http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SUBAL CHANDRA DAS & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT17/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 191        JT 1995 (9)   282  1995 SCALE  (7)237

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the Division Bench judgment  dated 3rd  September, 1993  of the  Calcutta High Court  in Matter  No.6332 of  1988. Admitted  facts are that "Moharrir"  in  the  Collectorate  of  Nadia  etc.  was initially a  feeder post  for promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk.  Subsequently, due  to spate  of  litigation Moharrirs were  redesignated as  Lower Division  Clerks. The First Pay Commission had recommended in this behalf thus :      "The scale  of  pay  of  Lower  Division      Clerk  is   Rs.125-200/-  and   that  of      Moharir  Rs.100-140/-.   It   has   been      recommended elsewhere the existing posts      of Moharrirs should, as far as possible,      be  converted   into  posts   of   Lower      Division  Clerks.   The  revised   scale      recommended  for   these  posts  is  the      revised  scale   recommended  for  Lower      Division Clerks in District Officers".      Acting thereon, the Government issued two orders. After Government decided  that the pay-scale of Muharrirs, working in the  Regional Offices  under the Irrigation and Waterways Department and  in the Regional Offices of the Land and Land Reforms Department,  would be  revised from  Rs.180-350/- to Rs.230-425/-  with   effect  from   1.4.70  subject  to  the condition that there would be no arrear adjustment of salary prior to  February 1978  and that  their pay  in the revised scale of Rs.230-425/- would be fixed under the provisions of WBS (ROPA) Rules, 1970.      Another order dated December 13, 1989 reads as under :      "The Governor has been pleased to decide      that   all   the   existing   posts   of      Muharrirs,  L.R.   Act   Muharrirs   and      Copyists held  by a person having passed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    in School Final or its equivalent as the      minimum  educational  qualification  and      excepting those  of the  above mentioned      posts which  are  held  by  persons  not      having the  educational qualification of      School Final  or its  equivalent in  the      Registration Offices  will be designated      as posts of Lower Division Clerk.      This order  takes effect from 1.7.89 and      henceforth all  such  new  posts  to  be      created to the Registration Offices will      be designated as Lower Division Clerk."      As a  consequence, the  posts of  Muharrirs  have  been redesignated as Lower Division Clerks. This is reiterated by the State in paragraph 19 of the SLP as under :      "The petitioners  state that the post of      Muharrirs have  duly been  abolished  by      virtue of  the Government  Orders  which      were issued in compliance with the order      of  the   Court  whereby   the  post  of      Moharrirs were  held to  be equal to the      post of  L.D. Clerks.  Since the post of      Moharrirs have been redesignated as L.D.      Clerks, question  of post of L.D. Clerks      being a  promotional  post  as  that  of      Moharrirs does not and cannot arise."      Thus, it  could be  seen that  the posts  of Muharrirs, though initially  feeder posts to the Lower Division Clerks, due to  Court orders  and recommendation  made  by  the  Pay Commission, were  redesignated as  LDCs and  were fused into the posts  of Lower  Division Clerks. Thereby, there is only one cadre, i.e., Lower Division Clerk.      Shri M.P.  Verma, learned  senior counsel appearing for the respondents,  has placed before us a letter dated May 8, 1995 addressed by the District Magistrate & Collector, North 24 - Parganas, and on its basis he contended that two cadres are still existing. The letter addressed by the Collector is clearly wrong  and it  is in conflict with the orders passed by the  Government. We  have seen  the statutory  rule  also placed before  us. Rules  were corrected  upto  October  15, 1987.  It  is  seen  that  aforesaid  orders  were  reissued thereafter. Therefore,  the rules  are not  in conflict with the orders passed by the Government.      The question, therefore, would be whether the erstwhile direct recruit L.D. Clerks would be entitled to higher scale of pay  than that  of promoted  L.D.C. In the impugned order the Division Bench of the High Court directed thus :      "The petitioners  should succeed in this      writ  petition.   The  respondents   are      directed to revise the pay scales of the      petitioners  with  retrospective  effect      from   1.4.70   and   1.4.74/1.8.74   in      exercise of the powers conferred by Rule      3A of  the West  Bengal  Service  Rules,      Part I and/or Rule 13 of the West Bengal      Service (Revision  of Pay and Allowance)      Rules, 1970  or  Rule  15  of  the  West      Bengal Services  (Revision  of  Pay  and      Allowance) Rules, 1981 or by exercise of      their inherent  powers in  a  manner  as      would ensure  that the pay scales of the      petitioners as Lower Division Clerks and      Upper Division Clerks be higher than the      pay scales  granted to the Moharrirs for      the corresponding periods from 1.4.70."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

    The admitted  position  is  that  for  the  L.D.C.  the existing scale of pay as per the recommendation of the First Pay Commission  was Rs.232-425/-,  for selection  grade LDC, the scale  is Rs.310-550/-  and for  UDC the scale of pay is Rs.505-670/-. These scales of pay were not disputed.      The question is whether the High Court was justified to create any  intermediate scale of pay between LDC and UDC to the erstwhile  direct recruit  Lower  Division  Clerks.  The contention of Shri Verma is that Moharrirs, who were holding lower scale  of pay  prior to  their being  fused  into  the category as  LDC, are  now getting  higher scale  of pay  as LDCs, while  the direct  recruit LDCs  are stagnated  at the same scale  of pay.  Therefore, the High Court was justified in directing to create intermediate scale of pay. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that once Moharrirs have been redesignated  as LDCs  and fused  into the  category of LDCs all  become a class. It would appear that in an earlier litigation filed  by the parties, inter se promotion between the Moharrirs  and LDCs  as UDC  was considered and the High Court in  a writ  petition had  directed the  Government  to prescribe  1:1  ratio  between  Moharrirs  and  L.D.Cs.  for promotion to  the posts  of U.D.Cs. The State Government had acted upon  and issued rules in that behalf. Therefore, each source, until exhausted, has channel of promotion to the UDC within their respective 50% quota.      On  the  Moharrirs  being  integrated  as  L.D.Cs.,  no further distinction or discrimination in the scale of pay or promotion chances  between Moharrirs  and the direct recruit LDCs. is  maintainable. All are now entitled to get the same scale of  pay and  other service  benefits. It  would appear that in  some instances some of the Moharrirs, due to length of service, are getting higher pay. In fixing their scale of pay as LDCs, their previous higher pay due to increments was needed to  be protected  as special  pay  and  seems  to  be subject matter  of litigation pending before the High Court. Therefore, we  need not  go into  that question.  It is also further contended that the direct recruit LDCs are stagnated on account  of the  entry  by  the  Moharrirs  which  caused hardships to  the promotees.  As noted earlier, prescription of the  ratio of 1:1 has taken care of the hardship, if any. We do not, therefore, think that the High Court was right in giving the impugned directions.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the High Court  is set aside. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.