk/Junior Accounts Clerk, or were confined to the LDC scale of ₹3,050–4,590/- with Grade Pay ₹1,900/-?

2. Whether the administrative authorities were justified in reverting the petitioners to the post of Lower Division Clerk and correcting their pay scale?

3. Whether recovery of the excess amounts paid to the petitioners could be ordered in the absence of fraud, misrepresentation, or concealment on their part?

The Court applied Finance Department Resolutions Nos. 8825 and 8826 dated 20 December 2000, which de-merged the unified clerical cadre into Lower Division Clerk carrying the ₹3,050–4,590/- scale and Upper Division Clerk carrying the ₹4,000–6,000/- scale, while prescribing LDC as the entry-level post for future recruitment.

It also applied General Administration Department Letter No. 3385 dated 20 June 2001, which confined compassionate appointments against Class III posts to the replacement scale corresponding to LDC, namely ₹3,050–4,590/-.

The Court followed the Full Bench decision in Ravi Shankar Kumar v. The State of Bihar & Ors. , CWJC No. 23831 of 2018, decided on 27 August 2025, which held that compassionate appointees cannot claim parity with direct recruits appointed pursuant to pre-de-merger selection processes, that a pre-de-merger recommendation or pending application creates no vested right to a higher post, and that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not apply in this context.

The Court distinguished Binit Kumar as relating to the distinct Accounts Clerical Cadre and Resolution No. 3111 dated 25 March 2015.

For recovery, it applied State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) , (2015) 4 SCC 334, under which recovery of excess payments is impermissible in appropriate cases where the employee was not responsible for the erroneous payment.

The Court held that the petitioners’ appointments in 2014 occurred long after the 20 December 2000 de-merger. Consequently, the governing policy permitted compassionate appointment only to the entry-level LDC post in the ₹3,050–4,590/- scale with Grade Pay ₹1,900/-.

Their appointment letters or subsequent departmental placement as Junior Accounts Clerks could not override the applicable policy or confer a vested right to the higher Accounts Clerk/UDC scale.

The petitioners’ reliance on Resolution No. 3111 and LPA No. 206 of 2014 was rejected because those matters concerned the pay-scale structure of the Accounts Clerical Cadre and did not decide whether a person could initially be appointed to that cadre on compassionate grounds contrary to the post-de-merger policy.

Accordingly, the authorities were entitled to correct the erroneous grant of the higher scale and restore the petitioners to the LDC post and pay scale.

However, since the higher payments resulted from departmental action and there was no allegation of fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, or other culpable conduct by the petitioners, recovery of amounts already paid was barred by the principle in Rafiq Masih .

Recovery of excess salary or allowances paid before 26 May 2017 was quashed, as the petitioners had not committed fraud or misrepresentation.

Their continuous service from the initial date of joining was directed to be counted for pension, length of service, and consideration for regular promotion to Upper Division Clerk under the applicable rules.

No back wages or higher-scale benefits were granted, and there was no order as to costs.