Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1989 DIGILAW 212 (PAT)

Ramji Sharma v. State Of Bihar

1989-07-06

UDAY SINHA

body1989
Judgment Uday Sinha, J. 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Registrar in Bihar University. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar in 1976, and was serving as such when this writ application was filed on 23-9-1988. The petitioner has now superannuated but his claim remains a live issue. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus commanding the University to pay to the petitioner in terms of Annexure 1 to this application with effect from 1-4-1981. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Upper Division Assistant in 1961. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar in 1976. The State Government had appointed a pay revision Committee to recommend revision of salary of different categories of officers of the State. In terms of the recommendation of the Committee, pay scales were revised, effective from 1-4-1981. The resolution of the State Government took place by Annexure 1 dated 30th December, 1981, Paragraph 1 of Annexure 1 shows that t he State Government had accepted the revised scales of pay as indicated in Schedules 1 and 2 of the recommendations. Paragraph 2 of Annexure 1 shows that the revised scales of pay would apply to all State Government employees who were in service on the 1st April, 1981 and to all new appointments and promotions made effective an or after the said date. Paragraph 10 of Annexure 1 runs into four sub-paragraphs. Sub-paragraph (ii) lays down that selection grade should be provided in all services, cadres and posts. Paragraph 11 provides for time-bound promotion to Government employees. Initially, the petitioner had prayed for time-bound promotion also but at the time of hearing the petitioner gave up that claim. The University provided for Junior selection grade pay scale for Class III and IV officers hut it did not accord that privilege to Section Officer, Assistant Registrar, Assistant Engineer and others. The petitioner contends that the action of the University in extending selection grade pay scales to Class III and IV officers while denying it to Assistant Registrar, etc. was pick and choose method which infringed Article 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner contends that the action of the University in extending selection grade pay scales to Class III and IV officers while denying it to Assistant Registrar, etc. was pick and choose method which infringed Article 14 of the Constitution. Hence if prayer for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the University to accord selection grade pay scale to the petitioner with effect from 1-4-1981 which post he was occupying from 1-4-1981 till he superannuated on 30-9-1988. 3. The stand of the University is that Officers of the University are granted only such salary as his provided by the statutes. Mr. Indu Shekhar Prasad Sinha, learned Counsel for the University, contended that the University had framed statutes governing the salary payable to every officer. Chapter VIII of the Bihar University Statutes provides for a salary admissible to Pro-Vice-Chancellor. The Co-ordinator, College Development, Council, The Registrar. The Inspector of Colleges, Finance Officer, Controller of Examinations, The Deputy Registrar, The Budget and Accounts Officer and Assistant Registrar. Paragraph 12 of Chapter VIII of the Statutes relates to Assistant Registrar of Bihar University. Sub-paragraph (ii) lays down the salary admissible to Assistant Registrar. It reads as follows:- - He shall be a whole time officer and shall be appointed in the scale of Rs. 940-40-1500-40-1660. The Statutes do not provide any selection grade for officers enumerated in Chapter VIII of the Statutes. The stand of the University thus is that the Statutes not having provided any selection grade pay, the petitioner would not be entitled to the same in terms of the recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee, 4 Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Statutes are not the last word in the matter of emoluments to be drawn by employees of the University. He has contended that the University bad been paying something beyond the prescribed scale of pay without any such provision in the Statutes. Annexure 3 to this application is the office order granting selection grade scales of pay to non-teaching Class IV employees of the University with effect from 1-4-1981. Annexure-2 lays down the modality for fixation of pay in the selection grade. Annexures 4, 5 and 6 are office orders granting Junior selection grade of pay to named Class III officers. Annexures 2 to 6 thus relate to Class III and Class IV officers of the Bihar University. Annexure-2 lays down the modality for fixation of pay in the selection grade. Annexures 4, 5 and 6 are office orders granting Junior selection grade of pay to named Class III officers. Annexures 2 to 6 thus relate to Class III and Class IV officers of the Bihar University. They do not support the claim of the petitioner in any manner. 5. The University considered the matter of grant of selection grade to Assistant Registrar, Assistant Engineer, Deputy Registrar, Executive Engineer, etc. After considering the University did not grant selection grade pay to them. Annexure 7 is a representation to the Vice-Chancellor by the petitioner and seventeen others. The petitioner pressed his claim before the Chancellor as well by representation Annexure-9. Annexure 10 is another representation by the petitioner to the Chancellor. Needless to say, the representation of the petitioner did not find favour with the University or the State Government or the Chancellor. That occasioned the filing of the present application. 6. The position in law has been clarified by the University in its counter-affidavit. At paragraph 7 it has been averred that the pay and allowances of IV and II [grade staff of the University are not governed by Statute. They are determined by orders of the State Government as adopted by the University. The University has adopted the grant of selection grade pay in respect of Class III and IV officers but not in regard to the statutory officers like the petitioner. Annexure A to the counter-affidavit is the proceeding of a meeting held under the Presidentship of Minister for Hainan Resources. The meeting was attended by all the Vice-chancellors--except Vice-Chancellor of Magadh University--Finance Commissioner and Officers of Human Resources Development Department. The meeting resolved that the facilities extended to the employees of the State Government will not be automatically applicable to employees of the Universities and that they should not be accorded to officers of the University without favourable decision of the Government. The Universitys stand in regard to non-availability of selection grade pay to statutory officers was spelt out in the counter-affidavit filed on 28-3-1989. 7. The issues are thus straight and simple. The State Government has accepted the grant of selection grade pay to its Class III and Class IV officers But the decisions of the State Government do not apply perse to the University. 7. The issues are thus straight and simple. The State Government has accepted the grant of selection grade pay to its Class III and Class IV officers But the decisions of the State Government do not apply perse to the University. The statutory officers of the University receive remuneration only in terms of the Statutes of the University. Whenever there is any decision of the State Government to accord any benefit to any statutory officers, it is not and cannot be made available unless a decision is incorporated in the Statutes Annexure 12 shows that the pay scale of Assistant Registrar previously was Rs. 465-940 which was revised by the present scale of Rs. 940-1660. The revised pay scales stand incorporated in Chapter VIII. That is how the revised pay scales are being paid, but in absence of any Statutes, no emoluments can be paid to the statutory officers The Statutes not having provided any selection grade pay for statutory officers, there can be no question of grant of the same to them The petitioner being statutory officer, he can receive only what is provided under the Statutes. The Statutes provide pay scales of Rs. 940-40- 1500-40-1660.00 The petitioner, therefore can receive only salary in terms of that scale and no more. In my view, therefore, the petitioners claim for being accorded selection grade pay as admissible to officers of the State Government is without substance and must be rejected accordingly. 8. Annexures 12 to 14 annexed to the rejoinder dated 28-34989 filed by the petitioner do not advance the petitioners case in any manner The question of June bound promotion was not pressed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have not, therefore, gone into any detail in that behalf Annexures to the counter-affidavit of the University, however, show that the principle of Time Bound promotion for statutory officers has not been accepted. 9. Having given my most anxious consideration to the case of the petitioner, I am of the view that the petitioner has hardly a case to agitate There is thus no merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly There shall, however, be no order as to costs.