JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay them the scale of pay of Rs. 1500-2750, in the light of the notification issued by the Respondent- Ranchi University vide memo No. 24477-512 dated 19.12.1997 with effect from the date of appointment of the petitioners. Further, prayer has been made for a direction upon Respondent No. 3 to pay the petitioners all the arrears of salary, on the basis of aforesaid pay scale. 3. Admitted facts of the case of the petitioners in brief, are as follows: (a) Both the petitioners were appointed as Routine Clerk at the Respondent- Ranchi University. On the date of their appointment, the scale of pay as applicable to Routine Clerks, fixed by the Government Notification No. 841 dated 13.04.1991, was applicable and according to which, their scale of pay was also fixed at Rs. 975-1540. (b) By virtue of a subsequent notification issued by the Registrar of the Respondent-University, clarifications were communicated to the Principals of the affiliated colleges to act in accordance with aforementioned notification No. 841 of the State Government and to pay the salary to the non-teaching employees in accordance with the scales fixed. It was stipulated in this notification that Grade- III college employees, holding the qualification of Graduation at the time of initial appointment on the post of U.D./L.D. Assistant/Clerks (Merger), will get their salary in the pay scale of 1500-2750 with effect from February, 1998 in anticipation of the approval of State Government. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid notification (Annexure- 3), the petitioners have claimed that they have come within the category of Clerks and since did possess the Graduation degree at the time of their appointment, they are entitled to the scale of 1500-2750 and the salary which is being paid to have at present, is much below the stipulated scale of pay and, therefore, they are entitled not only to the proper scale of pay, but also to the arrears of salary on the basis of the difference of scales. 4. Per contra, the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, is that the petitioners appeared to have entertained some sort of misconception and, therefore, the entire claim is misleading and unfounded. 5. 4. Per contra, the stand taken by the respondents in their counter affidavit, is that the petitioners appeared to have entertained some sort of misconception and, therefore, the entire claim is misleading and unfounded. 5. Counsel for the Respondents would explain that admittedly, both the petitioners were appointed on the post of Routine Clerk, which is a distinct and separate post and for which a separate pay scale has been fixed by the Government, which is being paid to the petitioners. Learned counsel adds that the petitioners cannot be equated with the other Clerks, such as the U.D./L.D. Assistants for higher pay scales which is applicable to such employees. 6. Upon hearing the rival submissions and perusing the records, I find that admittedly, both the petitioners had accepted their initial appointments as Routine Clerks. Undisputedly, the petitioners were well aware at the time of their appointment that the scale of pay which was applicable to them as per the fixation made by the Government, was Rs. 975-1540. Having accepted the post and the scale applicable, the petitioners had continued to remain content. It appears thereafter, on interpreting the notification of the Annexure- 3 to their advantage, the petitioners have conceived a belief that they are too, are Clerks in the same category of other Clerks as mentioned in the notification and they are entitled to the salary fixed for the Clerks. 7. Learned counsel in support of the petitioners grounds, has referred to the judgment of this Court in the case of Ramkishan Bhagat & Ors. Vs. The Vice- Chancellor & Ors., vide C.W.J.C. No. 3585 of 1995 (R) and submits that in the aforesaid case also, the same issue was considered on the basis of the Government Notification (Annexure- 3) and it was declared by the Court that the writ petitioners therein was entitled to the scale of pay of Rs. 1500-2750, since on the date of their initial appointment they had already passed their Graduation. 8. The judgment referred to, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not applicable to the facts of the present case. As is observed from the judgment in the case of Ramkishan Bhagat & Ors. (supra), the writ petitioners therein were appointed on the post of Assistant, Head Assistant and Accountant. 8. The judgment referred to, by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not applicable to the facts of the present case. As is observed from the judgment in the case of Ramkishan Bhagat & Ors. (supra), the writ petitioners therein were appointed on the post of Assistant, Head Assistant and Accountant. The scale of pay on the post of Assistant, Head Assistant, Accountant and Clerks upon merger was initially fixed on the old scale of Rs. 785-1210 and the corresponding revised scale of pay was fixed at 1500-2750. It was in consideration of these facts of the case that a direction was issued to the concerned authorities of the Respondent-State Government to fix the proper revised scale of the writ petitioners therein. 9. In the present case, the petitioners were admittedly, appointed on the post of Routine Clerk. The distinctionhas been made even in the Government Notification under which the scale of pay of the government employees has been fixed and wherein the post of Routine Clerk has been marked as separate from the post of Assistant, Head Assistant, Accountant etc. The petitioners, cannot therefore, claim parity with the scale of pay as applicable to the U.D./L.D. Assistant/Clerks (Merger), as indicated even in the notification (Annexure- 3) of the Respondent- University. 10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ application and hence,the same is dismissed. /