"The other problem is that the State's capacity to litigate can outmatch even the richest conglomerate. If the state loses a case, at any level, it will appeal, and keep doing that till the Supreme Court. It could be an increment of 100 Rs given to a mali in a government department or a pension of 300 Rs to a widow of the deceased government servant. Everything has to be appealed. And if the private individual succeeds there is no guarantee that the government will accept and comply with the court order."
-Dr S Muralidhar, Senior Advocate and former High Court Chief Justice in his 28th DS Borker Memorial Lecture on the Vision of India 2047
"Trust the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar to create a dispute when there exists none. The situation in hand is a classic example of the State in its Finance Department litigating at its lowest level. The response of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar to the issues raised herein, in fact, borders on contempt for the Finance Department thinks that it is above law and has a right to maintain an opinion which is in conflict with the judicial verdicts."
-Justice Jyoti Saran in Binit Kumar & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2017) in August 21, 2017, Patna High Court
The State of Bihar is not amenable to any settlement in this matter and the learned counsel for the State prays to list the matter before regular Court. 2. Let the matter be listed before regular Court on the date already fixed i.e., 18.09.2026.
-Supreme Court's order dated August 23, 2026 in The State of Bihar vs. Biresh Kumar Singh & Ors. (2026) which is tagged with SLP No. 4912/2024 before Supreme Court' Special Lok Adalat [Samadhan Samaroh)
Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Bihar "has the audacity to term the judgment of the Division Bench" of Patna High Court in The State of Bihar vs. Ram Janam Jha & Ors L.P.A. No. 206 of 2014, as "per incuriam"
In The State of Bihar vs. Biresh Kumar Singh & Ors. (2026), Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices K.V. Viswanatha and Arun Palli passed an order dated August 3, 2026, which reads: "5. Till further orders, status quo as on 09.03.2026 shall be maintained insofar as the pay and emoluments received by the respondents are concerned. 6. In the absence of the stay of the impugned judgment by this Court, the State cannot reduce the pay. 7. We are told that pursuant to the judgment, the parity in pay was granted to the correspondence clerks along with the accounts clerks in terms of pay. Only by order/letter of 10.03.2026 issued by petitioners, the State has reduced the pay. 8. We direct that the State will restore the status quo as it obtained on 09.03.2026. 9. Needless to say that these directions are subject to final outcome of the matter."Navaniti Prasad Singh, is the senior counsel for the applicants, who are respondents in the main matter. The State of Bihar has challenged the final judgment dated September 19, 2023 in LPA No.766/2019 (Biresh Kumar Singh case) and LPA No.762/2019 (Sanjay Kumar's case) passed by the Division Bench of Patna High Court in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court issued notice on June 27, 2024.
By its 2-page long order dated February 16, 2024, Supreme Court's Division Bench of Justices Bela M. Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal stayed the proceedings of the Contempt Petition MJC No.2663 of 2019 Bihar State Road And Building Construction Employees Union Gope Group & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. pending before the Patna High Court.
In Bihar State Road And Building Construction Employees Union Gope Group & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. MJC No.2663 of 2019, Justice Mohit Kumar Shah of the High Court passed a 2-page long order dated January 25, 2024, wherein, the order reads:"1. Though the learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the order of this Court dated 27.02.2019, passed in CWJC No.13644 of 2016 and other analogous cases has been challenged by filing an appeal bearing LPA No.764 of 2019 and other analogous cases, however, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the same has stood dismissed by a judgment dated 19.09.2023, passed by a learned Division Bench of this Court. 2. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the opposite parties seeks and is granted four weeks’ time for complying with the aforesaid order dated 27.02.2019, failing which it is submitted that the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna shall be present in the Court so that contempt proceeding can be initiated against him for creating hindrance in the administration of justice. 3. List this case on 29th February, 2024." On March 20, 2024, the contempt case was listed before Justice Rajiv Roy. Upon hearing I.A. No. 01 of 2024, Justice Roy passed a 4-page long order March 20, 2024. The order reads:"2. Pursuant to the last order passed by the co-ordinate bench, an Interlocutory Application No. 01 of 2024 has been preferred by the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna with a prayer which read as follows:-“(i) exemption of his personal appearance in the Court as directed by the Hon’ble in the present contempt petition in the order dated 25.01.2024; (ii) for adjourning the present contempt application for consideration after disposal of SLP (C) No. 3335 of 2024 (The State of Bihar and Ors. vs. Biresh Kumar Singh and Ors.) and analogous matters by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.” It added: "3. Learned State Counsel has taken this Court to paragraph- 6 which read as follows:- “ That it is respectfully stated and submitted that the State Government thereafter filed special leave petition in the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide Diary No. 4071/2024 in L.P.A. No. 764 of 2019. The said S.L.P. was taken up for adjudication on 16.02.2024 by Hon’ble Supreme Court along with SLP (C ) No. 3335 of 2024 (filed in L.P.A. No. 766 of 2019) and analogous cases and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been pleased to issue notice to the respondents and has been pleased to stay the further proceedings of the M.J.C. No. 2663 of 2019 pending before this Hon’ble Court.” 4. In view of the aforesaid facts, both the prayers of I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands allowed. 5. I.A. No. 01 of 2024 stands disposed of. M.J.C. No. 2663 of 2019 Let the matter come up after the disposal of SLP (C) No. 3335 of 2024."
In The State Of Bihar vs. Lachhaman Kumar & Ors. (2023), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Partha Sarthy delivered a 25-page long judgement dated September 19, 2023, wherein, it concluded:"....we are surprised that an appeal is filed for the purpose of denying pay parity to persons identically situated.....13. We hence reject the appeals leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs." Referring to the Letter No. 3A-2-V.P.-09/2016-5838/V of the Finance Department of Government of Bihar dated June 22, 2022, the High Court stated that it "indicates a complete, absolute and wholesome identity between the Accounts Clerks and the Correspondence Clerks."
The appeals filed by the State of Bihar challenged the 14-page long judgement dated February 27, 2019 by Justice Madhuresh Prasad, the Single Judge, which has allowed the writ petitions granting parity of pay to Correspondence Clerks as is available to the Accounts Clerks; both appointed on compassionate grounds. The Single Judge had relied on a 50-page long judgment by Justice Jyoti Saran dated August 21, 2017 of a Co-ordinate Bench in Binit Kumar & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2017) and analogous cases. The Single Judge, in the cited decision, had relied on a Patna High Court's Division Bench's 3-page long judgment dated August 24, 2016 in The State of Bihar vs. Ram Janam Jha & Ors L.P.A. No. 206 of 2014, which was authored by Justice Hemant Gupta. Justice Gupta led Division bench had concluded:"We find that once the distinction between the Junior and Senior Accounts Clerk has been done away with and that all Accounts Clerks have been granted pay scale as that of Senior Accounts Clerk, therefore, all accounts clerks, whether appointed on compassionate ground or otherwise are entitled to same pay scale i.e., pay scale meant for the Senior Accounts Clerk."
The Government Advocate Sarvesh Kumar Singh (AAG-13) had argued that the Correspondence Clerks and Accounts Clerks are persons existing in different cadres for which different pay-scales are applicable. It was also contended that the qualifications for appointment in the two posts are different; the Correspondence Clerks were required to possess Matriculation with typing while the Accounts Clerks are required to possess Matriculation with Mathematics. He specifically referred to an extract of the recommendation of the Pay Fixation Committee to point out that the pay fixation was made specifically reckoning the fact that originally Mathematics was not an essential subject in Matriculation. He also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in S.C. Chandra & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 279 to contend that there is no complete and wholesale identity between the two posts and even if they are doing identical work, they cannot be granted equal pay unless there is such complete and wholesale identity established.
Senior Counsel Sanjay Singh and Chitranjan Sinha and counsel Shri Subodh Kumar Jha and Abhinav Srivastava argued for the respondents who were the writ-petitioners. It was pointed out that there could have been no Matriculation without Mathematics as is presently understood and as would be applicable to the Matriculation qualification obtained by all the respondents. The decision in Binit Kumar's case squarely applies. There was severe criticism of the Finance Department by the Single Judge in the aforesaid judgment for having taken a skewed view of the binding precedent in Ram Janam Jha. It was also pointed out that discrimination was meted out only on account of the source of appointment being from families of employees who died in harness; which identity gets effaced as soon as they get appointed to the post. Reliance was also placed on the decision taken by the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar dated June 22, 2022.
In Binit Kumar & Ors vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (2017), Justice Jyoti Saran observed:"In what could have been disposed of by the Finance Department of the Government of Bihar as well as the Controlling Authorities of the petitioners herein, in the light of the issues settled by the Division Bench of this Court rendered in LPA No.206 of 2014 (The State of Bihar Vs. Ram Janam Jha and others) and despite the fact that the State has lost its challenge up to the Supreme Court to the issue so settled by the Division Bench yet the arrogance of the State in its Finance Department is reflective from the response where the deponent Under Secretary, Finance Department on the authorization of the Principal Secretary, Finance Department, has the audacity to term the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Ram Janam Jha (supra), per incuriam, without having the least of the knowledge what the term means and whether he has the jurisdiction and authority to opine as such. It is this brazen response of the State in its Finance Department which has necessitated a discussion on the issue which otherwise could have been well disposed of by two line order in the light of the opinion already expressed by the Division Bench in the case of Ram Janam Jha (supra) inasmuch as the relief so prayed stands covered by the said opinion." It is recorded in the 50-page long judgement dated August 21, 2017 by Justice Saran that Siya Ram Shahi had led the arguments on behalf of the petitioners and Ashok Kumar Dubey, Assisting Counsel to Additional Advocate General No.11 had led the argument for the State in reference to the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No.9921 of 2017. Ravi Mittal was the principal secretary, finance, Bihar during May 2015-2018.
Chief Justice Vinod Chandran headed Division bench looked at the history of the litigation, to observe that "The admitted facts are that the respondents herein were appointed on compassionate ground and were continuing as Correspondence Clerks. The petitioners in Binit Kumar were also persons who were appointed on compassionate ground, but as Accounts Clerks. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the contention now raised by the State that there were different qualifications prescribed for Accounts Clerks and Correspondence Clerks." The Bench underlined that "Annexure-1, pointed out from the Interlocutory Application of the respondent State, supports the claim raised by the writ-petitioners, the respondents herein."
The petitioners, as was the case of Accounts Clerks, were appointed in the pay-scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-, which scale was upgraded by a resolution of the Finance Department dated March 25, 2015; which stood cancelled in the light of a subsequent Advisory dated July 11, 2016 issued by the Finance Department. The reasoning in the Advisory cancelling the grant of higher scale of pay was in so far as the upgradation in scale not being applicable to those appointed on compassionate grounds. The Single Judge in the cited judgment of Binit Kumar referred to the unification of posts and merger of cadre made in the clerical cadre of the Government employees. The Junior Accounts Clerk and the Senior Accounts Clerk posts were unified and the post was designated as an Accounts Clerk. Likewise, the Lower Division Clerk and the Upper Division Clerk were also unified to be designated as Clerk in the year 1980-81. When such unification was made, the Senior Accounts Clerk had a pay-scale of Rs. 260-408/- while the unified post of Clerk had a pay-scale of Rs. 284-372/-. Again, a decision was taken to unify the accounts clerical cadre as well as normal clerical cadre which was later, in the year 2000, de-merged. It is this process of merger and de-merger that led to a chain of litigations on the anomaly arising in the fixation of pay.
The judgement recorded that the Finance Department of State Government came out with a resolution dated March 25, 2015 referring to another letter dated September 28, 1999 from the very same department which classified the appointments in the Accounts Clerical Cadre in two categories; those appointed between May 1, 1980 to September 27, 1999 and the other after September 28, 1999. Admittedly, the Accounts Clerks who had challenged the cancellation of the upgradation was appointed after September 28, 1999 and so are the respondents herein who are the Correspondence Clerks. Referring to the resolution of 2015, it was held that the persons appointed to the Accounts Clerical Cadre, whether they be appointed initially as a Junior Accounts Clerk, Lower Division Accounts Clerk or a Lower Division Clerk (Accounts), would be entitled to the same scale of pay i.e. Rs. 4000-6000/- with effect from December 31, 2005 and to the scale in Pay Band-1 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- with effect from January 1, 2006. It was categorically found by the Single Judge in Binit Kumar that when earlier an attempt was made by the State Government in its Finance Department to deny the scale admissible to similarly placed Clerks in the Accounts Cadre; the litigation initiated, resulted in the decision of the Division Bench in Ram Janam Jha. It was categorically held by the Division Bench that: “Once the distinction between the Junior and Senior Accounts Clerk has been done away with and all Accounts Clerks have been granted pay scale as that of Senior Accounts Clerk, then all Accounts Clerks, whether appointed on compassionate ground or otherwise, are entitled to the same pay-scale i.e., pay-sale meant for the Senior Accounts Clerks’(sic). It is the very same proposition which is urged by the respondents herein to enable identical pay-scales to be granted to them, thus ensuring pay parity between the Correspondence Clerks and Accounts Clerks.
Chief Justice Chandran observed that the decision in S.C. Chandra's case "was in the context of parity in salary claimed by School Teachers with Clerks working under the Government of Jharkhand or BCCL; in which context it was found that there is no complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. It was declared by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that merely because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ cannot apply. We do not find any application of the aforesaid judgment to the facts of the present case." Government counsel cited an irrelevant judgement. He added: "9. Admittedly, the Correspondence Clerks, the writ-petitioners in the present case and the Accounts Clerks who were the petitioners in Binit Kumar, were appointed on compassionate grounds. The State has not produced anything to establish that in granting appointment on compassionate ground the dependents were classified on the basis of their qualification and thus given appointments to the posts of Correspondence Clerks and Accounts Clerks, based on their different qualifications. We would, for argument’s sake, reckon the submission of the learned AAG-13 that as far as Accounts Clerks are concerned, there was an insistence for Matriculation with Mathematics. As was rightly pointed out by the respondents, Matriculation without Mathematics, at least for the past few decades, is not known to have existed. Even Annexure-1 speaks of ‘originally’, Mathematics being not an essential subject in Matriculation; but does not refer to the period when such Matriculation was in vogue. Having thus said, it has to be emphasized that there is nothing produced to substantiate that there were different qualifications applicable to Correspondence Clerks and Accounts Clerks. It has also to be pertinently noticed that when appointments are made on compassionate grounds, especially to a cadre, there cannot be any discrimination by appointing certain persons to a post with lower scale of pay and others to a post with higher scale of pay; which would have been possible only if there is a requirement of a higher qualification for the post which carries a higher pay-scale."
The judgement reads: "We are conscious of the fact that as of now the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that appointments on compassionate grounds can only be to the lowest cadre; but the practice was otherwise, earlier. The contention of the State of two different essential qualifications being applicable, is not established and hence fails. 10. We have to emphasize and reiterate that once the dependents are appointed on compassionate grounds in a post where there is also regular recruitment; there can be no discrimination in so far as pay-scale applicable, from those regularly appointed."
No comments:
Post a Comment